Jump to content
Chaos

Ld November/december Topic Discussion: Universal Healthcare

Recommended Posts

Could you make the argument that the evaluative term ought means you're picking the best option regardless of whether or not its been (kind of) implemented?

 

That one sounds fine. Neg might use CI: they get Obamacare as a means to suck up your offense, so make sure you've got offense against that position.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to a util vs other meta-ethical theories What do you guys think of framework going like - Happiness is the only intrinsic desire, People have to be alive to be happy- So it is like saying that the only thing which we can all agree is morally good is happiness (at this point people just say happiness is subjective) and you have to be alive to experience happiness. Any thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It assumes that desires relate to moral "ought" statements, which violates many intuitions and wouldn't be justified without warrants supporting it, the assumption alone probably isn't enough. It would be a more subjective mode of morality, and some people think that is bad. It would mean that pedophiles are morally justified, and some people think that is bad. It runs into problems with conflicting internal desires, both in that short term gains can preclude long term gains and in that sometimes desires conflict and there's no clear mechanism to determine which should be preeminent. To take one specific example, it's unclear if the theory means that we should do what actions we want to do right now, or if we should aim for what consequences will make us happiest later, or if we should do what actions we will wish that we had done, or if we should aim for consequences which make things easiest on us in the short term. It can't get beyond egoism, which means it probably can't evaluate the resolution in any meaningful sense. It ignores that sometimes people desire death, and kill themselves, or desire other things to the point where they think those things are worth dying for.

 

These are all potential angles of attack, but they won't necessarily work and some of them probably conflict. Overall, a hedonistic metaethical framework is in my opinion one of the strongest, despite the above issues that you might encounter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might be subject to a lot of turns/responses based on the work of Benetar. Also, Christine Korsgaard would respond quite well to this framework, since she has written about how our subjective values (pleasure/pain) can have normative significance. If you are planning on running this framework I would suggest making it more nuanced to distance yourself from Benetar and to incorporate blocks to Korsgaard within your framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, Christine Korsgaard would respond quite well to this framework, since she has written about how our subjective values (pleasure/pain) can have normative significance.

 

Can you explain in more detail? From the description you give here, it seems more like this aspect of Korsgaard would support that metaethical system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain in more detail? From the description you give here, it seems more like this aspect of Korsgaard would support that metaethical system.

Korsgaard says that the only way we can view pleasure and pain as having normative significance is if we rationally reflect upon them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That one sounds fine. Neg might use CI: they get Obamacare as a means to suck up your offense, so make sure you've got offense against that position.

 

Or can't "ought" be taken as a moral obligation because it is bigger than should making your value morallity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ought is not bigger than should to the best of my knowledge. That just sounds dumb. The words are equivalent except ought sounds fancier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one ac and five disaids for this topics. i was wondering if anyone would be open to a trade or collaborating together?

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...