1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Permissibility and Presumption"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Permissibility and Presumption (view source)
Revision as of 03:51, 18 January 2022
, 03:51, 18 January 2022→Presumption vs Permissibility
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
[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 == | ||
Presumption and permissibility may seem similar, but they are distinct concepts. | |||
Presumption is ''only'' relevant when there is no contention-level offense left in the round. Permissibility, in contrast, is relevant whenever the framework being used to evaluate the round fails to derive moral obligations or prohibitions, which could easily take place when there is still contention-level offense in the round. | |||
Presumption is an argument that concerns the contention-level offense, whereas permissibility is an argument that concerns the framework-level of the debate. | |||