Round 2. Phoenix V Genya: Robin Hood?, page 1

Hello again to my esteemed friend and colleague Genya, Kano the moderator, all of the Judges and lest they be forgotten – the audience viewing our debates who hopefully derive enjoyment, learning from debates.
One comment for Genya if you please, Genya I definitely see the irony and humor of our assigned tasks in this debate.

I will begin by reiterating debate subject once more,

“It is moral to steal from the rich to give to the poor”

Genya you detailed in your introduction the terms “steal” and “moral” side by side in juxtaposition, being paradoxical, attempting to imply an oxymoron.
The words out of context may appear that way, in the context of debate they are not paradoxical nor an oxymoron. You’re pointing out the doctrine of judicial moralism, which addresses the “act” rather than the “intent”

Quoting from Friesian theory based on the writings of Kant and others as promulgated by Kelly L. Ross Ph.D.,

“Judicial Moralism, generalization of intentions into all of morality has been common. Religions typically guilty of such moralism, have controlled or pressured political authorities for enforcement; but there has been no lack of purely secular ideologies, from the French Revolution to Communism, that have tried to enforce their views in political programs apart from religion. Judicial moralism tends to be characteristic of both religious moralism, political moralism. Furthermore, each characteristically becomes way of morally judging, not just actions or intentions, but beliefs. That’s because good - bad intentions always go with beliefs about what’s good - bad. Judicial moralism collapses intention and act, requirement of justice acting justly is transferred to the mental state. What’s proper moral issue in that state is good or bad will; For judicial moralism more is required than that, good will doesn't have anything like content, structure, or definiteness of good - bad act. Consequently, judicial moralism focuses on beliefs conditioning the will, something as definite in the mental state as the act was external. Thus the moral requirement becomes one of correct belief as the sign of good will. Incorrect belief obviously signifies ill will, all the commendation and reward or condemnation - punishment that should focus on good - bad deeds becomes focused on these incorrect beliefs.”

Ergo: Judgement of acts, construed superior to moral intent of action is error in the context of this debate and accepted philosophical theory.

Ergo: My opponents assertion that the judgement of what is “moral” is based solely on the “action or behavior” of the individual. My position is simple: the moral path can only be judged by the “intent” of the action or behavior. (Ex: my opponent would suggest that “stealing” in and of itself (as an action) is always morally wrong. However, a person that steals for the PURPOSE OR INTENT to altruistically aid others with no benefit to themselves is, in fact, morally superior.) One has to always consider the situation and the intent when morally passing judgement. Thus – the basis of this debate is not one of, “is stealing morally wrong” by itself as your Ten Commandments reference suggests, but one of “Is stealing to help the poor a moral wrong”

To engage your logic used in your opening statement one has to confuse ethical dogma to the detriment of moral theory, which is the subject of the debate at hand.

Referencing a point made in my opening statement, “An individual can commit moral acts even though the norms of society may judge otherwise, that rational people, given a certain set of circumstances will make moral decisions superior to those imposed by a given society.”

I would like to expound on the above statement by quoting the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, specifically under the heading – Moral Responsibility, Recent work on Moral Responsibility, P. F. Strawson,

Strawson contends that it is pointless asking whether the practice of holding responsible can be rationally justified if determinism is true. This is either because its not psychologically possible divesting ourselves of these reactions and continually inhabit the objective standpoint, or even if possible, because its not clear rationality could ever demand that we give up the reactive attitudes, In sum, Strawson attempts to turn the traditional around, for judgments about being responsible understood in relation to the role reactive attitudes play in the practice of holding responsible, rather than the other way around. Whereas judgments are true or false and can generate the need for justification, the desire for goodwill and attitudes generated by it possess no truth value themselves, eliminating any need for an external justification.

Ergo: To save helpless people with no other recourse is moral in the sense that one of rational mind recognizes societal injustice, others (of rational mind) may see and absolve action with superior moral decision irregardless of external moral dogma or belief.

800 words