You cannot have a honest conversation (AKA being open to change your mind) while engaging in a morally unacceptable debate.
Instead, refuse to have such debate. You can then explain your refusal.
Instead, refuse to have such debate. You can then explain your refusal.
I've been trying very hard most of my life not to have mental or discussion taboos. I may find a position, request, action, etc disagreeable or even reprehensible, but I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo. And I struggle to visualize a debate itself that is morally unacceptable. Quite the opposite.
(on the other hand there are certainly debates I am tired of, amd frequently ponder how to handle people / situations that bring same tired arguments I've seen rehashed, and usually debunked, myriad times before. But that's not the same as morally unacceptable that's just me being lazy and or having limited time and energy on this earth :)
An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where:
1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies
2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking
3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or theater where non-logical aspects of communication could manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those aspects in the delivery of their arguments.
A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of people who consider themselves a society, because:
1) while those debating look like they are arguing and analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an audience to effect a desired outcome,
2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of specific individuals rather than objective truth.
Is it immoral to use rhetoric to spread false ideas for a good reason?
Following your example, you've reduced pollution, but now millions of people who work in the gasoline supply chain have lost jobs. These people get addicted to drugs, increase crime, and now you can't leave your house, but you do have clean air.
A logical debate without propaganda might have taken that into account.
I'm surprised that people here do not understand this point. Here some by-the-book examples that are used in ethics 101:
"what is the best way to kill grandma?" "what is a reasonable price to buy a slave?"
If you find murder or slavery immoral you are simply unable to debate on this questions because they imply acceptance of the premise.
You can, of course, express your disagreement on the whole debate.
> I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo
This has nothing to do with a taboo. It's a completely different thing.
I can debate the best way to kill grandma; I will even find it intellectually stimulating; heck, I just spent a few minutes now that you brought it up pondering that (it's the whole "don't think of pink Elephant" schtick:); without in any way implying acceptance of the premise, condoning the action, or considering actually doing it. Does your brain work different? Can you disentangle a concept and idea from action and emotion? I don't feel you're making your point persuasively, or the choice of phrasing may be ambiguous.