4 ms·
Proposed definition of "immoral debates": An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where: 1) debaters willfully p
by tenebrisalietum 5y ago
Proposed definition of "immoral debates":
An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where:
1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies
2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking
3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or theater where non-logical aspects of communication could manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those aspects in the delivery of their arguments.
A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of people who consider themselves a society, because:
1) while those debating look like they are arguing and analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an audience to effect a desired outcome,
2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of specific individuals rather than objective truth.
- redler 5y agoSounds like what the US Senate has become, unfortunately.
- vraks 5y agoSo basically an "immoral debate" would be one that's propaganda in disguise? But why would it be inherently immoral to knowingly propagandize a false idea? What if believing a particular false idea leads to behavior that's safer in large scale? For example, you convince everyone that, I don't know, gasoline makes you impotent. Your rhetoric is so good that everyone is convinced, even in the absence of evidence, and people stop driving so much and pollution is reduced. Is it immoral to use rhetoric to spread false ideas for a good reason?
- goodpoint 5y agoNo, that's a dishonest debate and it's a different thing.
- tenebrisalietum 5y agoIt is. Following your example, you've reduced pollution, but now millions of people who work in the gasoline supply chain have lost jobs. These people get addicted to drugs, increase crime, and now you can't leave your house, but you do have clean air. A logical debate without propaganda might have taken that into account.
- abecedarius 5y agoFunny thing: I'd classify Plato's dialogs as immoral debates by this definition. (Admittedly that's debatable. You could say they're not debates at all, for instance.)