1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Permissibility and Presumption"
Permissibility and Presumption (view source)
Revision as of 20:40, 18 January 2022
, 20:40, 18 January 2022→Description
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== Permissibility == | == Permissibility == | ||
=== Description === | === Description === | ||
Permissibility is a common argument in [[philosophy]] debates. The central claim of permissibility arguments is that there is a moral 'middle ground' between an action being obligatory and prohibited. Permissibility occurs when a moral agent can choose whether or not to do an action and retain their moral status regardless of their choice. Essentially, permissibility is what you ''can'' do as opposed to what you must or cannot. If the framework being used to evaluate the round is unable to deem an action (i.e. the resolution) moral or immoral, it is said that permissibility is triggered, since the actor in the resolution could justifiably choose to take the action or not take the action and not be in the moral wrong. | Permissibility is a common argument in [[philosophy]] debates. The central claim of permissibility arguments is that there is a moral 'middle ground' between an action being obligatory and prohibited. Permissibility occurs when a moral agent can choose whether or not to do an action and retain their moral status regardless of their choice. Essentially, permissibility is what you ''can'' do as opposed to what you must or cannot. If the framework being used to evaluate the round is unable to deem an action (i.e. the resolution) moral or immoral, it is said that permissibility is [[Permissibility Triggers|triggered]], since the actor in the resolution could justifiably choose to take the action or not take the action and not be in the moral wrong. | ||
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. | ||
| 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. | |||