Jump to content
Otsuichi

LD-Nov/Dec 2011: Good Samaritan Duty

Recommended Posts

Maybe it's overkill for Levinas. I saw the argument as an extension of how Others change us - the negative would conceed that, and argue that we're constantly being shaped by social interactions as well as others. It might be simpler and easier and better to answer Levinas straight up.

 

I think it'd be a good NC, but I don't know what authors you could use. I assume there's some Buddhist literature that will make the argument. I think that the "persons" PIC on the policy poverty topic might have some evidence on this issue, but I'm not sure.

 

I still can't find a good affirmative case. Any ideas?

EDIT: (actually this is kind of wrong, I have one semi-good case in mind but I need some help before it's workable, if it ever will be, please PM me if you're interested in collaborating)

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't find a good affirmative case. Any ideas?

EDIT: (actually this is kind of wrong, I have one semi-good case in mind but I need some help before it's workable, if it ever will be, please PM me if you're interested in collaborating)

 

 

1. I'm interested in collaborating. We'll chat at some point

 

2. Came up with a reasonable way to affirm-- it depends on how you define "people in need". I would like to define this as people who are in immediate physical danger to their life or body that can be reasonably prevented by the "individual" in question. Examples include the man (adult) drowning in the pool, or the woman who is about to get raped in same room as you. This is a good definition of people in need because it doesn't explode the topic ground to include anyone on earth who has "need". That would include everyone. Rather it limits the topic discussion to a reasonable "what should one do?" question, while still allowing the core topic discussion of positive vs negative obligations.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That brings up the question of what happens when two people are in need in the same room as you, how can you weigh two moral obligations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Came up with a reasonable way to affirm-- it depends on how you define "people in need". I would like to define this as people who are in immediate physical danger to their life or body that can be reasonably prevented by the "individual" in question. Examples include the man (adult) drowning in the pool, or the woman who is about to get raped in same room as you. This is a good definition of people in need because it doesn't explode the topic ground to include anyone on earth who has "need". That would include everyone. Rather it limits the topic discussion to a reasonable "what should one do?" question, while still allowing the core topic discussion of positive vs negative obligations.

I think that many negatives are structuring their case around "infinite obligations bad/permissibility", so this argument might come across as attempting to exclude core negative ground. Besides the reasonability factor, which is that it seems like the affirmative shouldn't be forced to defend ridiculously broad ground (which is kinda subjective and hard to prove), I don't know of any reasons this interpretation would be defendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone possibly provide some aff case ideas for more traditional circuits?

Crazy cases don't work very well where I'm from and I am having difficulty coming up with good, standard philosophers to quote/base my case upon.

Thanks!

Also, if you can get around a few theoretical issues(he talks about states, and describes an ideal system), Rawls works reasonably well on aff. Singer will also be, sadly, huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you can get around a few theoretical issues(he talks about states, and describes an ideal system), Rawls works reasonably well on aff. Singer will also be, sadly, huge.

I had a Singer aff but then dropped it because I used Singer for private military firms and animal rights already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm struggling to develop an Aff case that has true back bone (aka philosophy, historical evidence, etc.) but on the Neg would it be wise to focus on "Who determines what is 'moral'?" and "What constitutes 'in need'?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Who determines what is 'moral'?"

We do. Right here, right now. That's why it's called a debate.

 

"What constitutes 'in need'?"

Things that are prerequisites to the existence of people are needs. Food and water and air.

 

You shouldn't use that negative strategy.

 

Simply asking questions and leaving room for your opponent to maneuver is never a strategic idea. You should raise objections, not possibilities.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The drowning child is kind of a bad example IMO

 

1. It's a child, so there's some sort of diminished capacity that makes a positive obligation on the part of society more likely (or at least the warrants would be specific for why [only] those with diminished capacity need help)

2. The real responsibility here lies with the child's legal guardian, who allowed the child to be in the position it is in. They are the only one with the positive obligation (I can't be charged with negligence/ endangerment if the neighbor kid drowns in his own pool, but the legal guardian can)

3. None of these sufficiently prove that I have a positive obligation to help-- Clearly we all have a negative obligation with regards to kids and drowning (i.e. DON'T drown a child), but there's no actual need to act.

4. Singer's article itself references the natural gut-check reaction of a classroom of students, which isn't a sufficient warrant for wholesale changing our outlook on what our daily obligations to others are. It really amounts to an extended narrative.

5. Suppose for a second that I walk past this child who is drowning, and I ignore it and keep on walking-- Can I be held responsible in a criminal court? Unless this is the Seinfeld Finale, I don't believe so.

 

 

 

The real issue with affirming on this topic is finding some way that you can defend a warrant for individual members of society to have a POSITIVE obligation with respect to those in need. This will be difficult.

Cass Sunstein wrote something about all rights being positive, i.e. the right against assault, typically thought of to be negative, is in fact 1) a right to a prevention from being assaulted and/or 2) a right to some sort of punishment for the offender. If you can get away with framing it that way, it gets much easier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I really don't understand how a Levinas aff would work. Not to say that it couldn't, but I literally don't understand what the argument would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I really don't understand how a Levinas aff would work. Not to say that it couldn't, but I literally don't understand what the argument would be.

 

"We have an infinite obligation to the other".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That much I comprehend, I just don't Levinas's warrant for this assertion.

It doesn't exist. He just asserts the existence of the obligation, but doesn't give a reason that The Other shapes our identity or why our altered identity is shaped in such a way that we're obligated to help The Other.

 

Levinas is way more popular than he should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't exist. He just asserts the existence of the obligation, but doesn't give a reason that The Other shapes our identity or why The Other shapes our identity in such a way that we're obligated to help The Other.

 

Levinas is kinda pathetic.

 

This is abject absurdity; you've clearly never read Levinas. I don't mean the random 2AC cards your varsity cut, I mean his actual writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is abject absurdity; you've clearly never read Levinas. I don't mean the random 2AC cards your varsity cut, I mean his actual writing.

If you provide me with a quote from Levinas' writing that warrants the claim that The Other shapes our identity in such a way that we're obligated to help The Other, I'd be glad to have it, as would every other debater. I'm ninety percent certain that you can't, at least without defending some bizarre interpretation of one of his works.

 

Also I appreciate an alliteration as often as everyone else. "Abject absurdity" is an awesome example of alliteration. Amazing.

^extra uber alliteration

^also a bit alliterative

^meh

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't exist. He just asserts the existence of the obligation, but doesn't give a reason that The Other shapes our identity or why our altered identity is shaped in such a way that we're obligated to help The Other.

 

Levinas is way more popular than he should be.

 

 

This is abject absurdity; you've clearly never read Levinas. I don't mean the random 2AC cards your varsity cut, I mean his actual writing.

 

 

If you provide me with a quote from Levinas' writing that warrants the claim that The Other shapes our identity in such a way that we're obligated to help The Other, I'd be glad to have it, as would every other debater. I'm ninety percent certain that you can't, at least without defending some bizarre interpretation of one of his works.

 

Also I appreciate an alliteration as often as everyone else. "Abject absurdity" is an awesome example of alliteration. Amazing.

^extra uber alliteration

^also a bit alliterative

^meh

 

 

I haven't read Levinas myself, but in this exchange--due to my experience with policy cards and the fact that they often have amazing nonexistent warrants--I think the burden is on Chris to show some reason to believe this warrant exists.

 

In my experience, the evidentiary standards in LD are much more rigorous than in Policy debate--simply because there are fewer cards/minute read in a given round and each one is far more scrutinized for a warrant by both competitors and judges. As a result, only evidence with solid, strong warrants that can undergo heavy scrutiny should be used. This should ideally be true of Policy debate as well, but let's face it--we all have tons of cards with no real warrant that still get used effectively to win rounds.

 

Also, why so hostile?

Snarf: show some patience with the kids--it's a learning website. If he's really wrong about Levinas, then you're in a position to teach a lot of posters/lurkers something useful.

Chaos: On second thought, you're being quite civil here; go figure.

 

As for my personal opinion about running Levinas (from what I understand of it), I think going as far as an infinite obligation to the other is both difficult and overkill. How you possibly going to forge the link between "people in need" and "the other". Unless of course you have a card that warrants why "people in need" are the Other, and even then, unless you are able to prove that people in need are the Only form of the other, you might have to deal with Extra T depending on your circuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaos: On second thought, you're being quite civil here; go figure.

AWWW_YEAH_RE_Funny_Pictures_3-s250x196-182807.png

 

Also I don't think extra-T makes sense for ethical frameworks. To say that debaters are only allowed to defend the resolution is to say that justifications for generic ethical frameworks aren't topical, which results in an autolose for the affirmative because no ethical framework is so specific as to be limited strictly to the resolution. This is also the reason I think intrinsic perms are sometimes legit against Ks...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AWWW_YEAH_RE_Funny_Pictures_3-s250x196-182807.png

 

Also I don't think extra-T makes sense for ethical frameworks. To say that debaters are only allowed to defend the resolution is to say that justifications for generic ethical frameworks aren't topical, which results in an autolose for the affirmative because no ethical framework is so specific as to be limited strictly to the resolution. This is also the reason I think intrinsic perms are sometimes legit against Ks...

...of course, you won't exactly have to worry about Extra T if you can't run a successful Levinas, and it's looking really hard at this point. Honestly there (appears to be) nothing. An uncle of one of the guys on my team is an ex debater and he found and sent us a bunch of materials. One of the cases has Levinasian ethics as the crit, and it's just more of the same:

"“I can never do enough. My obligations to the Other are unlimited, as well as being asymmetrical in the sense that I have no right to ask of the Other what the Other asks of me.†Therefore, we have the unselfish and infinite duty to assist others in any way possible. We are in constant interaction with others, and because of that interaction, there is no way we cannot be obligated to help them."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody thought about running any Schopenhauer on this topic? I dont do LD but i think it could be strategic. There will be a bunch of people prepared to debate Nietzsche and schopenhauer puts a different spin on a similar concept.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody thought about running any Schopenhauer on this topic? I dont do LD but i think it could be strategic. There will be a bunch of people prepared to debate Nietzsche and schopenhauer puts a different spin on a similar concept.

Schopenhauer's secondary authors are really good, I approve of what you're doing.

 

Define need as something to keep people alive (easy to find) and assist as alleviating a need (wordnet) and it'll work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drafted a noncognitivism neg. Thoughts?

 

Prescriptivists argue that factual statements and prescriptions are totally different, because of different expectations of change in cases of a clash between word and world. In a descriptive sentence, if one premises, that "red is a number," according to the lexical rules of English grammar, then said statement would be false. Since said premise describes the objects; red and number, anyone with an adequate understanding of English would notice the falseness of such description and the falseness of said statement. However, if the norm "Thou shalt not Kill!" is uttered, and this premise is negated (by the fact of a person being murdered), the speaker is not to change his sentence upon observation of this into: "Kill other people!", but is to reiterate the moral outrage of the act of killing. Adjusting statements based upon objective reality and adjusting reality based upon statements are contrary uses of language, so descriptive statement are a different kind of sentences than norms. If truth is understood according to correspondence theory, the question of the truth or falsity of sentences not contingent upon external phenomena cannot be tested (see tautologies ).

 

If it's anything like what Wikipedia thinks, I don't think it's true, although it'll still win a lot of debates. Moral statements such as "thou shalt not kill" don't function in a vacuum, they function in the context of moral (not necessarily causal) consequences, such as "thou shalt not kill or else thy conscience shall smite thee". Moral arguments are just relations of facts which impact back to certain good or bad metaphysical qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would a Schopenhauer case look like, just generally?

V - Happiness

C - Reducing Pain

 

We're obligated to let people die because life is painful.

 

I might actually read something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V - Happiness

C - Reducing Pain

 

We're obligated to let people die because life is painful.

 

I might actually read something like this.

Okay, that's what I thought it was. I just wanted to make sure I was interpreting it correctly.

e: does anyone know what they're doing for aff? I've written plenty of negs but never really finished an aff.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...