Jump to content

lasers :D

Member
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Okay

About lasers :D

  • Rank
    Varsity
  1. Can someone explain to me what this card means? Morality must be universalizable in order to be a guide for action. Engstrom 1[1] Thus a principle of reason, being itself a cognition, is universally valid [if] in two respects: in addition to being valid of every object falling under its subject concept, it’s valid for every subject capable of rational cognition. This double universal validity is characteristic of principles of both theoretical and practical knowledge. 3. In the case of practical cognition, however, these two sorts of universality are identical in respect of their extension. For unlike theoretical cognition, which is of independently existing objects distinct from the cognizing subject and given to it from elsewhere by means of the senses, practical cognition, as practical, works to bring its object into existence, or to make it actual, and therefore is essentially efficacious, indeed self-consciously so, hence always knowledge subjects have that they themselves, as practically cognizing subjects, should act in a certain way, and so always cognition of the very subjects who have such cognition.8 Therefore in the case of a principle of practical cognition the two sorts of universal validity necessarily coincide in the sense that the principle is valid for the very subjects of which it’s valid: the principle applies to the will of every practically cognizing rational being, and every such being can recognize this universal applicability. This is as much as to say that a principle of practical cognition is necessarily such that every subject can agree to every subject’s acting on it. Now such agreement would actually be achieved if all subjects were jointly to legislate this principle for themselves. Kant thus gives expression to this necessary feature of all principles of practical knowledge by speaking, in the Critique of Practical Reason, of “the mere form of a universal legislationâ€, the form that distinctively characterizes practical, as opposed to theoretical, laws (KpV 27). Such universal legislation must therefore be possible if, for example, the shopkeeper’s practical judgment that where there is much trade one should keep a fixed general price for everyone [is] can rightly be said to be practical knowledge. [1] Engstrom, Stephen. Universal Law as the Form of Practical Knowledge. Harvard University Press. 2009.
  2. Yea, probably mostly because i don't really understand how that would function at all in round. If you care to explain how it would have an actual affect in round I could maybe try again.
  3. Let's see you try to justify that in your short speech
  4. So for the UHC topic I'm writing an abortions affirmative and a lot of the literature is talking about a woman's right to chose to have an abortion and ontology. So I get the link, but why exactly does ontology come first in the round. Oh This is the card that I read that says it. : Ontology precedes ethics—ontological interrogations PRECEDE the Affirmative’s political and technocratic call for action Dillon 99 (Michael, professor of International Relations at the University of Lancaster, Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, p. 97-8) As Heidegger--himself an especially revealing figure of the deep and mutual implication of the philosophical and the political--never tired of pointing out, the relevance of ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and inescapable. For one cannot say anything about anything that is, without always already having made assumptions about the is as such. Any mode of thought, in short, always already carries an ontology sequestered within it. What this ontological turn does to other--regional--modes of thought is to challenge the ontology within which they operate. The implications of that review reverberate throughout the entire mode of thought, demanding a reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has demanded of philosophy. With ontology at issue, the entire foundations or underpinnings of any mode of thought are rendered problematic. This applies as much to any modern discipline of thought as it does to the question of modernity as such, with the exception, it seems, of science, which, having long ago giving up the ontological questioning of when it called itself natural philosophy, appears now, in its industrialized and corporatized form, to be invulnerable to ontological perturbation. With its foundations at issue, the very authority of a mode of thought and the ways in which it characterizes the critical issues of freedom and judgment (of what kind of universe human beings inhabit, how they inhabit it, and what counts as reliable knowledge for them in it) is also put in question. The very ways in which Nietzsche, Heidegger, and other continental philosophers challenged Western ontology, simultaneously, therefore reposed the fundamental and inescapable difficulty, or aporia, for human being of decision and judgment. In other words, whatever ontology you subscribe to, knowingly or unknowingly, as a human being you still have to act. Whether or not you know or acknowledge it, the ontology you subscribe to will construe the problem of action for you in one way rather than another. You may think ontology is some arcane question of philosophy, but Nietzsche and Heidegger showed that it intimately shapes not only a way of thinking, but a way of being, a form of life. Decision, a fortiori political decision, in short, is no mere technique. It is instead of a way of being that bears an understanding of Being, and of the fundaments of the human way of being within it. This applies, indeed applies most, to those mocking political slaves to claim only to be technocrats of decision making Can anybody explain this please?
  5. 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?
  6. Okay so I took your advice Chaos and I made a critical torture ac- It basically goes that : Currently Us bases in M.E. involves torture/abuse -> Torture/abuse = the zero point of biopolitical control and dehum -> Bio power= bad and Dehum= Bad and then contention 2- the affirmative explores dark sites of torture and is critical to real world solvency of poltical violence-> Discourse shapes reality. V: morality Criterion: Human Worth - (No using humans as means to ends) Out of the 1 AC i'm winning 3 things 1. a more Kantian version of ethics. 2. Consequentialism 3. Real world impacts. Any thoughts?
  7. What is DnG? Also back onto torture. So I found some pretty nice cards for necropolitics on torture. Would that be a more feasible aff?
  8. I don't see why It wouldn't be very strong. You're gaining a fair amount of offense off of psychological impacts. This being a reoccurring cycle means that you're going to be granted a more "systemic impact." With some callahan cards and the monkeys throwing dart card you could be pretty set to handle most negs with impacts. Another thing is that, it has a simple base with statistics backing up the link it's rather an easy extension, so rather than having to rescue a bunch of parts of it during the 1 AR all you have to do is cover the impact and outweigh. Maybe would it be a good idea to put some psychological effects of torture. I might have a hard time reaching the "PTSD = Worse psych impact ever" argument but maybe adding the psychological effects of tourture we would have a stronger link/impact?
  9. I saw some stuff when I was looking through some backfiles about the psyche. It's tag is "The psyche exists and comes first – it shapes our understanding of the world – everything depends on it. The resolution should only be evaluated on its psychological qualities." I could probably do something with it. Maybe an applied ethics standard and I just impact it with this?
  10. What do you guys think about a PTSD aff? Goes like torture creates PTSD (Both the torturer and torturee)-> That leads cycle of decreasing QoL? And maybe another advantage saying torturing increases terrorism-> That leads to further occupation and some death -> more PTSD. It'd be a cycle of PTSD within a cylce
  11. Full topic is resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grant to citizens.
  12. Well any ideas? I was thinking maybe a full on torture impacts aff and maybe a k neg or even a politics DA. Your ideas? Oh and if you have links to camp files about this topic please post a link to them. Thanks in advance.
  13. Are you looking for people to cut cards with and stuff like that? If you were, I'd be willing too.
×
×
  • Create New...