Team Debate: Looking good is a moral duty

Post by: xXCryptoXxTeam Captain: bladerunner060IntroductionMy opponent argues that because we did not contend to their point on how self-respect is a moral duty we have therefore dropped the main point of my opponents' arguments and that they have successfully affirmed the resolution. You see, unlike “looking good”, self-respect is of an objective (or at least some-what) objective nature.Self-respect is something that all people of all social statuses, races, ect. can achieve. This gives it an objective nature because self-respect only requires what humans can inherently and naturally achieve. Looking good is of a subjective nature. This means that what is “good or attractive” is defined by societal standards and individual standards. It is not something all people can achieve. Looking good cannot be a moral duty because it is an action that not all people can fulfill. In order to be a moral duty it is required that any and all people can actively fulfill said duty.RebuttalsThe Nature of DutyObligation being part of what makes something a “duty” is only a part of it. A duty is also something that all people should be able to fulfill, regardless of societal variables. Immorality is important to contending to my opponent’s arguments. If something is a moral duty, it is immoral to not fulfill that duty. According to the logic of my opponent’s arguments, not looking good even in circumstances where you can’t look good is immoral. We understand that this is not logically valid; therefore it is not a moral duty to look good.The Golden Rule and its Relativity to the ResolutionMy opponent asserts that we dropped the argument that doctors and teachers have a moral duty to help others, and part of that moral duty involves their physical appearance, therefore looking good is a moral duty. What my opponent doesn’t realize is that we did contest this, quite a few times actually. We did not directly contest the statement; the statement was contested in our general arguments.What is morally good does not make it a moral duty in necessity. It was agreed upon that it is morally good that teachers and doctors dress appropriately, however it is not a moral duty to do so. Reasoning behind this can be found behind arguments presented on the subjective nature of looking good, and the objective nature of moral duties.Let me explain further into our point on how "the supposed "improvement" [from looking good] stems from bigotry," since my opponent didn’t quite understand it. This statement is a logically valid one, and is not one that can be derived from some scientific source. What we mean when we say it “stems from bigotry” is that humans in general are actually committing a moral wrong by treating others better only when they look good according to societal standards. In fact, what humans should be doing is treating each other with the same attitudes regardless of how they look. It is of their own bigotry that they only treat others better if they look “good”. What would actually be healthy and morally good for the society is to not give into these human standards. Therefore it is indirectly a morally wrong to have people be obligated to look good due to others bigoted standards.My opponent states “by looking good, we help others; by helping others, we help ourselves. By helping ourselves, we fulfill a moral duty.” In the end it all comes down to the part on “Therefore we fulfill a moral duty.” It is most definitely morally good, but your main premise, which is “by looking good, we help others” is of a completely subjective nature because it relies on the individual and societal standards of what “looking good” is. As long as this is of a subjective nature it relies on the standards of the society, and for as long as not everyone can fulfill this duty or are logically exempted from fulfill this duty, looking good simply cannot be a moral duty. My opponent goes on to say that because looking good is relative all people can look good. I argue that because looking good is relative it can’t be a moral duty. There is too much reliance on the standards of others for looking good to be a moral duty. My opponent contradicts himself. He argues that anyone can look good because “good” is relative, then argues that we should eradicate everything that keeps people from appeasing the standards of the society in terms of “looking good.” My opponent argues that it is our moral duty to eradicate all poverty and that poverty is immoral. First off, morality is only something in relation to the behavior of others. Poverty isn’t a behavior, it’s a financial state. Second, I have explained that it is a moral wrong to appease the bigoted standards of the society.Pro drops our round 2 argument on self-expression. Conclusion What this all comes down to in the end is what establishes something as a moral duty. I argue that a moral duty must be of an objective nature, and that because looking good is of a subjective nature, it cannot be a moral duty.Over to you.