1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Permissibility and Presumption"
Permissibility and Presumption (view source)
Revision as of 03:45, 18 January 2022
, 03:45, 18 January 2022→Permissibility Affirms
| 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 presumption coherently because arguments that rely on side-bias probably justify why presumption either affirms or negates. 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 ==== | ||
[1] Ought is defined as having sufficient reason because all instances of ought are just indexed to sufficient reason in particular contexts (i.e. moral, legal, logical, etc). That affirms since if every reason is equally invalid, that means any reason is a sufficient reason to justify an action. | |||
[2] Negation by contradiction – Both <math>P</math> and <math>\neg P</math> cannot be true simultaneously, which means proving <math>\neg P</math> is false proves <math>P</math> true, meaning lack of sufficient reason for <math>\neg P</math> justifies <math>P</math>. | |||
[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 ==== | ||
[1] Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two. | |||
[2] Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the status quo since we know what the status quo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent. | |||
[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 == | ||