Jump to content
Otsuichi

LD-Nov/Dec 2011: Good Samaritan Duty

Recommended Posts

V - Happiness

C - Reducing Pain

 

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

 

I might actually read something like this.

 

I think this could also work just the same on the neg. The aff is trying to keep people alive which is bad because life is painful killing their happiness.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this could also work just the same on the neg. The aff is trying to keep people alive which is bad because life is painful killing their happiness.

I figured what he had outlined was for the negative in the first place.

e: but now I see that it wasn't. Schopenhauer is even more interesting on the aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e: but now I see that it wasn't. Schopenhauer is even more interesting on the aff.

This actually isn't what I was saying. tongue.gif

 

There's a problem in this resolution: it suggests those in need are obligated to assist others even at expense to themselves.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to answer this objection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This actually isn't what I was saying. tongue.gif

 

There's a problem in this resolution: it suggests those in need are obligated to assist others even at expense to themselves.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to answer this objection?

Well, there's obviously an inherent cost. As the aff, you went in knowing that. All cost is technically expense to oneself, so the only real problem that would arise from cost existing is if that obligation obligates you to cause greater moral harm than you would through inaction, which can't happen, especially if you run a definition like "obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this could also work just the same on the neg. The aff is trying to keep people alive which is bad because life is painful killing their happiness.

How safe is it to run this on aff? I'm scared that if I run something along those lines on aff that I am going to get smashed for removing neg ground. Or should that even be a concern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How safe is it to run this on aff? I'm scared that if I run something along those lines on aff that I am going to get smashed for removing neg ground. Or should that even be a concern?

You're only removing CORE neg ground if the neg in question is incompetent. The obligation is still there, you're just interpreting it differently than most would. The obligation still exists, and thus any arguments about how it violates liberty (or anything that can generally be supplied as a disadvantage) should still hold water, perhaps even moreso, since an obligation not to help is even less palatable than an obligation to help. Either way, you are compromising the choice of the individual. You may be taking away neg ground, but only if the neg is overly focused on the most common interpretation of the resolution.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're only removing CORE neg ground if the neg in question is incompetent. The obligation is still there, you're just interpreting it differently than most would. The obligation still exists, and thus any arguments about how it violates liberty (or anything that can generally be supplied as a disadvantage) should still hold water, perhaps even moreso, since an obligation not to help is even less palatable than an obligation to help. Either way, you are compromising the choice of the individual. You may be taking away neg ground, but only if the neg is overly focused on the most common interpretation of the resolution.

My other questions is this case only going to be philosophical or is there some real world applications of this theory that i am missing. In other words I would like some method of weighing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My other questions is this case only going to be philosophical or is there some real world applications of this theory that i am missing. In other words I would like some method of weighing.

Eh...I'm not really sure. My original inclination would have been no. Big Sky Debate's release has a section about how gov't aid is topical, but I'm not really sure I either understand or buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need = something that keeps people alive

 

That's the only predictable and stable interpretation because wants vary (and even contradict) and there's way too many potential other "requirements" if a requirement is something that's prescribed by any ethical theory. This means that Schopenhauer is only negative ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need = something that keeps people alive

 

That's the only predictable and stable interpretation because wants vary (and even contradict) and there's way too many potential other "requirements" if a requirement is something that's prescribed by any ethical theory. This means that Schopenhauer is only negative ground.

Good, because that's how I interpreted it in the first place.

 

Also, do you have any thoughts on how government aid is topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, because that's how I interpreted it in the first place.

 

Also, do you have any thoughts on how government aid is topical?

It's not. Arguably groups of individuals are, but the jump from group action to the action of any legal entity, let alone the government, isn't supported in the text of the resolution. That individuals might not be capable of the resolution proves that the AC dodges core negative arguments, not that they're justified in doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel very much the same. It's a shame that a third of the BSD stuff is about government assistance. Then again, you never know who's going to have topicality issues, so I might bring the government assistance bad cards anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

I disagree! I'm running a variation of noncognitivism. Basically, Hume. Basically, the argument that moral, verifiable truth is essentially unknowable. As in, 'good and bad' are unprovable. In which case whether morality exists in a vacuum or not becomes irrelevant, as you cannot argue against this with relations of facts such as 'we should do x to get y' because I will be 'and how is it that you came to the conclusion that I am morally obligated to value y?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree! I'm running a variation of noncognitivism. Basically, Hume. Basically, the argument that moral, verifiable truth is essentially unknowable. As in, 'good and bad' are unprovable. In which case whether morality exists in a vacuum or not becomes irrelevant, as you cannot argue against this with relations of facts such as 'we should do x to get y' because I will be 'and how is it that you came to the conclusion that I am morally obligated to value y?'

How my AC would answer this:

1. It's not that you're morally obligated to value y, it's that you inherently do so already because of your nature as a human being, my interpretation of morality is derived from that.

2. Rejecting that internal source of value is nihilistic.

3. That rejection can't even be justified from its own perspective - moral skepticism can't prove that moral skepticism matters which means that the judge doesn't have a reason to weigh your argument.

4. Default to assuming that some possibility of value exists because it's the only risk that the education we gain from this debate actually effects real world decision making. Regardless of whether an objective morality exists we all have our individual moral principles because we're human, and debates like this can refine those principles, but only if we attempt to give normative force to those principles.

5. Decisions are inevitable, this round is only a question of how we determine them.

6. Pretty sure there's this Sextus Empiricus card I saw online that says skepticism can't ever be known to exist for certain. I need to cut that.

 

Hume is the best version of moral (and epistemic) skepticism, though, I agree, though I don't think his argument should be considered noncognitive. You're arguing that all knowledge is empirical and that empiricism is a fallacy, right? (That's the only skepticism argument of Hume's that I know, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then if you say that it isn't that you're morally obligated to value y but that you inherently do so, is the obligation still moral? Is it even an obligation if it's inherent? I'm not obligated to have internal organs, but I do. That's why I have a problem with all the "helping behavior is inherent to people" cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then if you say that it isn't that you're morally obligated to value y but that you inherently do so, is the obligation still moral? Is it even an obligation if it's inherent? I'm not obligated to have internal organs, but I do. That's why I have a problem with all the "helping behavior is inherent to people" cards.

It's moral. I define moral as a reason for action. To say that our natural inclinations are morally wrong or irrelevant is nihilistic because they're the only internalized form of morality that exist and thus the only form that's accessible to individuals. Either those are the basis of our morality, or nothing is, and nihilism should be automatically rejected because it has no normative force but the risk that nihilistic theories are wrong does have normative force, which means that not-nihilism always wins.

 

I also argue that any theory not grounded in observable facts depends on either an infinitely regressive chain of reasoning or an unproven assumption (which would rest on other assumptions as well) and thus can't be justified, which is a probably really nice way to pwn any abstract reasons that morality isn't real, I should have listed that above. Does that argument seem logical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it does, and while I think I get the concept, can you please clarify as to what "normative force" is? I don't understand the usage of the word normative no matter how many times I see it used.

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!

 

The affirmative could run the paramount nature of observing traditional morals in LD because it is a philosophically/morally based debate. Lincoln and Douglas were debating moral legitimacy, or the lack thereof, regarding slavery. In LD we have to look to traditional morals and the obligation to help those in need is a very standard, widely accepted virtue.

On the affirmative you could run deontology OR teleology; both are as basic as criterions get. Deontology works because the morality behind "helping somebody in need" (the means), far outweighs any negative impacts that act of help may cause. We help people that are in need because it is the morally correct thing to do, not because we're looking to the greatest resulting benefits. Teleology because, even though helping somebody in need might not always be the an effective means of teaching self reliance, it leads us to a more stabilized society in the end. This is paramount not only to the upholding of government, economy and social structure, but to self-interest because individuals can only function effectively in a stable society.

It's key to argue the logicality of the aff stance on the resolution along with the morality of it. Not only is it right, but by helping others we help ourselves, our families and society as a whole. The aff really has to cover all of it from ethics to a cost-benefit analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it does, and while I think I get the concept, can you please clarify as to what "normative force" is? I don't understand the usage of the word normative no matter how many times I see it used.

Normative force is be a reason that the theory logically impacts those who believe in it. Norm is a synonym of reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28philosophy%29

 

The affirmative could run the paramount nature of observing traditional morals in LD because it is a philosophically/morally based debate. Lincoln and Douglas were debating moral legitimacy, or the lack thereof, regarding slavery. In LD we have to look to traditional morals and the obligation to help those in need is a very standard, widely accepted virtue.

This argument says in effect that the LD community of yesteryear should be the basis of what we should consider to be moral, not things like rationality or emotions or inherent principles, but an arbitrary decree from a group of dead people who had an extremely limited amount of power. It also says that the negative should lose because of (old school) framer's intent because apparently that matters for some reason.

 

If anyone on my circuit argues anything likes this I will cry myself to sleep for the rest of my life. The worst part is that they probably will.

 

it leads us to a more stabilized society in the end. This is paramount not only to the upholding of government, economy and social structure, but to self-interest because individuals can only function effectively in a stable society.

I like this argument and am already reading something similar to it in my AC. It's not about self determination though, it's about maximizing the self interest of the individual who's acting.

 

logicality

Not a word, but I wish it were otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you say to an AC that contended that society aids us greatly, thus we are morally obligated to give back to society?

That depends on its content. Most negatives would probably just argue that we should be parasites who drain society while not giving back to it at all. If it can answer that it should work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the obvious practical problem with everyone being a parasite is that societies are predicated on the fact that people won't be parasites. It is functionally impossible for everyone to be a parasite.

e: but also it would be unethical. If you don't hold up your end of a regular legal contract, you get taken to court. If you don't hold up your end of the social contract, you are being immoral for the same reasons. You are engaging in deception and to some degree theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the obvious practical problem with everyone being a parasite is that societies are predicated on the fact that people won't be parasites. It is functionally impossible for everyone to be a parasite.

That's irrelevant. Individual people can still be parasites. It's the tragedy of the commons, and what other people do doesn't change what the individual should do. (I don't believe this, but it's a very defensible argument that can win rounds).

 

e: but also it would be unethical. If you don't hold up your end of a regular legal contract, you get taken to court. If you don't hold up your end of the social contract, you are being immoral for the same reasons. You are engaging in deception and to some degree theft.

Analogies aren't arguments, this begs the question of whether breaking a legal contract is necessarily immoral. There's also a big difference between implicit and explicit contracts, and the fact that there's no alternative to living within some form of government means that the contract isn't derived from individual choice so much as coerced onto individuals by the rest of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How my AC would answer this:

1. It's not that you're morally obligated to value y, it's that you inherently do so already because of your nature as a human being, my interpretation of morality is derived from that.

2. Rejecting that internal source of value is nihilistic.

3. That rejection can't even be justified from its own perspective - moral skepticism can't prove that moral skepticism matters which means that the judge doesn't have a reason to weigh your argument.

4. Default to assuming that some possibility of value exists because it's the only risk that the education we gain from this debate actually effects real world decision making. Regardless of whether an objective morality exists we all have our individual moral principles because we're human, and debates like this can refine those principles, but only if we attempt to give normative force to those principles.

5. Decisions are inevitable, this round is only a question of how we determine them.

6. Pretty sure there's this Sextus Empiricus card I saw online that says skepticism can't ever be known to exist for certain. I need to cut that.

 

Hume is the best version of moral (and epistemic) skepticism, though, I agree, though I don't think his argument should be considered noncognitive. You're arguing that all knowledge is empirical and that empiricism is a fallacy, right? (That's the only skepticism argument of Hume's that I know, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

Well, noncognivism is basically Hume's guillotine (You can't derive an ought from an is, basically) in fancier terms, from my oh so shallow knowledge of both.

 

Valid reply, I'm sure I'll see all those points come up, but I think they're also all pretty debatable. Education and 'we need to assume certain things about moral truth' are probably the only arguments that will actually stick to the case. Also, 'we inherently value things' becomes 'we value things due to biological processes' = evolutionary morality = naturalistic fallacy. Just because you can tell me how I'm hardwired to act doesn't mean you can tell me how I should act.

I think I'd probably try to absorb your 4th point, since I'm valuing Moral Autonomy and arguing that with lack of definitive moral truth we have no grounds to impose an obligation on an individual's right to decide for themselves right and wrong. As for the hypothetical card, if you want to ride the skepticism train too hard, nothing is said to exist for certain, so I hardly see how that's going to make much of a point.

 

I also argue that any theory not grounded in observable facts depends on either an infinitely regressive chain of reasoning or an unproven assumption (which would rest on other assumptions as well) and thus can't be justified, which is a probably really nice way to pwn any abstract reasons that morality isn't real, I should have listed that above. Does that argument seem logical?

 

Actually, this would probably help the morality isn't real case. Because Morality isn't grounded in facts. It's grounded in a lot of assumptions about what constitutes 'right' and 'wrong' - furthermore, since the resolution is makes this a debate of abstract moral concepts, saying that 'theories not grounded in observable facts' are off bounds seems to be both illogical and against education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, 'we inherently value things' becomes 'we value things due to biological processes' = evolutionary morality = naturalistic fallacy. Just because you can tell me how I'm hardwired to act doesn't mean you can tell me how I should act.

It's not a fallacy in the way I articulate it. I argue that the way we're hardwired to act is logically the way that we should act. The alternative is rejecting our inherent frame of evaluation in favor of one that doesn't actually exist, which is functionally nihilistic. Additionally, Hume himself argues that inherent values should be the basis of morality in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. The reason that the is-ought problem exists is because most factual qualities don't have any inherent motivational relationship to the actor, neurological desire resolves that problem. The AC is the least bad basis for decision making, and that's all that morality concerns itself with.

 

I don't care enough to bother answering the other parts of your post because I know how I'll answer them, thanks for the feedback though.

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...