Презентация на тему: PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLES
Non-consequentialism in debates
Where do principles come from?
Find your principle
Common principles
So, how do I make it into an argument?
THBT the world’s poor would be justified in pursuing complete Marxist revolution
This house believes that the US should issue guest worker visas, under which minimum wage laws would not apply.
So, how do I argue against a principle?
THW ban all procedures to alter one’s racial appearance
When do we limit them?
Rights in conflict
Let’s try!
THW allow judges to significantly exceed normal sentencing guidelines in areas of high crime - GOV
Some final notes on principles
woo congrats!
1/16
Средняя оценка: 4.5/5 (всего оценок: 57)
Код скопирован в буфер обмена
Скачать (3426 Кб)
1

Первый слайд презентации: PRINCIPLES

Those elusive, mysterious creatures

Изображение слайда
1/1
2

Слайд 2: Non-consequentialism in debates

Everyone is awful at it. EVERYONE “Our principle is that we wanna do whatever is best for more people” is not a principle Education is something we like =/= it is a right

Изображение слайда
1/1
3

Слайд 3: Where do principles come from?

Изображение слайда
Изображение для работы со слайдом
1/2
4

Слайд 4: Find your principle

Based on unchangeable ‘morals’ of society Fairness, freedom, rights…. IDENTIFY IT Create a black secessionist state in the USA Using human shields in asymmetrical wars Making CEOs legally liable for things their company does Allowing people to undergo cosmetic plastic surgery THBT desecration of religious sites is a legitimate tactic of warfare  Reparations  Just war  Responsibility (fairness)  Choice  Human dignity

Изображение слайда
1/1
5

Слайд 5: Common principles

Reparations Create a black secessionist state in the USA THW pay reparations to women Responsibility THW allow individuals to sue individual Facebook executives for the misuse of their data by Cambridge Analytica THBT Minority parents should encourage their children to aspire to the "model minority" image instead of combatting existing stereotypes attached to the community In secular states, THBT self-identified supporters of the LGBT movement have a moral duty to abstain from marriage until gay marriage is legalised THW allow companies to include a clause in their employment contracts for women where that woman legally agrees not to get pregnant Just war THBT causing deliberate harms to enemy civilians is a legitimate tactic for the weaker side to employ in asymmetrical warfare THBT the USA should declare cyber war against Russia THBT desecration of religious sites is a legitimate tactic of warfare Bodily autonomy THW ban cosmetic plastic surgery THW legalise the sale of human organs Democracy THBT former human rights activists under dictatorial regimes should not seek elected office (e.g. MP) after the transition to democracy This house believes that the US should issue guest worker visas, under which minimum wage laws would not apply Liberties vs. security (or human dignity) THW allow the use of torture THW prioritise intelligence gathering over the right to privacy / motion supporting increased surveillance Pillars of justice (retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, reparations/victims’ justice) THW allow judges to significantly exceed normal sentencing guidelines in areas of high crime This house believes that criminal justice systems should never incorporate retribution as an aim in determining criminal punishments THW allow prisoners to volunteer for drug trials in exchange for lighter sentences

Изображение слайда
1/1
6

Слайд 6: So, how do I make it into an argument?

Right that you are defending Analogy / intuition pump When do we enshrine this right in society? Explain how it is the same / why it happens in both Why is this principle / argument important? So, how do I make it into an argument? GOV: THBT football clubs should be held responsible for the actions of their fans Responsibility It is their responsibility, so it is fair to hold them responsible. When do we hold people responsible? Were the cause of harm – selling cheap alcohol causes brawls Failed in their job – clubs have a job to keep people in their premises safe, which includes safe from abuse Were benefitting from it – Glasgow Rangers benefit from rivalry with Celtics Justice should happen regardless of outcomes – we put people in jail not just because it “stops crime” but also because it is fair

Изображение слайда
1/1
7

Слайд 7: THBT the world’s poor would be justified in pursuing complete Marxist revolution

YES, JUSTIFIED Rich’s capital is acquired unjustly therefore the poor should take it back – Principle he’s defending We do this for theft and negligence – analogy, why it is the same It is theft because it was acquired through colonialism and slavery, It is negligence because we created laws that inadvertedly denied the poor the ability to climb the social ladder Principled argument not reliant on practice, it is important because compensation to the poor is insufficient, in principle they need the wealth back – make the principle explicit, why we care about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys0Sgicnjz4#t=05m27s

Изображение слайда
Изображение для работы со слайдом
1/2
8

Слайд 8: This house believes that the US should issue guest worker visas, under which minimum wage laws would not apply

VIOLATES DEMOCRACY AND THEREFORE ILLEGITIMATE – Principle he’s defending Main divide in USA election was whether USA economy should be open (Clinton) or closed (Trump) – closed won. This is not a utilitarian metric - if it were, then the USA government should take 100% taxation and send money to feed starving people, but it does not – analogy, why it happens In a democracy public are sovereign and can decide what to do because no “absolute truth” So if you choose to prioritise own values over capacity to have greater GDP then it is illegitimate to force them to do otherwise Note how he makes the non-utilitarian metric explicit through the argument https://youtu.be/01S6OUfDYOM?t=38m32s

Изображение слайда
Изображение для работы со слайдом
1/2
9

Слайд 9: So, how do I argue against a principle?

2 ways: Argue directly with the logic of the principle, how “yes this is a principle, but in these circumstances it DOES NOT APPLY” Rights in conflict – weigh it!

Изображение слайда
1/1
10

Слайд 10: THW ban all procedures to alter one’s racial appearance

NO, NOT JUSTIFIED We only limit people’s choices for the sake of “community benefit” under some circumstances and this is not it. – why this doesn’t apply to the principle When your personal choice limits other people’s choices – analogy, why it is not the same Not ok to yell FIRE because then I stop people from escaping Me changing my appearance may influence people, but it does not limit people’s choices – can still choose whatever they want We are respecting people’s choice, in this situation we are not justified in limiting choice – principle why it is important https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZmwpvTerxM#t=09m04s ARGUE WITH LOGIC

Изображение слайда
Изображение для работы со слайдом
1/2
11

Слайд 11: When do we limit them?

When it is useful When it is beneficial to the protection of the state NEVER, they are inalienable But most commonly… Consent JS Mill’s Harm Principle Freedom until it causes harm How direct the causation? What about communitarian harms Under *right specific* circumstances

Изображение слайда
1/1
12

Слайд 12: Rights in conflict

Often you end up having to do analysis on why X right is more important than Y right Preferencing LIFE by hierarchy LIFE BODILY AUTONOMY THE REST Preferencing utility – which may NOT be life Preferencing one principle over another! THW legalise the sale of human organs Prop argues bodily autonomy and maximizing choice Opp argues (on principle level) inability to consent and uniqueness of human organs as an extension of yourself and therefore not for sale WEIGHING: there are always going to be people who can and cannot consent, and people who agree that organs are somehow magic and special and people who see it as just equivalent to selling hair – the important thing is that the state is not allowed to make that decision for you - same as abortion, some people might be pro-life and others pro-choice but the state shouldn’t unilaterally decide for you, but rather allow people to make a choice. When you do that, you can also implement measures to try and ensure consent, and respect people’s choice to enshrine organs as special or to use their bodily autonomy and sell them, which is WHY we value choice over all.

Изображение слайда
1/1
13

Слайд 13: Let’s try!

This house believes that criminal justice systems should never incorporate retribution as an aim in determining criminal punishments THW allow companies to include a clause in their employment contracts for women where that woman legally agrees not to get pregnant

Изображение слайда
1/1
14

Слайд 14: THW allow judges to significantly exceed normal sentencing guidelines in areas of high crime - GOV

Right that you are defending: Coherent with principle of justice, specifically retribution or “punishment that fits the crime’ Analogy / intuition pump A crime against a minority for them being a minority is classed as a hate crime and punished harsher than the same crime without that incentive 1) partly because it HURTS that minority more, and 2) because it affects the wider community – it is a crime against the WHOLE identity group, not just one person Explain how it is the same / why it happens in both 1) When you commit a crime in a high-crime community, it hurts people there more as they are poorer and also more vulnerable to everyday crime 2) it is also a crime against the whole community, as harm propagates in a broken windows’ style Why is this principle / argument important? The justice system does not just seek to ‘ maximise outcome’, else we would just lock everyone up in jail forever, we also seek to do things in a way that is fair – that is why we have trials, and punishment that fits crime is fairness.

Изображение слайда
1/1
15

Слайд 15: Some final notes on principles

Deploying them in debates You still need practicalities or you won’t win Useful to ‘edge’ over opening, but won’t take the debate probably  Rhetoric in debates! Principles are rhetorical, and it is incredibly useful to make the judge ‘feel’ them

Изображение слайда
1/1
16

Последний слайд презентации: PRINCIPLES: woo congrats!

hopefully you are no longer terrible at principles

Изображение слайда
1/1