Three Main Postures In Debates.

[ZenitYerkes]

Just wanted to share, that I noticed that in most of debates people use to be between these three positions.

• Utilitarianism: this is, to direct actions in order to achieve the greater good to the greater number of people (society); however it tends to be a "cold" position that couldn't take in consideration the individualistic values (like freedom). This position usually prioritizes the benefits and the stock over its use
  
• Humanism: thinks about the good of every person individually; but also caring of providing it to the greater number of people. This could be however a posture that can lead to decisions involving a great cost. This position does the opposite of utilitarianism: the use of the benefits and resources over its obtainment and stock.
  
• Environmentalism: instead of focusing on mankind, environmentalism centers its points on the damage its acts' consequences do to the environment; although this nature-over-human thought can make anti-human decisions.

None of this are exclusive, though: you can care about the green while thinking on how it could be the best to your community.

Opinions?

[rapunzel77]

Personally, I argue from several different points but i guess I am a little bit of the mixture of humanism and environmentalism. I tend to believe that nothing is mutually exclusive. What I mean is that we can work with nature. It is possible. We don't have to work against it and make it uninhabitable in the future. I think that when one loves life, they should love all of life. At least, I try to. I believe human life to be very precious, a gift. I also believe that the earth is precious and needs to be preserved and protected.

I agree that those three viewpoints are the main ones, at least on this board and the AF. Perhaps its because I have a view point of both/and instead of being a utilitarian (I strongly disagree with that viewpoint) or an extreme environmentalist that wishes that there were few if any humans left on the planet (no, I don't think anyone here has that viewpoint but it is one that I have come across in other sources).

[Human No More]

I'd say I'm closest to humanism, but none of them really describe my views well.

[Woodsprite]

I'd also strongly argue whether these are the three main points: they're all secular. But if I argued my point I'd get flamed like hell because practically no one else on almost every Avatar-related forum thinks with my worldview.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I'd also strongly argue whether these are the three main points: they're all secular. But if I argued my point I'd get flamed like hell because practically no one else on almost every Avatar-related forum thinks with my worldview.

I agree that my worldview is informed by something other than the secular but I also know that I can't really tell my full worldview because I don't want to be flamed either.

[Unil_mi_tokx]

Interesting. I actually had to think for a few moments how to respond. I was going to say, I disagree with the categories because I don't fit into one. However when I think about what categories I would create, they would be much to the same effect. I think everyone is a blend of all three - not necessarily in equal parts but there is atleast a little bit of all three in everyone.

I agree with Woodsprite as well, I wish I could add a fourth posture and say that I debate using my faith as a guide - but please, let's not start the flame war. HNM - apologies to you - you know how that went last time.

[ZenitYerkes]

To be honest, and in answer to Unil mi tokx; I have also thought about making another two postures regarding which arguments the people use to defend their postures.

• Scientific arguments: those who are based in observation and experimenting, or the study of History and moral theories (philosophy, psychology,...). Scientific arguments are highly debatable depending on where, when and how the experience is taken and which factors are took into consideration (remember that we can hide certain ones to just appear to be right).
• Religious arguments: are based on religious scriptures, such as the Qu'ran, the Bible; and also on the dogma and teachings of their main figure. Although religious arguments should be as debatable as the scientific ones, their dogmatic nature and the faith element makes them impossible to refute in some cases without attacking (incidentally or accidentally) their base. In summary, it defends the natural or divine law.

For example, when debating about abortion and in the posture which attacks it, we could give both scientific reasons (everyone has the right to live, abortion is against the embryo life) or religious as well (in Christianity, the 6th commandment: You shall not murder).

As said before, those two aren't exclusive; you can have each in a certain proportion.

The reason why I didn't add both is because I could keep naming categories and categories until the end of the world. I try to be general instead of specific; that's why those three don't cover every single existent posture here.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

Utilitarianism: this is, to direct actions in order to achieve the greater good to the greater number of people (society); however it tends to be a "cold" position that couldn't take in consideration the individualistic values (like freedom). This position usually prioritizes the benefits and the stock over its use.

Scientific arguments: those who are based in observation and experimenting, or the study of History and moral theories (philosophy, psychology,...). Scientific arguments are highly debatable depending on where, when and how the experience is taken and which factors are took into consideration (remember that we can hide certain ones to just appear to be right).

These would likely be my two, can I have a second opinion?

[Human No More]

I'd say I'm between humanism and scientific argument.

[rapunzel77]

my debate postures uses several categories: humanism, scientific, religious, and historical modes of debate. I try to use humanistic or scientific reasons on here since I don't want to get into a flame war over religion either.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

my debate postures uses several categories: humanism, scientific, religious, and historical modes of debate. I try to use humanistic or scientific reasons on here since I don't want to get into a flame war over religion either.

Some of the best debates and discussions I've had were over religious matters; it really is a pity none of 'em can be discussed here.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Some of the best debates and discussions I've had were over religious matters; it really is a pity none of 'em can be discussed here.

I agree. Perhaps such discussions can be done via PM? If you want to debate it, PM me .

[Unil_mi_tokx]

@Woodsprite & Rapunzel - anytime you want to debate that subject, count me in.