Jump to content
powerhouse200

Util/Deot Debate

Recommended Posts

Can I trade or get some evidence on the Utilitarianism Good/ Deotology Bad. What is the best way to answer an affirmative framework of evaluating impacts of racism first with the cards of Callahan and Rescher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably don't need cards on this unless you're debating nationally or your opponents are hardwired to answer these arguments.

 

there are a couple things to do-

1) ask in cx why so-and-so is a moral obligation - they'll almost always say "because it kills people" (usually in more words). they just conceded the consequentialism debate.

 

2) run a disad/K that can turn the impacts -- like an econ disad, with a card in the block about how during recession, racism increases (hatred shifts towards immigrants, for example); or, a CP that solves case.

 

3) contextualize their cards- they're probably talking about individual moral actors, not governments. ergo, probably not an appropriate standard for a policy debate round - the reason government exists is to maximize welfare, not to make moral judgments.

 

4) outweigh. yea, racism is bad, but people can live with it and work on solutions absent the aff plan; if the plan triggers an extinction scenario tho, whether people are racist or not is kind of irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple good cards on this stuff. However, even deontology must use consequentialism to decide between two immoral actions (or it will lead to paralysis). There are several decent cards out there saying this. Also, most deontological impacts are easy to turn with hege/econ/war...War causes rape, econ collapse causes poverty through dehum, and loss of hege causes racism through regional and ethnic conflict. At that point, you probably have their impact, only with better timeframe (with say, a politics DA), larger impact (more people dehumanized) and an extinction scenario to boot. In either framework, you should win the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really old post, but 

 

Quote

ask in cx why so-and-so is a moral obligation - they'll almost always say "because it kills people" (usually in more words). they just conceded the consequentialism debate.

Is pretty false. Most major ethical theories (deontology, virtue ethics & of course consequentialism) take into account consequences. Some deontologists say that we have a duty to reduce/alleviate suffering. Threshhold deontology, Rossian pluralism, even Kant talked about consequences (despite him being almost the paradigmatic deontologist). 

Critiques of util are often based upon the fact that consequentialists only take into account consequences - so much that the rightness/wrongness of each action is determined by the consequences, which can justify things that may be intuitively immoral/unjustified (which utilitarians/consequentialists will have to 'bite the bullet' or adopt some form of rule utilitarianism or something along those lines). 

It gets into the territory where it's difficult to coherently create a bright green line between consequentualism and non-consequentialism barring some circumstances. Even more, this breaks down the argument - utilitarianism is a specific type of consequentialism (they're not interchangeable, and reducing criticisms of utilitarianism to consequentialism is misleading and even more, wrong) and if we consider all normative ethical theories consequentialist (as some have done: see Consequentialize This), then we're only arguing about which type of consequentialism we should prefer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×