Jump to content
ThatIndianGuy

Need A Card Saying That Humanity Will Advance In Moral Understanding

Recommended Posts

Tittle says it all. Specifically if I could get the section of Derek Parfit's book saying How Human ethics may just be beginning, which is in the concluding chapters, it would be great.

 

However, anything along this same argument would be much appreciated. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://phys.org/news193472479.html

 

Ayala further explains that the capacity for moral behavior is not adaptive in itself, but it is a consequence of a higher intellectual ability that is adaptive, being directly promoted through natural selection due to its ability to improve survival rates (such as by allowing us to construct tools, develop hunting strategies, etc.). Ayala identifies three necessary conditions for moral behavior that could have evolved with intelligence: the ability to anticipate the consequences of our actions, to evaluate such consequences, and to choose accordingly how to act. While overall intellectual capacities evolved gradually, he speculates that the three necessary conditions for moral behavior only came about after crossing an evolutionary threshold, as they require abilities such as the formation of abstract concepts. And only after humans possessed all three abilities could we possess a moral capacity.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news193472479.html#jCp

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick google search yields this.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CF0QFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcircuitdebater.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FTOC%2BR2%2BNC.docx&ei=-TsLUsivNqe-2QWS9YBI&usg=AFQjCNE273qaZCLG2th99UWNeC4QiOQHxA&sig2=d4upl0dFqj3d6WzQLPaEtw&bvm=bv.50723672,d.aWc

 

Moral uncertainty is high now, but there’s room for improvement. Parfit 84 [1]

Some people believe that there cannot be progress in Ethics, since everything has been already said. Like Rawls and Nagel, I believe the opposite. How many people have made Non-Religious Ethics their life's work? Before the recent past, very few. In most civilizations, most people have believed in the existence of a God, or of several gods. A large minority were in fact Atheists, whatever they pretended. But, before the recent past, very few Atheists made Ethics their life’s work. Buddha may be among this few, as may Confucius, and a few Ancient Greeks and Romans. After more than a thousand years, there were a few more between the Sixteenth and Twentieth centuries. Hume was an atheist who made Ethics part of his life's work. Sidgwick was another. After Sidgwick, there were several atheists who were professional moral philosophers. But most of these did not do Ethics. They did Meta-Ethics. They did not ask which outcomes would be good or bad, or which acts would be right or wrong. They asked, and wrote about, only the meaning of moral language, and the question of objectivity. Non-Religious Ethics has been systematically studied, by many people, only since the 1960s. Compared with the other sciences, Non-Religious Ethics is the youngest and the least advanced.


[1] Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). P. 453.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to express the above concern, I do not find this argument useful both as an argument or answer. What do you intend to say with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to express the above concern, I do not find this argument useful both as an argument or answer. What do you intend to say with it?

This is probably a smart argument to make in conjunction with "live to fight another day" impact calculus. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably a smart argument to make in conjunction with "live to fight another day" impact calculus. 

If you mean the Bostrom card that talks about being able to know morality in the future, the argument is still pretty unpersuasive.  I might be biased, though, since I don't think extinction outweighs under every moral theory.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if he read the part of the article that i posted in a round that he could say that the plan or what ever increases our intelligence which increases morality. an example would be and this is totally just an example if you brought internet to rural mexico it would help to increases intelligence and help them develop better morals. its kind of like the education that you receive at collage most  people come out more liberal and liberal people normally have a more developed system of values to say help the poor or support welfare   

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but any good k team would point out that knowledge is a fragmented object. Becoming intelligent in the context of the aff doesn't mean becoming intelligent in the context of morality. In fact, due to the limited capacity of the brain to record information, there's a slight tradeoff between the aff and morality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if he read the part of the article that i posted in a round that he could say that the plan or what ever increases our intelligence which increases morality. an example would be and this is totally just an example if you brought internet to rural mexico it would help to increases intelligence and help them develop better morals. its kind of like the education that you receive at collage most  people come out more liberal and liberal people normally have a more developed system of values to say help the poor or support welfare   

Also, it doesn't seem to be a morally good or bad outcome for people to know about morality or develop value systems.  You can't aggregate types of beliefs and there doesn't seem to be a system that cares about how many people believe a certain thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ that, morality isn't a single thing, there are different understandings of ethics and since most Ks that you'll encounter this year are actually about Western ethics and the 1AC's understanding ethics, you'll just link harder. Like if status quo thinking is violent, then living another day won't mean we will change that thought. This is probably a really good argument for the neg to make too, because if the K alt is to interrogate the ethics/frame of the 1AC, than the fact that nobody dies because the judge votes either way means the neg is the best advocacy because you are conceding that some level of change needs to occur in status quo thinking and this round is the most probable way to do that.

 

Also, the idea that we can develop Latin America's morality to be up to par with Western ethics through globalization is like the link argument of a large chunk of the Ks this topic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the idea that we can develop Latin America's morality to be up to par with Western ethics through globalization is like the link argument of a large chunk of the Ks this topic.

This is almost exactly the logic of what was called the "white man's burden".  

  • Upvote 1

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...