Team Debate: Looking good is a moral duty

Post by: bladerunner060Team Captain: bladerunner060Thank you to Team X!A bit of clarification to Pro's case: Pro notes that "To win this debate, PRO will show that making an effort to look good aligns with mainstream moral values." Pro must establish that looking good is a moral duty. This requires more than mere "aligning with mainstream moral values".Pro must fulfill their burden of proof of establishing that duty. I'm sure that's what they intended to convey, but I wished to make that explicitly clear, as there is a difference between something simply aligning with moral values, and being a duty.The necessary consequence of Pro's position is that it is morally wrong to not "look good". When something is a moral duty, not doing that something is a moral wrong, a failure to fulfill a duty. This is in contrast to something which is simply morally good. For example, it's clearly morally good and aligns with moral values to be outgoing and treat everyone around you very nicely. But is it a moral duty? We don't generally have a duty to be outgoing and nice; we aren't committing a moral wrong when we're merely indifferent or quiet.It's also worth clarifying that Pro obviously intends to make the case that the "looking good" is in reference to society at large. Individuals make the choice of their own appearance, and therefore they "look" exactly as "good" as they've chosen to at all times. Again, this is just for the sake of explicit clarity. It may be morally good to "look good", it does not follow that it is necessarily, therefore, a moral duty. Pro's case was based on three arguments:Looking good makes us behave betterLooking good improves the moral behavior of othersGolden Rule: Looking good helps others directlyThe premises can best be dealt with in reverse order; I'll bold the premises as they're dealt with. In general, the quotes are direct, though I have stripped out the citations for ease of reading (and, I confess, inserted an Oxford Comma in one of them under the presumption it was a mere typo).First, the Golden Rule argument as Pro makes it fails because it is too specific. As Pro notes: "When it's our duty to help others, we need to take responsibility for the effect of our appearance." That is not a general duty. It is true that when we are obliged to provide the best care possible, we are obliged to do what we can to provide the best care possible; that's essentially a tautology. But the argument cannot be expanded generally. It would be akin to saying "Paying $20 is a moral duty", because in an example case, someone has taken on a $20 obligation. That the $20 obligation is valid in a specific circumstance doesn't mean it applies generally, and similarly that there are circumstances where "looking good" follows from another duty does not mean it applies generally.That looking good may improve the moral behavior of others does not make it a moral duty. I reject outright the idea that Individual A is responsible for the decisions of Individual B. Again, it is nice if Individual A does something which helps Individual B make better moral decisions. It can be called a morally good thing. But it is not a duty to do so. Pro makes the case that "...studies have shown that people are more likely to be generous, helpful, and informative when approached by a well-dressed stranger rather than a badly-dressed one." Beyond the fact that person A cannot have a general duty regarding Person B's morals, the supposed "improvement" stems from bigotry. It is worth bearing in mind that there are circumstances where it is not possible for someone to "look good", whether due to poverty, attribute, or circumstance. That those people who aren't "looking good" through no fault of their own are treated more poorly than those who are able to "look good" does not mean that they have a moral failing; it means that in our culture, as noted by Pro, "appearance obsession is all around us in advertising, music videos, and the beauty industry". Feeding into that cultural bias is not a moral good, and it certainly isn't a moral duty. Pro's final premise was that looking good makes us behave better, that "Preparation of appearance is preparation of intent. Walking out the door looking good is our commitment to society - it's the framing of our moral selves." This argument did not make a case for a moral duty to "look good", it's assertion that appearance conveys intent.Pro's argument, generally, seems to be the idea that individuals "owe" society an appearance that society at large considers "good". If, by Pro's case, an individual wants to wear their favorite T-shirt even though it's looking shabby, they're committing a moral "wrong"--they're failing their "moral duty" when they do so. This idea removes the idea of any rights for the individual's desire for self-expression. I see no grounds for this curtailment, and as such believe the resolution stands, at present, negated.I turn the floor back to Team_X to await their response!