con argues that it's impossible to follow my "majority wins" philosophy, despite similar ideas being taken in the US Democracy. Consider that all 12 supreme court justices likely have very different beliefs and ideas, yet the vast majority of their decisions have been hailed as decent and moral. In order for con to win, he would have to argue that even if, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, the individual in question, and their societal leaders (as a collective group), sitting at a table, with majority vote, cannot come to a moral decision via majority voting. Their thoughts may contradict, but their collective wisdom combined together negate each other's flaws, as laid out. As they discuss with each other they may change their ideas and add certain exceptions to allow you to do things that are too broad to encompass with a single moral system.
Con gives specific examples but they are not convincing enough. Let's tackle religion one more time: He says that community views opposing will lead to nowhere, but due to the odd number of participants, there must be some kind of result here. Mill would definitely say that unless the religious group has incredible benefits from forcing people to obey, they should not do it. Kant would consider the case where everyone was forced to follow, and see if some contradiction would occur. Aristotle would think about whether it's virtuous to force someone to do something against their freewill (likely not). The person would believe in their own beliefs, and even if the societal thought is "you must follow your religion", we already see that Aristotle and yourself are severe barriers in the place. Unless the leaders could prove there was some big consequential impact, Mill would disapprove of the societal thinking, and result in a better society. It does not matter if it is impossible to actually implement. This is only the fact that theoretically, we have found the most moral solution.
Secondly, con raises the idea of the market causing an infinite loop, but the justification is that products become scarce. This is nonsense. There are plenty of products that have been running excellently for decades and will continuously run until god knows when. Consider Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc., con's justification on the scarcity vs demand is ridiculous, and without backup. If in a few thousand years, helping the poor to allow them to buy resources makes it become scarce, perhaps it is justified to not help the poor. But consider the opposite, that the poor may decide to want to steal the resources for their own benefit, and thus is even more immoral, since at least giving money allows the merchant to invest in different methods to produce the resource. In the end, if con is talking about the present, cultural, utilitarian impact, and Aristotle vote in favor, and produce a logical result, with resources on earth plenty to spare. If Con is talking about a dystopian future, once again, utilitarianism would consider if the merchants truly lost more than gained, Cultural would dictate what is the standard in this timeline, and Aristotle would think about whether it is truly generous to donate to the poor. I still don't see a problem with combining the five.
Conclusion: Con tries to assert that looping back is a problem, but it is not. Consider, if you had merely walked a circle in 100 meters radius and returned to where you were. This certainly seems pointless as you did not go anywhere. But the moral philosophies would combine to tell you, if you are healthy, not tired, and have nothing better to do, it is wise to walk a circle, as it improves your health, boosts morale, and gives you time to think about your life. There may seem to be no result, but a process is an experimental phrase that gives answers nonetheless. Therefore, con's looping problem is not a problem, especially with Aristotle and Utilitarian thoughts backing this up.
Nvm, I see Rag-man took care of it already!
When I was learning these systems in school, my teacher often went back to the drowning baby hypothetical.
1. Utilitarianism: Save the baby, even at great risk to yourself, as it has longer to live and on balance should be expected to enjoy life more than you.
2. Egoism: If I'll suffer so much as getting my shoes wet, no, unless someone pays me.
3. Kantian Theory: If there is no risk to you, then you are obligated. However, something something about if you are harmed during it, then the baby or its caretakers commited the crime onto you; something imperative?
4. Virtue Ethics: Irrelevant! If you are already awesome, and you chose to not save the baby, then not saving the baby must be the virtuous thing to do...
5. Cultural relativism: ... I'm not going to touch this one.
expect a vote from me tomorrow-ish. I have school but will be able to leave a vote midday I think
Please vote guys!
vote
Thank you!
Welcome to the site
Utilitarianism and Egoism are two points on a single metric. That is like combining communism and capitalism.
Combining systems is impossible when they contradict each other.
Well I think all 5 are moral, but then it could also go like communism: Good on paper, doesn't work.