1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Philosophy"
→Common Frameworks
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Take the example of [[utilitarianism]]. The framework would argue that moral agents are defined by their ability to experience pain or pleasure. Agents relate to the world in that they can inflict pain or pleasure upon other people. Agents, therefore, have a responsibility to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If you are answering utilitarianism, you could argue that agents are defined by something other than their ability to experience pain or pleasure. Or, you might argue that even if agents are defined by that ability, that doesn't mean they have a moral obligation to maximize pleasure or minimize pain for others. | Take the example of [[utilitarianism]]. The framework would argue that moral agents are defined by their ability to experience pain or pleasure. Agents relate to the world in that they can inflict pain or pleasure upon other people. Agents, therefore, have a responsibility to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If you are answering utilitarianism, you could argue that agents are defined by something other than their ability to experience pain or pleasure. Or, you might argue that even if agents are defined by that ability, that doesn't mean they have a moral obligation to maximize pleasure or minimize pain for others. | ||
== Common | == Common Frameworks == | ||
[[Utilitarianism]] is likely the most common framework read in LD. Used as the framework for [[policy]] positions, utilitarian frameworks center around maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. | [[Utilitarianism]] is likely the most common framework read in LD. Used as the framework for [[policy]] positions, utilitarian frameworks center around maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
[[Particularism]] is a position that argues that blanket-statement moral statements are invalid without accounting for the particularity of various scenarios. This almost always negates by proving the resolution is too broad of a statement. | [[Particularism]] is a position that argues that blanket-statement moral statements are invalid without accounting for the particularity of various scenarios. This almost always negates by proving the resolution is too broad of a statement. | ||
[[Pettit]], or non-domination, is another political philosophy that provides an alternative account of freedom and attempts to uphold said account. Non-domination is to be free from the arbitrary-interference of another agent to impede upon one's ends, in contrast to non-interference, which is is to be free only if one's ends are not being actively impeded upon. | [[Pettit]], or non-domination, is another political philosophy that provides an alternative account of freedom and attempts to uphold said account. Non-domination is to be free from the arbitrary-interference of another agent to impede upon one's ends, in contrast to non-interference, which is is to be free only if one's ends are not being actively impeded upon. | ||
== Other Concepts == | == Other Concepts == | ||
[[Presumption and Permissibility#Presumption|Presumption]] determines which way the judge should vote in the absence of any offense in the round. | [[Presumption and Permissibility#Presumption|Presumption]] determines which way the judge should vote in the absence of any offense in the round. | ||