1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Permissibility and Presumption"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Permissibility and Presumption (view source)
Revision as of 03:47, 18 January 2022
, 03:47, 18 January 2022→Description
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Debaters often argue that permissibility either affirms or negates. If permissibility affirms, that means that agents should take action if the framework is unable to generate moral obligations or prohibitions. If permissibility negates, that means agents should not take action if the framework is unable to generate moral obligations or prohibitions. | Debaters often argue that permissibility either affirms or negates. If permissibility affirms, that means that agents should take action if the framework is unable to generate moral obligations or prohibitions. If permissibility negates, that means agents should not take action if the framework is unable to generate moral obligations or prohibitions. | ||
It is often much easier to win that permissibility negates, substantively, if the resolution is an "ought" statement, since proving the truth of the resolution would require proving that the actor ought to take the action. It is also harder to justify theoretical warrants for | It is often much easier to win that permissibility negates, substantively, if the resolution is an "ought" statement, since proving the truth of the resolution would require proving that the actor ought to take the action. It is also harder to justify theoretical warrants for permissibility coherently because arguments that rely on side-bias probably justify why presumption either affirms or negates. Instead, you would have to articulate why the fact that one side gets access to permissibility triggers more easily means they should not get access to permissibility itself flowing to that side, but this could be difficult and confusing. As such, it is common for the negative to run strategies that trigger permissibility since it is much easier for them to win. | ||
=== Permissibility Affirms === | === Permissibility Affirms === | ||
==== Substantive ==== | ==== Substantive ==== | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
[3] Freezes action – requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like ‘I ought to drink water’ which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. | [3] Freezes action – requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like ‘I ought to drink water’ which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. | ||
=== Permissibility Negates === | === Permissibility Negates === | ||
==== Substantive ==== | ==== Substantive ==== | ||
| Line 42: | Line 41: | ||
[3] Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about <math>P</math> one would have to presume that both the <math>P</math> and <math>\neg P</math> are true. | [3] Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about <math>P</math> one would have to presume that both the <math>P</math> and <math>\neg P</math> are true. | ||
== Presumption vs Permissibility == | == Presumption vs Permissibility == | ||