Jump to content
Otsuichi

LD-Nov/Dec 2011: Good Samaritan Duty

Recommended Posts

First, I imagine they would run moral skep, and try to destroy your links. For the 2nd part, against contractualism maybe read some sort of Foucault or something against societies. Then link back to relativism and say that we don't need societies to enforce, societies go against relativism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I imagine they would run moral skep, and try to destroy your links.

 

How would this destroy my links, relativism admits that there is no moral truth.

 

For the 2nd part, against contractualism maybe read some sort of Foucault or something against societies. Then link back to relativism and say that we don't need societies to enforce, societies go against relativism.

 

If they read foucault, couldn't I just read subjective ethics, or individual relativism, as opposed to societal relativism. Unless you are saying that i should read Foucault, in which case I don't understand why I need this/why this helps my AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's get on the same page here. They entire Foucault thing was a potential idea I was trying to give you which would help to attack a contractualism NC, by saying that we shouldn't look to social contracts because societies lead to structural oppression. It was an argument that you could make against a neg that was running contractualism.

 

The entire skep deal I was talking about is that they would try to run skep too, except they would try to deny you your links to relativism, hoping that their skep cases they have developed would be superior, and would be able to block you out of your links with analytics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's get on the same page here. They entire Foucault thing was a potential idea I was trying to give you which would help to attack a contractualism NC, by saying that we shouldn't look to social contracts because societies lead to structural oppression. It was an argument that you could make against a neg that was running contractualism.

 

The entire skep deal I was talking about is that they would try to run skep too, except they would try to deny you your links to relativism, hoping that their skep cases they have developed would be superior, and would be able to block you out of your links with analytics.

Yea, I think I just misunderstood what you were talking about, sorry. Thanks for the suggestions by the way.

 

But back to the original question, do you think this is legitimate strategy/one that judges will vote on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I would only run it against a judge who is really good, or is just capable of understanding most arguments. I definitely think it is a legitimate strategy, but it is just potentially dangerous, especially if your judge doesn't understand it. As long as you make sure to be super articulate and not mess up the flow (which could be really easy with this case), you should be all right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I need some help

my value is societal welfare

and there are allot of options for criterions.

How does empathy sound?

Veil of ignorance maybe?

or is there a better choice that i am missing out on?

Thanks for the help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a case I would run, but you would probably be better off going with morality and then societal welfare as a criterion. Maybe talk about how societies are required to enforce normative principles, so we need to ensure societal welfare to achieve morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap Bad should flow negative. If you really want to subvert capitalism, you would expose the harms, not have the extra-economic charity that effectively hides the harms. If you help people, you aren't really fighting capitalism. Zizek wrote some pretty good cards on it. I posted one of them here

The basic point is that you can't fight capitalism by helping people, you have to stop it. I ran something similar to this at The Glenbrooks (albiet only in one round as a case and one as a turn).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap Bad should flow negative. If you really want to subvert capitalism, you would expose the harms, not have the extra-economic charity that effectively hides the harms. If you help people, you aren't really fighting capitalism. Zizek wrote some pretty good cards on it. I posted one of them here

The basic point is that you can't fight capitalism by helping people, you have to stop it. I ran something similar to this at The Glenbrooks (albiet only in one round as a case and one as a turn).

 

Agreed, helping people who are in poverty and all of the charity and that stuff that I really don't like doing props up the dying system, although it's true that the culmination of charity would end in the destruction of capitalism, I don't think that the destruction would ever happen in that way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the toc video on the corporations topic, it supposedly abstracts them and denies their "ground projects".

Yeah, I got that, but how does it abstract them or deny their ground projects?

e: assuming such an explanation exists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

v: societal welfare

Cr: self transcendence

c1: it is universally moral to fight suffering

c2: self transcendence can only occur in a healthy society

c3: Fulfilling a moral obligation does not mean seeing to the complete solution of another's problems

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I got that, but how does it abstract them or deny their ground projects?

e: assuming such an explanation exists

 

Idk, it has something to do with greek usage of the word persona. If you want you can look at the selznick card used in the video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So regarding the Individuals-Persons PIC (or VIC, rather), how does using the term 'individual' dehumanize persons?

Strips them of their specific social coordinates and thus disempowers them and thus implicitly removes them from our ethical calculus, probably. The word individual is abstract and fails to take into account the specifics of the actor's situation. I don't know how a PIC would function though, because any replacement word would be equally abstract.

 

v: societal welfare

Cr: self transcendence

c1: it is universally moral to fight suffering

c2: self transcendence can only occur in a healthy society

c3: Fulfilling a moral obligation does not mean seeing to the complete solution of another's problems

I feel like this is backwards, honestly. It seems like self transcendence would be the reason that we should care about society, so self transcendence would be the ultimate value here. Self transcendence is arguably the mechanism necessary to achieve societal welfare though, so maybe I'm wrong here.

 

c1 is pretty weak and doesn't connect to societal welfare or transcendence.

c2 is fine, assuming your V/C is in the right order.

c3 seems more like resolutional analysis to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strips them of their specific social coordinates and thus disempowers them and thus implicitly removes them from our ethical calculus, probably. The word individual is abstract and fails to take into account the specifics of the actor's situation. I don't know how a PIC would function though, because any replacement word would be equally abstract.

Not necessarily. Although Selznick doesn't actually mention it, or at least, it's not mentioned in the card, rteehas is right. If you examine the etymology of the words, person comes from the Latin "persona", which means role (in life or otherwise). This inherently respects the ground project of people. Individual comes from the Latin individualis, which means indivisible. "Person" clearly has an etymological justification for being less abstract.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but the etymology of the word isn't the only link. Talking about people as abstractions with universal obligations to do or not do probably still links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, undoubtedly. I was just trying to come up with a way where the term "person" was less abstract than the term 'individual'. Is there one in that argument? Since the VIC doesn't function unless 'person' is a better word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, in McGough's Individual K/PIC he says that the sheer fact "individual" is abstracting humans is enough to negate because it solely dejustifies the resolution, so even if Person isn't better, the aff's advocacy is dejustifying the resolution

Second, Selznick says that because the term individual is just a unit, when we refer to someone as an individual they are just this "ahistorical unit", which can't have weight in a moral order. It thus allows them to become abstracted and categorized, because they're just a unit. Also, if you plan on running the individual K I recommend throwing in Fasching's card about defining others as less than human. It ties the case together really well, providing a better picture for the judge.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you plan on running the individual K I recommend throwing in Fasching's card about defining others as less than human.

I can't say I'm familiar with this particular card. Details?

 

E:

Are you by chance referring to this card:

 

Dehumanization is the worst impact, it brings the society to total damnation: a loss of all value to life, justifies all genocides and atrocities.

 

Fasching, Professor of Religious Studies in the University of South Florida 1993

[Darrell J., Part II of The ethical challenge of Auschwitz and Hiroshima: Apocalypse or Utopia?, Chapter 4 "The Ethical Challenge of Auschwitz and Hiroshima to Technological Utopianism", part 4 "The Challenge of Auschwitz and Hiroshima: From Sacred Morality to Alienation and Ethics", Ebooks]

 

Although every culture is inherently utopian in its potentiality, the internal social dynamic through which its symbolic world-view is maintained as a sacred order has a tendency to transform it into a closed ideological universe (in Karl Mannheim's sense of the ideological; namely, a world-view that promises change while actually reinforcing the status quo) that tends to define human identity in terms advantageous to some and at the expense of others. Historically the process of dehumanization has typically begun by redefining the other as, by nature, less than human. So the Nazis did to the Jews, and European Americans did to the Native Americans, men have done to women, and whites to blacks. By relegating these social definitions to the realm of nature they are removed from the realm of choice and ethical reflection. Hence those in the superior categories need feel no responsibility toward those in the inferior categories. It is simply a matter of recognizing reality. Those who are the objects of such definitions find themselves robbed of their humanity. They are defined by and confined to the present horizon of culture and their place in it, which seeks to rob them of their utopian capacity for theonomous self-transcending self-definition. The cosmicization of social identities is inevitably legitimated by sacred narratives, whether religious or secular-scientific (e.g., the Nazi biological myth of Aryan racial superiority), which dehumanize not only the victims but also the victors. For to create such a demonic social order the victors must deny not only the humanity of the other who is treated as totally alien but also their own humanity as well. That is, to imprison the alien in his or her enforced subhuman identity (an identity that attempts to deny the victim the possibility of self-transcendence) the victor must imprison himself or herself in this same world as it has been defined and deny his or her own self-transcendence as well. The bureaucratic process that appears historically with the advent of urbanization increases the demonic potential of this process, especially the modern state bureaucracy organized around the use of the most efficient techniques to control every area of human activity. The result is, as Rubenstein reminds us, the society of total domination in which virtually nothing is sacred, not even human life. The heart of such a bureaucratic social order is the sacralization of professional roles within the bureaucratic structure such that technical experts completely identify themselves with their roles as experts in the use of techniques while totally surrendering the question of what those technical skills will be used for to the expertise of those above them in the bureaucratic hierarchy. It is no accident that the two cultures that drew the world into the cataclysm of World War II, Germany and Japan, were militaristic cultures, cultures that prized and valued the militaristic ideal of the unquestioningly obedient warrior. In these nations, the state and bureaucratic order became one and the same. As Lewis Mumford has argued, the army as an invention of urban civilization is a near-perfect social embodiment of the ideal of the machine. 37 The army brings mechanical order to near perfection in its bureaucratic structure, where human beings are stripped of their freedom to choose and question and where each individual soldier becomes an automaton carrying out orders always "from higher up" with unquestioning obedience.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this is backwards, honestly. It seems like self transcendence would be the reason that we should care about society, so self transcendence would be the ultimate value here. Self transcendence is arguably the mechanism necessary to achieve societal welfare though, so maybe I'm wrong here.

 

c1 is pretty weak and doesn't connect to societal welfare or transcendence.

c3 seems more like resolutional analysis to me.

I had a hard time deciding what to use as a value and what to use as a criterion. I think that the message is about the same both ways.

 

C1: I'm working on replacing

 

C3: I agree, but in my circuit (which I am new too) resolutional analysis are not used, so I thought that this would perhaps be the best place to make that point. I will reword the tagline thought.

 

Thanks for the help! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's the card. If anyone wants the Selznick cards feel free to PM me.

Wow, I really went the hard way on this one (read: I transcribed McGough's NC from the video). It was awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How'd you find the Google Book preview? I was desperate to find something better than replaying each twenty second interval five times to get everything perfectly, so I did eventually find it by googling the clear parts of what I transcribed until I found the publication.

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...