Transcript Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Justice
Social Contract
Categorical Imperative
Utilitarianism
FIRST:
Make sure you clearly understand
AND DEFINE your terms!!!
January/February 2013
Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued
above retribution in the United States criminal
justice system.
Definitions can be tricky!!!
Freedom: What does it mean?
• Freedom: Self-Determination; the ability of an
agent to act or not act according to ones
preferences
• Plato’s Freedom: Obeying reason rather than
being a servant to passions; the subordination
of man’s will to reason
Causation versus Correlation
(common mistakes)
• Causation:
– The act or process of CAUSING something to
happen: No cause, no effect
• Correlation:
– A mutual relationship or connection between two
or more things
Does cheaper gas CAUSE more car fatalities?
NEXT:
• Decide upon your value
– You may need to do this as part of term
definition
– Sometimes HOW you define a term
depends upon your chosen Value
• Decide upon your Value Criterion
– Again, make sure you understand and
define your terms!!!
Value & Criterion
• Value
– A value is an idea that a debater argues is paramount.
– The contentions in an Lincoln-Douglas case uphold
the value.
– Generally, the debater will present philosophical
background to support and explain their value.
• Criterion:
– A criterion is a necessary or sufficient standard by
which to measure the competing values.
– It is a conceptual tool used to decide which value
should be upheld.
Common Values/Criterions
• Justice*
• Social Contract*
• Categorical Imperative*
– Deontology
• Utilitarianism*
• Equality
http://debate-central.ncpa.org/common-ld-values/
Justice
• Fairness
– Rules Fair? Results Fair?
•
•
•
•
Equitableness
Correct Treatment
Embodiment of the virtues of a society
Harmony between ones rights and the
rights of others
Social Contract
• In the beginning…
• Man lived in a state of nature with no
government or law to regulate them
• Due to hardships & oppression, agreements
arose
– Agree to respect each other & live in peace
– Agree to obey an authority, thus surrendering wholly,
or in part, freedom (Government’s job is to guarantee
everyone’s life, property and some liberties)
Thomas Hobbes’ Social Contract:
• In state of nature life was filled with fear
and selfishness (Chaos)
• People desired security and order, thus
Man entered into a ‘contract’ with some
authority
– Rights and freedoms surrendered
• Ruler will be absolute head
• Ruler has obligations to preserve order
John Locke’s Social Contract:
• State of Nature is different than Hobbes
– Reasonable and good life (a Golden Age?)
– Problem: property not secure
• People possessed all the liberties Nature could give
• Property is the key to Locke’s idea
– Private Property is when one mixes labor with raw
materials of nature
– Locke believed people should not take more than their
fair share because nature is given to Man for common
subsistence (use)
• Private Property not secure in state of nature because:
– No Law
– No Impartial Judge to oversee disagreements
– No power to execute the natural laws
• Thus, a Social Contract is agreed upon to secure
Private Property
• People surrender only some of their power/freedoms
• Purpose of power is to preserve order & enforce
Natural Laws
• Individuals retain various rights for themselves
– Life, Liberty, health, property
– “Right” to rebel
Rousseau’s Social Contract:
• State of Nature was happy & there was equality
among Men
• As populations increased change occurred
– People living closer together
– Division of labor introduced
– Inventions gave rise to leisure time
– Invented private property
• As a result of the above, public values emerged
– Shame, Envy, Greed, Pride, Competition, Vanity,
Inequality, etc
• Thus Man fell from grace (so to speak)
• Social Contract manifests, according to
Rousseau, in the form of the “General Will”
– General Will is the state that is formed to guarantee
rights, liberties, freedoms, and equality
– Embodied the will of the majority of citizens to
which blind obedience is given
– Each individual is subject to this General Will rather
than any other individual
• To obey the General Will is to obey oneself
MORALITY
You know that Christina wants to kill your friend
Mariah, who you have just left sitting at a table.
Christina comes up to you and asks you where
Mariah is. If you tell her the truth, Christina will
find Mariah and kill her. If you lie and tell her
that you saw Mariah leaving five minutes ago,
Christina will be thrown off the scent, allowing
Mariah to get away. What should you do? Tell
the truth… or lie?
Categorical Imperative (Kant)
• An action is morally permissible only if it
accords with a rule that you can consistently
and universally apply to yourself and others
• Consequences do not matter
• Morality is an end, not a means
• A moral law is unconditional or absolute for all
agents, the validity or claim of which does not
depend on any ulterior motive or end
• Lying is immoral… why?
• If everyone lied all the time, no one would
believe anyone, thus lying is self defeating
• Thus, truth-telling is the moral right rather
than lying
• Moral right must be followed regardless of
consequences
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a
means, but always at the same time as an end.”
An airliner carrying 120 passengers is hurtling
out of control towards a densely populated area.
There is no time to evacuate the area and the
impact of the plane is certain to kill thousands.
The only possible move is to shoot down the
plane. Should you do it?
Utilitarianism (Bentham & JSMill)
• Theory based on Consequentialism
• Right and wrong are based upon the extent in
which they increase or decrease human wellbeing or ‘utility’
• “Greatest happiness for the greatest number”
You are a doctor at a top hospital. You have six gravely
ill patients, five of whom are in urgent need of organ
transplants. You can’t help them, though, because
there are no available organs that can be used to save
their lives. The sixth patient, however, will die without
a particular medicine. If s/he dies, you will be able to
save the other five patients by using the organs of
patient 6, who is an organ donor. What do you do?
September/October 2008
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent
person to save the lives of more innocent people.
You are an eyewitness to a crime: A man has
robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money
for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that
can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its
children. You know who committed the crime. If
you go to the authorities with the information,
there’s a good chance the money will be returned
to the bank, leaving a lot of kids in need. What do
you do?
2012 National Speech & Debate Tournament
Resolved: A government has the obligation to lessen the
economic gap between its rich and poor citizens.
Other ‘Fun’ past LD Topics
•
2013 National Speech & Debate Tournament – Resolved:
Oppressive government is more desirable
than no government.
• March/April 2012- Resolved: Targeted killing is a
morally permissible foreign policy tool.
• March/April 2009- Resolved: Vigilantism is justified
when the government has failed to enforce
the law.