Ethical development must continue into adulthood

And I am left wondering how 3 rounds passed without the terms ‘circumstance' or ‘situation' coming up when they are that central to what my opponent has been defending. But that bridge is burned and the water is under it, So let us press on. 1)Consideration of the circumstances does not change the development from moral to ethical, the changes to the general rules by specifics does not make it any less a set of rules. Just because the moral commands/maxims are now complex as opposed to simple does not make them any less commands/maxims of an intellectual nature. Because we are now considering the circumstances as changing the morality of any situation that means the intellectual commands/maxims have clauses in them, as opposed to just different Articles. My opponent has been speaking as if moral commands of an intellectual nature must be inherently simple and general to be what they are. This is simply false though. Morality is OUR standard of behavior that WE make ourselves abide by on our OWN, so we can consider the moral commands/maxims as complex as our hearts are content to do such. 2)Application of what you ethically developed should not be confused with the development itself witch is what the resolution is over. Yes if ethical development included the application as well then of course it should continue on into adulthood, for application is the purpose of the development of anything. But it isn't the development itself. Consider a Cub Scout Pine Wood Derby race for example. To prepare for the race you plan and build the shape and weight of your derby car (develop); then on the day of the Pack race you put it on the track and actually race the care you built (application). Racing it on the track twice will not further ‘develop' the car. My opponent description of painting in the flesh is similar to this, painting intellectually being the actual building of the car and painting in the flesh actually practicing having it race on the track. The above two points though still don't negate my opponents new case though as ‘gut morality' adds a few complications that makes it un-phased so far. Even granted that circumstances are included in moral maxims, though making it more complex, that just means if we wanted to, thinking out the moral maxims in the specifics could be done. But my opponent says when you actually apply the standards of morality you don't use your intellectual knowledge of any such codes but listen to your ‘gut' and see what ‘feels' right. If all there is to ‘applying' is doing what ‘feels' right then wouldn't it be better to say its more like bowling than it is pinewood derby, that the only way to develop is in the practicing applying the art itself? It is awfully tempting to think that. Unless I am willing to reject people ‘listening to their gut' altogether (witch I am not) then how else can listening to your gut develop since doing that clearly is not of an intellectual nature? 3) Actually, the truth of the matter is, the only way your ‘gut' develops is by developing in an intellectual way and better studying the maxims and commands in all their comprehensive complexity. At some point in our school lives surely we have had to take a test without studying for it. Think back and remember on those incidents at exactly how you ended up choosing your answers for the test. You didn't actually know the answers; So from what source did you derive from to choose what to put on the test? During that test your ‘gut' had to tell you what ‘felt' right based on what little you actually already know and fill in the blanks with what most fits the theme. Like if you had to play a song you knew only from reading the song sheet but a dog ate it and left you only three random pages. You would only be able to play the missing pages of the song by giving your best guess at what music would fit the known composition in the pages you do have. Perhaps in the test you don't know if ‘Tomas Jefferson had slaves, true or false? ' but in the back of your head you do remember some facts about Tomas Jefferson, like how he was for the population based legislation in the constitution, so the answer ‘true' feels right even though you don't actually know if its true or false, you just know the slave states were for representation based on population. Your ‘Gut' does this in morality as well. You of course would expect situations you hadn't ‘studied for' since I myself admitted this round that the maxims are complex due to considering circumstances, so your ‘Gut' is forced to gather what few facts you did study on and fill in the blanks for what sounds most correct in this situation. Example: "Yes lying is wrong, but allowing the Russians to find out these missiles codes is also wrong, loyalty is good, treachery is bad" Your gut can draw from all that when the Russians are interrogating you for the launch codes when you didn't study for this particular situation and it tells you what feels right. Your wife asks you does her butt look big, your gut still draws from the 'No lying' rule here too, but it also draws from other rules like not feeding your wife's insecurities and the previous history of what happens when this question is not answered so promptly that you wonder why she didn't ask ‘did you even look? ' Your ethical 'gut' impulse only draws from what you've intellectually learned before hand. The problem is it play's no part in development itself. If you take that test twice without the knowledge your not going to ‘feel' better answers or for most at least the first time feel better about the answers you did give afterwords. That's why when we are forced to use gut morality we often find ourselves playing amateur philosopher after the event as we think about just what the right thing should have been (in an intellectual way). This is some of that studying and you do it because you honestly don't feel good about what you put that ‘felt right'. Just like after the test you look up in the book some of the answers you where least sure off to see if in the end you were still right. So in short this round I have argued: 1) Intellectual morality is as complex as it needs to be, you would find the maxims to account for the hundreds of circumstances if you had the patience to think them through. 2) So considering circumstances is part of moral learning, not ethical. 3) Application of skills is not necessarily honing them. 4) Applying the skills of 'listening to your gut' does not hone (develop) them. 5) Your Gut can only tell you what you have already studied. In order for it to develop enough to give more accurate answers intellectual study must be done before hand.