Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Strawberry666

Kritik of the word "should" or moral obligations

Recommended Posts

I'm writing a kritik of the word "should" in both the resolution and any plan text starts with "the usfg should..."

this would work best against an aff with a moral obligation/value to life impact

 

It goes pretty much:

 

Link: you use the word should. this implies a moral obligation

Moral obligations are part of the 'natural right' or 'natural law', which is the right that all humans have to objects such as life

 

Impact: 'natural law' is bad because it is a very faulty argument that cannot be proven, the only way we can ever solve anything is if it can be proven, (i have this card on how empirical proof is best). since when the universe was created, nature did not create a 'right' or a 'wrong', and did not create a moral law for us to follow, we shouldn't follow any such law, we should instead follow the laws of science and prove that anything we do if useful.

 

Alt: the plan text, but with the word "will" instead of "should"

 

so:

1. does this make any sense?

2. suggestions/ good articles i can use?

3. answers to the K?

 

Thanks,

Ana O.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

1. yes

2. Look for articles by a dude named Zygmunt Bauman, specifically "Life in Fragments: Essays on Postmodern Moralities"

3. levinas/derrida

Edited by svfrey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, not all claims of moral obligation are based in natural law. You'll want better links than that.

 

Second, this argument is called "normativity."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with organization XIII. this sounds like nietzsche gone wrong. I don't think you want to read this shit as a discourse pic, or base all of your links around the word 'should'.

I think that if you do you will have a very time spinnnig a good link story and you will not really have impacts. When has saying the word should gone wrong?

 

i understand moral obligations have been bad in the past, but i don't think that is because of 'natural law' or 'should.' Just roll with nietzsche. I can get you some cites for that shit if you are interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that critiques the enlightenment should have a lot of criticism of the existence of normative ethical statements implying obligation as a legitimate category of ethical reasoning. You're also succeptable to others who have accepted a reidenfication with enlightenment ideals ala Derrida and obligation to the others as found in Of Hospitality. Lots of info on this topic, but im not entirely sure it's the best way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...