High School Debate & Views of Morality

[mamadrama]

Well, no doubt this is a small thing to be on my mind as the world burns, but if you don't mind, i will leave it here. Yesterday, I voluteered to judge Lincoln Douglas style debates at one of my son's high school debate tournaments. It was energizing to see all these young, bright high schoolers engaged, "informed" to some degree, and passionate about what's going on in the world. Then i listened to the LD debaters debate. The topic was:

Resolved: It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of many.

One thing about LD style debate is that it is so driven by the form, the content suffers. Here was a great topic for the kids to be considering and, like any topic in LD debate, for the most part, it got buried in the technicalities of the format. Still, i guess there is some small reason to take heart. As in any debate event, the participant has to be prepared to defend either side of an issue, the affirmative or the negative and at the very least, that is a good way to practice some objectivity and discernment, osis.

At the end of the day the resolution was affirmed and it was resolved that it is morally permissable to kill one person to save the lives of many.


Moderator: I removed the extra blank lines.

 

[Adaryn]

Personally I think these kind of questions are 'psychopathic style'. The black and white thinking, the either... or, the 2 rigid alternatives. Where's the 3rd element in that, the creative thinking? Are the debaters allow to discuss it in a more open and creative manner, or they HAVE to choose between the 2 in the end? To answer "yes" or "no" and that's it, case solved.
This type of issue reminds me of Sophie's choice, where the Nazi gives her the 'choice' of which child is going to live and which is going to die.
Who can design such questions other than pathologicals or people ponerized by pathological mode of thinking?

 

[gwb1995]

This may sound difficult to deal with, but it is not if one thinks about it in the realm of STS vs STO. I am STS in my current state, but when one thinks as one would as STO, the logic is different. I will try to explain my thinking.

STO thought process: Knowledge protects is the base of the thought process. So with this as a base, one must know that the very question asked is not valid to STO thinking. It is based on STS and all that applies. Only STS thinking and programs would allow one to even comtemplate such a situation. How can we even enter into such a 'debate' based on the question? Not something one who is STO would engage in, as it is not valid (IMHO).
The questions are totally STS and are just part of the programming. As STO, one would understand that the entire LD debate process is designed to provide more food to 4d STS and drain those 3D individuals involved. It is also a process to further process those who might gain knowledge of what is really happening, to themselves and those around them.

i just see this as another 'program' that we must identify and learn to deal with.

fwiw,

gwb

 

[spyraal]

Personally I think these kind of questions are 'psychopathic style'. The black and white thinking, the either... or, the 2 rigid alternatives. Where's the 3rd element in that, the creative thinking? Are the debaters allow to discuss it in a more open and creative manner, or they HAVE to choose between the 2 in the end? To answer "yes" or "no" and that's it, case solved.

I can't agree more with what you said. This IMO too, is more like a cunning process of a covert ponerization of the young students with carefully picked "questions" that to do more suggesting that asking actually... I don't know why should students be subjected to questions like "It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of many?". I don't recall any moment in history when students had to make such a choice. Why don't they give them to study something possitive and trully educational like pondering on a model of man with integrity and conscience rather than this psychopathic "who wll YOU kill" question?

In this point i would like to quote an excerpt from Plato's "The Republic" refering to the education that should be given to the judges of his ideal republic, since we are all called to be become "judges" ourselves in the platonic way, which is to have knowledge of what is moral and beneficial and what is not -and thus the virtue of objective judgement.

[...]
But with the judge it is otherwise; since he governs mind by mind; he ought not
therefore to have been trained among vicious minds, and to have associated
with them from youth upwards, and to have gone through the whole calendar
of crime, only in order that he may quickly infer the crimes of others as
he might their bodily diseases from his own self-consciousness; the honourable
mind which is to form a healthy judgment should have had no experience
or contamination of evil habits when young. And this is the reason why in
youth good men often appear to be simple, and are easily practised upon by
the dishonest, because they have no examples of what evil is in their own souls.

Yes, he said, they are far too apt to be deceived.

Therefore, I said, the judge should not be young; he should have learned to
know evil, not from his own soul, but from late and long observation of the nature
of evil in others: knowledge should be his guide, not personal experience.

Yes, he said, that is the ideal of a judge.

Yes, I replied, and he will be a good man (which is my answer to your question);
for he is good who has a good soul. But the cunning and suspicious nature of
which we spoke,–he who has committed many crimes, and fancies himself to
be a master in wickedness, when he is amongst his fellows, is wonderful in the
precautions which he takes, because he judges of them by himself: but when
he gets into the company of men of virtue, who have the experience of age,
he appears to be a fool again, owing to his unseasonable suspicions; he cannot
recognise an honest man, because he has no pattern of honesty in himself; at
the same time, as the bad are more numerous than the good, and he meets with
them oftener, he thinks himself, and is by others thought to be, rather wise than
foolish.

Most true, he said.

Then the good and wise judge whom we are seeking is not this man, but the
other; for vice cannot know virtue too, but a virtuous nature, educated by time,
will acquire a knowledge both of virtue and vice: the virtuous, and not the
vicious, man has wisdom–in my opinion.

:)

 

[RedFox]

At the end of the day the resolution was affirmed and it was resolved that it is morally permissible to kill one person to save the lives of many.

The whole thing seems like a loaded question. You could easily extend it to 'It is morally permissible to detain without charge and torture one person to save the lives of many' which they already use to sell the idea of places like Guantanamo bay. Or you could start with that and extend it to killing the detainees with the argument 'it was to save people'

Perhaps the question should be broken down....
'Is it morally permissible to kill'
'Is it morally permissible to kill one person'
'Is it morally permissible to kill one person to save the lives of many'
Why is the 3rd question any different from the first two??

I see it as a step (among the many already out there) in penorising a persons thoughts.
The way I read it, it creates the opening for "It is morally permissible to kill (anyone).... if its done in the name of 'good'"

From the Wave series http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave12a.htm (I've highlighted the part I see as relevant)

The Cassiopaeans have said that one should not "act against" the forces of darkness, but that rather one should "act FOR" one's own destiny. In a very practical sense, this can even include physically extricating oneself from any number of unpleasant situations, even with force if necessary. If someone is trying to kill you or someone you love, and it is YOUR perception of your destiny, or you feel it is your responsibility to prevent that, then it is entirely within the parameters of "acting for one's own destiny" to do whatever is necessary to save your life or the lives of others.

But, we are talking about this in many more subtle ways. How can one act FOR one's own destiny if one has been deceived and hypnotized to think that what is good is evil or vice versa? And, it is not always that simple.

*edit*

As in any debate event, the participant has to be prepared to defend either side of an issue, the affirmative or the negative and at the very least, that is a good way to practice some objectivity and discernment, osis.

Discernment maybe, as for being objective I don't think they could be without a good knowledge of psychopaths. Hence it being a loaded question.
Maybe it is 'objective' to a psychopath? I guess the debaters where as objective as they could be given the lack of knowledge on the subject.
It begs the question then, how objective can you be without the right knowledge?

Perhaps I am wrong on this, but thats what I see.

 

[mamadrama]

Thanks to all for your responses. FWIW, this question is not a new question in the realm of philosophical and ethics theory. This idea can be found in Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics considered deontological (that it is not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action) and John Stuart Mill's use of utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) as well as the concept of consequentialism (the end justifies the mean).

In order to construct their debates, each student was tasked to explore several different and sometimes opposing philosophical views which i think is a good thing. I found it interesting that only one debater made the distinction of separating morally and permissable in the construction of their debate. (however most of the debates i judged were JV and it was the Varsity debater, who was arguing the negative, that made this distinction in her argument so experience may have had a something to do with it). She also made the case for the free will of the innocent person arguing that as long as the person who was dying for the others agreed to sacrifice him or herself, then it would be morally permissable. Almost every debater arguing the affirmative used this very well known ethics problem to make their case:

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?
A utilitarian view asserts that it is permissible to flip the switch. According to simple Utilitarianism, flipping the switch would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all).

As Bobo08 said, for the affirmative, it was merely a matter of simple arithmetic from the arguments I heard. Maybe this is just nitpicking but the way i saw it was like this: is it moral to kill an innocent person? The answer is no it is not moral. Is it permissable to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many? Well, now you've got something to debate.

 

[T.C.]

This IMO too, is more like a cunning process of a covert ponerization of the young students with carefully picked "questions" that to do more suggesting that asking actually... I don't know why should students be subjected to questions like "It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of many?".

Well, I disagree with your passionate reaction here, spyraal. Firstly, I think it would be much more malefficient for young minds to never have the opportunity to discuss these types of things. Objective morality can only be achieved by a person if they go through these kinds of thoughts in their minds, in certain contexts, and cross referencing their thought's with their feelings, which is a type of education of the emotional centre which is severely lacking in today's schools.

I don't recall any moment in history when students had to make such a choice.

That's not the point at all. I think you know that too. The inner results from these kinds of debates remain, and can be applied to many areas of life with a bit of abstract thought and creativity.

Why don't they give them to study something possitive and trully educational like pondering on a model of man with integrity and conscience rather than this psychopathic "who wll YOU kill" question?

How does a man reach an ideal integrity and conscience if he himself hasn't pondered these types of situations?

With regards to the stuff from Plato, the overall feeling I get from it is that it is opposed to the shamanic laws of having to come under the influence of demons in order to learn their tricks and traps and acquire their intelligence which is founded on evil, so that one can then know how to deal with evil in the right way. Maybe Plato is just speaking more about corruption of youth, but I just get a monastic flavour from his ideas, which is opposed to the fourth way.

Or I could have missed something.

T.C.

 

[T.C.]

Maybe this is just nitpicking but the way i saw it was like this: is it moral to kill an innocent person? The answer is no it is not moral. Is it permissable to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many? Well, now you've got something to debate.

Hi Black Swan.

Why did you substitute the word "moral", for the word "permissible" in the second question? I don't think there's a need for it.

How do you define morality?

T.C.

 

[RedFox]

How does a man reach an ideal integrity and conscience if he himself hasn't pondered these types of situations?

Thanks T.C. I was thinking along the same lines as spyraal, but you may well be right in that it could be a good start for some to actually have to consider something in a way that gets them to think.

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?
A utilitarian view asserts that it is permissible to flip the switch. According to simple Utilitarianism, flipping the switch would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all).

Hmmm......is it a mechanical track switch? If so I'd move it to a halfway position, moving the track points to a halfway position thus derailing the cart before it could reach either people.
Another option would be using myself as a means to stop the cart.
Is there not an option to push the 'mad philosopher' (who probably came up with this scenario) under the cart to stop it?

The problem I've always had with these sort of things is there too black and white, and put you in the middle of a situation with no awareness until the critical point. Maybe I'm avoiding thinking about the 'decision', I can't help but see it as too unrealistic.

In the end, the best answer I can give is the one I've learnt here. There is right, there is wrong, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

 

[Beau]

This IMO too, is more like a cunning process of a covert ponerization of the young students with carefully picked "questions" that to do more suggesting that asking actually... I don't know why should students be subjected to questions like "It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of many?".

Well, I disagree with your passionate reaction here, spyraal. Firstly, I think it would be much more malefficient for young minds to never have the opportunity to discuss these types of things. Objective morality can only be achieved by a person if they go through these kinds of thoughts in their minds, in certain contexts, and cross referencing their thought's with their feelings, which is a type of education of the emotional centre which is severely lacking in today's schools.

Really? I am with spyraal on this one, I don't think young adults should be subjected to this nonsense. The question is a set-up. Why? Because the main factors in making the decision - what is moral and permissible - are defined by society. And society, as you know, does not carry objective morals. So really what is happening is people are allowing society's standards to become their own. If they answer yes or no it most likely is not due to cross referencing their thoughts with their feelings or anything like that, especially if yes. In fact, I would say that this question requires one to remove emotion from their thought process.

I don't recall any moment in history when students had to make such a choice.

That's not the point at all. I think you know that too. The inner results from these kinds of debates remain, and can be applied to many areas of life with a bit of abstract thought and creativity.

You don't know that their are any inner results, though. That is an assumption and possibly a projection. I think spyraal makes a good point about the uselessness of such debates. Their is a reason why we talk about discussion on this forum, and not debates.

Why don't they give them to study something possitive and trully educational like pondering on a model of man with integrity and conscience rather than this psychopathic "who wll YOU kill" question?

How does a man reach an ideal integrity and conscience if he himself hasn't pondered these types of situations?

Their is a difference between pondering, and being forced to make a yes or no decision and arguing in your defense. That's what you seem to be missing about spyraal's points. The whole purpose of the debate is ponerized, because their truly is no correct decision to make. Everything comes down to context. Remember the third force?

 

[Beau]

Maybe this is just nitpicking but the way i saw it was like this: is it moral to kill an innocent person? The answer is no it is not moral. Is it permissable to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many? Well, now you've got something to debate.

Hi Black Swan.

Why did you substitute the word "moral", for the word "permissible" in the second question? I don't think there's a need for it.

Sure their is. Sometimes what is moral is not permissible, and what is permissible is not moral. So splitting the question makes one think differently about their decision. Do you see the two words as interchangeable?

How do you define morality?

You cannot define it without knowing the context of each situation. In the end, that is what the debate is not focusing on. It requires one to form an opinion based on a limited amount of knowledge. I never saw what good could from such an event.

 

[T.C.]

Their is a difference between pondering, and being forced to make a yes or no decision and arguing in your defense. That's what you seem to be missing about spyraal's points. The whole purpose of the debate is ponerized, because their truly is no correct decision to make. Everything comes down to context. Remember the third force?

After reading your reply, Pinkerton, it was like a light went on and illuminated a dark spot. I had been thinking, "Woah spyraal, surely people need to be able to discuss these kinds of things", but that wasn't the point at all; we're talking about a black and white debate and not an open discussion. Maybe after being on this forum, I've taken discussion for granted.

In fact, I would say that this question requires one to remove emotion from their thought process.

Again, I had gone off topic. I was thinking about how one comes to an objective morality, and adjusts the reading instrument - something the participants of this debate weren't being encouraged to do. As you said in your post, there was a lot of projection going on.

As a side note, this thread has brought back an old school memory which I'd completely forgotten about.

When I was 9yrs old, one afternoon our class was divided into two. The teacher began a debate.

The government wanted to build a dam which would completely destroy a little village, leaving it under water. One half of the class had to be the government and try to convince the locals it was good for them (can't remember the exact reason they wanted to do this; maybe a resort or something), and the other half of the class had to be the villagers and campaigners fighting against this project.

I was put into the government group, and while I can't really remember much about it, I do remember how involved I became in this role, having to come up with propaganda for why this was such a good thing and completely burying any understanding of the suffering and destruction this would bring to these people.

If I remember rightly, by the end of the day, I was completely happy for this dam to be built and these people to lose their homes, lives, businesses, and more.



T.C.

 

[T.C.]

So splitting the question makes one think differently about their decision. Do you see the two words as interchangeable?

No, quite the opposite. But again, I was on this "what is morality" trip, and I felt that by using the word "permissible", Black Swan was side stepping something.

I'm not seeing this thread clearly. I'm identified with the concept of objective morality at the moment and it's preventing me from understanding what's being written and then giving any helpful comments.

I'm going to reread it all tomorrow in the hope I'll see it as everyone else does.

T.C.

 

[spyraal]

Hello everyone,

Well, I disagree with your passionate reaction here, spyraal. Firstly, I think it would be much more malefficient for young minds to never have the opportunity to discuss these types of things. Objective morality can only be achieved by a person if they go through these kinds of thoughts in their minds, in certain contexts, and cross referencing their thought's with their feelings, which is a type of education of the emotional centre which is severely lacking in today's schools.

IMO, men especially during their childhood but also during their teen age are really doing a lot of their learning by imitating and observing what is accepted or not by the adults so as to make up their own minds. And i think it is only natural. So in my opinion, during these sensitive ages of man, education should be just focused on inspiring higher principals and ideas to the young minds. It should focus on creating a clean and untraumatized soul, not a mind intoxicated with evil and thus indifferent to it's presence. I think it is then that they might be able to react instantly and without second thought to any "sickness" that they will face as responsible adults. Their mental reflexes won't be made numb by what i consider the question of this debate to be, which to me is a soft "shock and awe" treatment. I guess as adults they might be more ready to study the "dark side", when they will also have a strong and healthy emotional center -provided that they had a proper "un-ponerized" education in the above context. Otherwise, i think we set the example of a wrong way of thinking and we start to desensitize the young who will simply register "killing" as viable option when it is "morally persmissable". And that is where the danger exists, IMO. This "legal gap" is fertile ground for manipulation. We all know how psychopaths can then strech "morality" to accommodate the most horrible of acts.

The inner results from these kinds of debates remain, and can be applied to many areas of life with a bit of abstract thought and creativity.

I agree about the potential application of these debates, but in my opinion it is only educated adults that can trully debate on and benefit from such topics. Because by then they should -idealy- possess the integrity, context and soul crystallization to deal with such issues, but will also bear the responsibility and the means to act if such a question was to be possed in reality. Because considering the specific topic of this debate, how can expressing opinions as to which should we choose to kill ever be a creative discussion for youngsters? To my eyes, and without any passion :), this is more like an "inoculation" of their soul with an evil and ponerized thinking, at this "inoculation" uses the same concept and carries same the benefits of it's physical counterpart... But this is only me here, and i am always willing to change my opinion if presented with a more accurate one.


As for works of Plato, due to the fact that i am greek myself, i postponed my reading the ancient greek writers as much i could so as to keep a "healthy distance" until i had studied other things too for the sake of objectivity. ;) So, having started to "catch up" only this summer (since it is getting "late" :D), i have only read the "Apology of Socrates" and "The Republic" from Plato up to now, so i cannot fully appreciate your comment on his opposition with the 4th way. My current view on his books is that they were very vivid, as any true dialogue should be, and also come with very interestingly presented and thought provoking ideas.

 

[mamadrama]

Hi Black Swan.

Why did you substitute the word "moral", for the word "permissible" in the second question? I don't think there's a need for it.

Because the question was: Is it morally permissable to kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of many. Maybe it would have been clearer had i said: is it morally permissable? No. Is it permissable? That's something to debate. Does that answer your question?