Society should regret the common narrative of good triumphing over evil in children's entertainment

A) What Good and Evil Mean Con's first quote is says that desire for something without any ulterior motive for obtaining it makes that something the greatest thing you can want. It establishes what's good for you based on your reasons for obtaining something, but that doesn't establish any kind of objective goodness, nor does it establish objective evil. Even if it did, the process of seeking to obtain that something doesn't establish a person as good " it only tells us that they have the strongest possible motive. In fact, none of the quotes explain that a person can obtain a state of goodness. Kant only tells us that we can become better, but that doesn't ascribe a state of goodness to us, nor does it explain how we determine which actions make us better. Con's third quote says that both acting and not acting can be noble, and that in choosing to do one or the other, we choose "to be virtuous or vicious." So acting in some instances is virtuous, while inaction in others is also virtuous. Clearly, this is dependent on a case-by-case evaluation, and yet we're given no means to evaluate. Con's simply not addressing the key issue of perception altering views of what's good and evil, only hinting that there's some unknowable good goals we could be aiming towards and that others are evil. Just because we can volitionally choose which goals to pursue doesn't mean we can tell good from evil, and yet Con asserts that we can and that the only factors affecting good or evil are volitional. He drops nearly all of my arguments on the contrary on both points and fails to explain how either are true. B) Aesthetics and Morality Con"s argues that what the writer says becomes a kind of reality, and that by presenting a reality where GTOE, we are effectively providing a role model that people can aspire to be. Yet this idealized "good" role model has no clear benefits. Neither Rand nor Pro explain what benefits this creates. Regardless, my harms of lower CQs and otherization outweigh because they are substantial. Nonetheless, I can see how modeling good behaviors helps (though we can still model good behavior are not present purely good characters). Still, these idealized role models actually do more harm than good. These aren"t just single goals you"re throwing at children: you"re telling them that they should embody all of the traits of the "good" individuals in the media that they watch. In doing so, we are setting them up for failure via depletion.[18] Ego depletion, which refers to the idea that there"s a limited pool of mental resources available to draw upon for the purpose of self-control and willpower, is an important facet of humanity that has been proven multiple times in psychological literature. Every goal stresses that pool of resources, and every difficult goal draws more out of the pool. We"re talking about the epitome of good here, ideals that move towards the extremes of what"s possible. Having unmet goals has been established to lead people towards immoral behaviors.[19, 20] When we select role models who are truly exceptional performers, we actually end up learning less from them. Selecting the most extreme examples actually inhibits progress. When one sets a goal at the apex of what it is to be good, one sets a goal so high that, even if it is potentially reachable, it may often seem unreachable. In trying to reach that goal, likelihood of failure leads to the development feelings of inferiority, which leads to less productivity. Meanwhile, setting more reasonable expectations by presenting more relatable role models increased productivity.[21] Since both Con and I agree that "good" characters are "abstraction[s] of man"s best and highest potentiality", they are exceptional to the nth degree, making them terrible role models. 1) Creativity 1.1: Pro's response is basically just mitigation. I agree that, even with the GTOE trope, there is room for creativity. But there is also a clear need to improve CQs nationwide, and the failure to do so in status quo is evident, and while other means exist for boosting CQs, media offers the most effective means. Yet even with the other means of creativity at their disposal, the writers of these means of entertainment have clearly failed to elevate the creativity of the general population. Con dropped these arguments. 1.2: The fact that we can't quantify the specific effect of this trope does not erase its importance. I've explained how this specific trope is significantly limiting. I've examined why media's influence is one of the greatest on children, and therefore why any opportunity to enhance CQs is substantial. I've examined how big of a problem lost creativity is, quantifying the need for increased CQs. That need is massive, and even a partial solution can have tremendous effects. Con challenges none of this. Even if my argument applies to all tropes (though I have specified the uniqueness of this trope), that doesn't damage my case. We can still recognize that certain tropes exist for good reasons and work towards rectifying this one. The sky is blue because that's objectively observed. Encouraging pyromania does substantial property damage and puts people in danger. If anything, these just establish further why my case is unique. There is no harm in regretting a contributing factor to a larger problem if we recognize that GTOE is contributing to the problem. If anything, it provides a means for evaluating the whole of society and its effects on population CQ. Lastly, the idea that we should limit creative learning opportunities on the basis that someone might use their increased CQ to become an effective serial killer is absurd. Con hasn't shown that increasing creative learning will lead to more serial killers, and we should not treat all creative learning as dangerous on the basis that some people misuse their newfound intelligence. 2) Real-World Learning 2.1: Con restates much of his previous argument and, for some reason, uses this debate as a source for one of his point. I've already addressed much of this explaining why, even under Con's view of good and evil, the vast majority of people would be relegated to "a 'mixed' moral status", or what Con is now referring to as "evil." The quote by Rand and Con's argument are both contingent on free will being the only factor in determining whether or not someone is good or evil, but I've already explained how this is only true if every human being actually can tell good from evil in every action. Recognizing that isn't always possible is not "abdicating any moral worth" - it's simply acknowledging that we are imperfect beings. I've explained that most people would perceive themselves as good based on their own perception of what is moral. This is important because even if you buy that there are other means of evaluating what is good or evil, it's the perceptual factor that causes problems. That perception " that what I do is moral, and anyone who follows a different set of morals is evil " is exactly what leads to the practice of otherization and the view that anyone else is irredeemably evil, as Con suggests. In doing so, Con is supercharging the argument I'm providing, giving another set of warrants for why people perceive those with different moral values as evil. Recognitizing imperfection in our moral status on the other hand creates a sense of community that stops the cycles of otherization and hatred generated by treating most humans as evil. As for the question Con asks, it's entirely reasonable to recognize that someone's deeds are harmful to others. But we're not talking about recognizing individual acts, but rather whole persons, as demonstrative of evil. Con hasn't provided any reason why we should do so. 2.2: Pro dismisses the moral duty without ever examining it. The warrant is clear: if there"s a substantive harm to society at large, society itself has a moral duty to seek to reduce that harm. Particularly in American society where we endeavor to treat others equally in our recognition of other cultures through freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the act of characterizing entire persons as good or evil functions against the diversity we endeavor to foster. There are also clear warrants and evidence for the argument that evil has root causes. Pro"s dismissal doesn"t make these disappear, nor do his previous arguments establish that evil is done "solely out of free will". Even if we agree with his assessment of how evil can be done, root causes can preclude or engender certain actions and can conceal what would be seen by others as "good." Thus, they are a form of evil that takes place outside of free will. 2.3: Nowhere in Con"s case does he prove that duty and subjectivism are exclusive, nor has he explained why that has any impact on the debate. 2.4: This is the same sort of role modeling argument Con gave earlier, and it"s just as flawed. Giving an ideal to move towards that can never be accomplished (and there is no way to ensure that good always triumphs over evil in every single situation) does far more harm than good. I"m not saying that the world cannot be presented in fantastic ways or that good should never win. I"m saying that this common narrative constantly reinforces an ideal that cannot be achieved, and that that inability to achieve it causes despair and depletion. 2.5: Again, the argument is not that no one should ever view themselves as good, and I have argued that practically everyone does view themselves as good. The resulting superiority complex, however, is a problem. Viewing oneself as good puts oneself in diametric opposition to evil, and the claim of superiority makes that evil inferior. We're told to triumph over that inferior evil in a very common narrative, and that leads to the practices I've described, none of which Con addresses. 18. http://bit.ly... 19. http://whr.tn... 20. http://bit.ly... 21. http://nyti.ms...