From Circuit Debater LD
Revision as of 21:29, 10 June 2023 by Minimeng (talk | contribs) (→‎Framework Warrants)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moral particularism is an ethical theory that emphasizes the importance of context and individual circumstances in making moral judgments. Unlike positions such as Kant that support universalism, which seeks to apply fixed moral principles to all situations, particularism recognizes the complexity and uniqueness of each moral dilemma.

Framework Warrants

Syllogism typically begins with the Reader evidence which says that ethics must be understood in their own terms, and that you can't use rules of some sort to explain ethics, because they always carry certain assumptions eg. You can't explain the rules of chess and how the game works outside the terminology of chess.

The evidence is followed by the Griffin card that says our individual circumstances limits our obligations and abilities eg. a rich person might have more of an obligation to donate to poor people compared to other poor people.

Indeterminacy - this is just the rule following paradox, and says you cannot be certain a rule will be applicable in every instance eg. if I gave you 2,4,6, the next number could be 8 or 10 based on different rules, so past application can't help us explain new situations (the rules are adding 2 or the sum of the previous 2 numbers).

Humility - says that universal judgement is epistemic arrogance, and that because humans have limitations, it isn't realistic to assume a universal rule can apply in every situation; basically being dogmatic about specific things is bad for functioning in the world.


The fun thing about particularism is that the offense can be recycled every topic, because all you have to say is that the AC is an absolute principle, and that a universal statement such as the resolution doesn't meet the call for particularism, so auto negate.