Util bad and/or Individual Rights bad cards

[Arsenal 4]

Looking for cards/files that prove util bad or individual rights are bad/unnecessary, or anything against those two.

 

Thanks. 

[BernieSanders 1775]

But why would you lie.... in a debate round? 

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

Step 1: go to open ev

Step 2: look for big impact files

Step 3: scroll to bottom where the impact framing is

Step 4: ???

Step 5: Profit

[S7arf 43]

It would probably be more strategic to positively justify a framework that excludes utilitarian/individual rights offense. For example, check out this Korsgaard aff that is just positively bursting with reasons why util is false (go Ryan!). Obviously developing independent arguments to weigh against util frameworks is key as well, but you can just make those analytically (saves time and since they're just defense anyway, gives you a better time tradeoff).

 

For example:

1. There's an infinite chain of consequences for every action we take, so util can't ever make a definite moral judgment because it's impossible to predict the effects an action has. [triggers presumption--no way to evaluate offense under util]
2. The none-such problem: the pleasure of eating an apple is qualitatively different from that of eating an orange, so we can't compare pleasures under utilitarianism[--and just saying "life is the prerequisite to pleasure" commits the fallacy of origin so that doesn't solve].
3. There's no one agent who can experience ten headaches, so aggregation is nonsensical--even if we can aggregate, it's arbitrary to say ten headaches equals one migraine, so there's no way to compare between harms [xapply "life doesn't solve"].
4. Util commits the is/ought fallacy: even if pleasure is good, there's no link between that and maximization/aggregation/comparison.

etc. etc. etc.

 

N.B.: These short defensive arguments are just leverage to weigh your framework arguments against theirs. You should also preclude on higher levels of the framework debate, like a metaethical claim or theoretical framework justifications (or both). Blocks are never wholly sufficient on their own.

 

How familiar are you with framework debate?

[CapitalismIsNotCool 919]

Yes, because hell with people, human rights don't matter!

 

/s/

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

Yes, because hell with people, human rights don't matter!

 

/s/

You're right, only human lefts matter!

[Miro 1470]

You're right, only human lefts matter!

*groan*

[Payton 450]

Just go on OpenEv, search Util, they put Util good/bad/inevitable up every year, IMO util inevitable is a more interesting debate than util good/bad

[S7arf 43]

IMO util inevitable is a more interesting debate than util good/bad

That presupposes foreseen consequences are relevant to your ethical judgments. Or it's just descriptive. Or it begs the question. Or something like that.

Edited October 13, 2014 by IxionsWheel

[Payton 450]

That presupposes foreseen consequences are relevant to your ethical judgments. Or it's just descriptive. Or it begs the question. Or something like that.

 

I don't defend it, just saying it's more interesting.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Payton

[Snarf 3598]

You're left, only human lefts matter!

Fixed

[Snarf 3598]

Just go on OpenEv, search Util, they put Util good/bad/inevitable up every year, IMO util inevitable is a more interesting debate than util good/bad

I've never understood "util inevitable". Util is a moral perspective among dozens of moral perspectives; what stops anyone from acting under a different moral perspective?