Team Debate: Looking good is a moral duty

IntroductionPRO thanks CON for a their rebuttal. CON does not contest that maintaining self-respect is a universally recognized moral duty. Intent is only one aspect of it. A sense of responsibility, self-discipline and humility as encapsulated by improvements in behavior and self-confidence are also aspects of self-respect. CON dropped this.To illustrate Yee & Bailenson's finding that good-looking avatars foster positive online behavior, we submit our own avatar, Barnett Newman's Onement VI. (14) In Onement VI, we see the white "zip" bring out emotions dealing with division and unity inherent in the painting - this division and unity is also inherent in our team's methodology. It is through this understanding found in the humble blue canvas separated by white that PRO achieves greater understanding and a deeper humility, leading to improvement in our own behavior and an increase in self-confidence. Tolstoy put it best:"The task of art is enormous. Through the influence of real art...that peaceful co-operation of man...should be obtained by man's free and joyous activity. Art should cause violence to be set aside." (15)Self-respect, which CON does not contest, fulfills burden of proof and affirms the resolution, and proves that "Looking Good is a Moral Duty."Regardless, PRO will now deconstruct the rest of CON's case. RebuttalThe nature of dutyA duty is an obligation. PRO acknowledges CON's point that a moral duty predicates fulfillment, lest one becomes immoral, and that duty does not leave room for the middle ground of being neither good nor evil, or neither moral nor immoral. However, this point is simply not relevant to this debate, as PRO is not equivocating in this manner.Self-Respect is AffirmedPer our introduction, CON agrees that looking good is an aspect of self-respect, and thus a moral duty. PRO wins the debate via this point alone.The Golden Rule is a Moral DutyThat one aspect of the Golden Rule is proven to be tautological actually supports the resolution and proves it to be both logically sound and valid. PRO does not understand why CON is affirming PRO's stance. Doctors and teachers have a moral duty to help others, and part of that moral duty involves their physical appearance. CON does not contest this.CON claims that the Golden Rule header of our round #2 argument is "too specific." However, the Golden Rule also applies to the section titled "Looking good improves the moral behavior of others".---CON asserts that "the supposed "improvement" [from looking good] stems from bigotry," yet provides neither evidence nor argument to support this claim. A man with dandruff wearing a suit would look better after wiping it away. By looking better, he improves the moral behavior of others around him per our unchallenged, academic sources. How is this improvement proof of bigotry? This simple scenario destroys CON's contention and affirms that "Looking good improves the moral behavior of others."We have given evidence, uncontested by CON, that people are more likely to be generous, helpful and informative in the presence of a well-dressed stranger. Is it beneficial to receive generosity, kindness, and useful information from others? Of course. Are these benefits related to self-respect? Of course they are - we are morally obligated to seek self improvement. Therefore, by looking good, we help others; by helping others, we help ourselves. By helping ourselves, we fulfill a moral duty. Thus, per the golden rule, looking good is a moral duty.---CON asserts that "there are circumstances where it is not possible for someone to "look good", whether due to poverty, attribute, or circumstance." On the contrary, it is always possible to look good, because "good" is a relative term. What is "pleasing and welcome" differs by culture, class, and even species. An example from nature: the plumage of a peacock, while irrelevant to our own personal appearance, would look good to its mate. In relation to class, the question becomes, "what about poverty?" However, the real question is "Is poverty moral?" PRO contends that poverty is immoral and should be eradicated, and that failure to eradicate poverty is failure of a moral duty. As a society, we should prioritize eradicating the conditions that would subject people to the various immoralities concomitant with poverty, such as theft, prostitution, delinquencies, and of course filthy appearances.ConclusionPRO won the debate before this round began. CON does not contest that self-respect is a moral duty, and that looking good is a form of self-respect.Furthermore, PRO has shown CON's arguments about the Golden Rule to be unwarranted, unsubstantiated, unsourced, and thus untenable. PRO's stance on the Golden Rule is sound, and the resolution is affirmed:Looking good is a moral duty(14) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(15) http://archive.org...