Introduction to the Philosophers

Philosophers deal with the most fundamental questions of life. “What is the nature of good and evil,” they ask, “or the nature of humankind?” “What is the nature of truth, or the nature of morality?” Different philosophers answer these questions differently. Some, like Locke, approach them from the standpoint of an optimistic assessment of human nature, while others, like Hobbes, are more pessimistic. Some philosophers, like Rousseau and Rawls, affirm the egalitarian principle that all people are fundamentally equal and, thus, should receive equal treatment, while others, like Plato, reject the notion of equality altogether. Of course, the general point of view taken by a philosopher will determine that philosopher’s position on any number of values. Thus, if you want to find support for or opposition to any given value, the best place to look is philosophy, since the wide variety of answers to these fundamental questions provides support for virtually every value.

Philosophers set with a pessimistic view of human nature are likely to respond negatively to such values as liberty, privacy, equality, and individualism. Philosophers with an optimistic view of human nature are likely to take the opposite point of view. Philosophers who see human nature differently are likely to reflect different views of the Social Contract. Locke, whose view of human nature is optimistic, sees the Social Contract as an agreement that maximizes individual freedom. Hobbes, whose view of human nature is pessimistic, sees the Social Contract as necessary to regulate individual conduct.

The way philosophers view human nature will have a lot to do with the values they prize. For instance, Santana primarily affirms the value of the aesthetic because according to his view of human nature, beauty is the essence of what is human. Philosophers like Kant and Rousseau place a high value on knowledge and self-actualization, because they view human beings as being primarily rational and capable of improvement. Likewise, while most philosophers have a concept of justice, that concept is determined to a large extent by their view of the essential nature of human beings and/or the world. The traditional American view of justice, informed as it is by Jefferson and Locke, sees justice as stemming from maximization of the individual. More leftist and socialist societies tend to reject the philosophy of individualism found in Locke and Jefferson. They reject any theory of justice based on protection of individual power at the expense of community. These philosophers, including Marx and to some extent Rousseau, view the human condition as one of equality. These philosophers view societies that emphasize individualism as unjust because they allow the physically, mentally, or economically strong to oppress the weak, thus violating the value of equality, which is their essential ingredient for justice.

In looking at these philosophers, you must understand that they are human beings responding to events in their own time. One of the reasons why, for example, Plato hates democracy is that he is responding to the abuses of Sophists. Locke and Rousseau oppose government power over the individual because at the time in which they lived the pendulum of history had swung in the direction of excessive government power over the individual. Their writings were a response to the evils they saw in expansive government power. The reason why it is important to place philosophers in a historical context is that while they are addressing fundamental issues, they are doing so in the context of current events.

Philosophers will offer support for a variety of values that you can use as standards or criteria for evaluation. You will be helped in your reading of philosophers if you understand each of them as being a participant in a great societal debate spanning all of human history. These philosophers, in their time, attacked the philosophers that had come before them and provided a new path. The issues we confront today in Lincoln Douglas debate are essentially founded on the same issues that have perplexed human beings throughout the ages. Thus, your arguments will be informed by these great philosophers who have been, in essence, the Lincoln Douglas debaters of yesteryear.

Deontology vs. Consequentialism

A moral theory tells you what you should do (what is right, what is good, or what you ought to do). This is an independent question from the question of what people will do or what they are likely to do. So long as what you claim should be done is possible, it is irrelevant to the moral question whether it is actually likely to be done. When we speak of something being “good” or “right,” we mean “all things considered.” For example, it is obviously good (objectively) that we defeated Hitler, but it was not good for Hitler. Something being “good” or “right” objectively is a matter of its being good for everyone (considered as a whole, not considered one by one.)

There are two ways in which you can justify a value as being the appropriate value criterion by which to judge the resolution. You can defend a value based on its ultimate worth or the consequences it produces. The ultimate worth (deontology) standard states that a value or action is good or bad in and of itself. The value is of intrinsic worth. We can determine its worth by examining the value on its face. Its worth is independent of the consequences it produces. The effects or consequences standard states that no value or action is good in and of itself. Everything should be based on the effects or consequences it produces. If a value produces desirable consequences, it is good. If it produces undesirable consequences, it is bad.

There are three ways in which the ultimate worth of something can be realized. First, some philosophers argue that all people know the rightness or wrongness of doing something by intuition. The most respected of the intuitionists is Kant. Kant argues that each individual, through his or her soul and conscience, knows right from wrong. It matters not how intelligent the person is. It is the sense of moral duty inherent in all of us which dictates how we evaluate things. Secondly, we can determine the intrinsic value of something by determining whether it is part of the natural law. The conditions of humanity which inhere in the state of nature are said to be guaranteed by natural law. Natural law principles are intrinsically valuable because they are the only principles which were present prior to the establishment of social order. Locke identifies the natural rights of humans as life, liberty, and property. Other philosophers view equality as embodies in the natural law, since in the state of nature, all people are equal, no person being superior to another. Finally, we can determine intrinsic worth through the process of reason. Rousseau and Rawls reject the notion of natural law, claiming instead that humans can, through rational thought and debate, ascertain the basic principles of justice binding on society. They agree that life and liberty are intrinsically valuable, but only because it makes sense that humans would place value in these principles.

You can attack the ultimate worth standard by indicting each of the three methods by which it is delivered. First, the process of intuition and reason cannot uncover universal principles of right and wrong. People have different values and different moral beliefs. As such, people disagree as to what is just and unjust. The process of reason is equally reliable. How can humans reason to moral principles? By definition, reason involves the objective testing of conclusions. It is impossible to objectively test someone’s conclusions about morality. There is no common frame of reference for what types of values and actions are moral. Morality is an inherently subjective concept. It is impossible to test conclusions about such a subjective and ambiguous principle. Attempting to reason value conclusions, then, is no different than the process of intuition. Humans will “reason” to very difference conclusions about the worth of values. Their conclusions cannot be scientifically judged.

Finally, the natural law principle is flawed. There is much disagreement over what principles can be drawn from the state of nature. Hobbes argues that the state of nature is chaotic and violent. Humans live only for self-preservation. Rousseau argues that intellectual thought is non-existent in the state of nature. People live only to satisfy their instinctive wants and needs. It is difficult to see life, liberty, and property as the natural conditions of humans. Further, there is no reason to believe that we should strive to retain natural law principles. The reason people established governments in the first place was to escape the state of nature. Why should we seek to emulate the conditions of an era which humans actively sought to overcome.

The consequences standard (consequentialism) states that the worth of a value can be determined only by its effects or consequences. No value is good in and of itself. And humans can never secure agreement on which principles are worthy or more worthy than others. The best method to evaluate something is to determine whether the effects is produces are desirable or undesirable. In America, we value majority rule. We value majority rule, not because of anything innately desirable about it, but because it is the system of government most likely to produce freedom and equality.

The effects or consequences standard is most often associated with utilitarian philosophers. Utilitarian philosophy states that an action is just if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Bentham and Mill argue that a worthy principle or act is one which produces the most happiness (or pleasure) for the most number of people. There are not absolute principles of right and wrong. Right and wrong is determined by how much pleasure is received by how many people.

The major criticism of utilitarianism is that it treats all values as equals. Since, by definition, utilitarians reject any notion of intrinsic worth, they are forced to view all pleasure as equally valuable, regardless of how it is achieved. Seemingly immoral actions are just as long as they produce more pleasure than misery. Pleasure derived from helping a person in need is of no greater value than pleasure derived from reading a dirty book. Utilitarianism also treats each person in the same manner. No one person is viewed as more needy or more worthy of support

than any other. Essentially, each person is no more than a variable in a mathematical calculation of pain and pleasure.

THEORIES OF RIGHTS

There is a lot of talk about “rights” in Lincoln Douglas debate. It is important that you understand what you mean when you use the word “right.” Also, demand that your opponents make clear what they mean by the word. A right is a kind of claim that you are entitled to something. Here are the major distinctions that you need to understand when talking about rights.

Natural Rights vs. Societal Rights

Natural rights are rights that all people have just because they are people and for no further reason. One can question what the basis of these rights are: Where do they come from? Who determines which rights are natural? You can ask these questions of opponents in cross-ex if they use natural rights in their case. They are hard to answer, and opponents may either seem unsure of themselves or say something that can help you.

Societal rights are rights that a person possesses due to membership in a particular society, and they only apply to people in that society. One can ask why we should care what the particular societal rights are. After all, a society can be really screwed up about how it gives out rights, like allowing slavery or not giving right to women. Societal rights don’t seem to tell us what we should do morally.

Moral Rights vs. Legal Rights

Moral rights are defined as claims which ought, morally, to be respected. These rights give us reason to respect their claims because it follows logically from the concept of a moral right that it should be fulfilled. Similar problems apply to this as to natural rights: How do we determine who has what moral rights? What evidence is there that moral rights exist? The difference between moral rights and natural rights is that moral rights don’t necessarily come form nature. Someone, like Mill, can argue that there are no natural rights, but still maintain that there are moral rights.

Legal rights can give us a reason to respect their claims, but not necessarily. There always remains the question of whether the law which provides this right is a good (moral) law. If the law is not morally good, then there seems no reason to respect the legal rights it creates. For example, there seemed to be no good reason to respect some of the legal rights of the whites in South Africa before the end of apartheid. Legal rights are always societal rights, but societal rights are not necessarily legal rights.

Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights

Negative rights are claims that other people not interfere with you: the right not to have your money stolen, or the right not to be beaten to a pulp. Everyone can have a lot of negative rights without anyone’s rights are really good to have. Negative rights are also more fundamental to the proper functioning of a society than positive rights, and therefore, they are often thought to be more important and more valuable.

Positive rights are claims that other people must help you in some way: the right to health care, or the right to a minimum standard of living. Positive rights tend to conflict with other people’s negative rights as well as their positive rights. For example, a Native Alaskan’s right to health care might conflict with the rights of a doctor who has no desire to live in Alaska, or my right to a welfare check might conflict with your negative right not to have your money taken from you. Positive rights are thought by some to be a bad thing. Even those who think that there should be positive rights disagree on which ones there should be. There seems to be no obvious standard by which to choose which ones to have.

Relation between Rights and Duties Under most interpretations of what rights are, for every right that one person has there must be a corresponding duty of another person or people. For example, my right to a fair trial implies that the judge has a duty to be impartial; or, your right to live implies that I have a duty not to kill you. Rights and duties come in pairs; therefore, if someone claims to have a certain right, then he must be claiming that someone else has a duty as well. It will often help your understanding to think of what duty is implied by a right. For example, it may sound fine for me to say that I have a right to medical care, but if I live in a remote part of Alaska, then this would imply that someone has a duty to come to care for me. If you doubt that anyone has this duty, then you must also doubt that I have such a right. Notice that negative rights are those which imply duties not to do something and are, therefore quite easy to fulfill. Positive rights are those which imply duties to actually do something and are thus more difficult to fulfill. This is why the distinction between positive and negative rights relies on the distinction between action and inaction.

The History of the Social Contract Theory

The first theory that is like a social contract was developed by Socrates, and is conveyed to us in Plato’s Crito. Socrates does not call it a social contract exactly, but the idea is quite clearly similar. The specifics of the view remain fairly obscure in the Crito, but this served as the basis for more comprehensive political theories that were formulated some 2000 years later. The basic idea expressed in the Crito is that it is wrong for a citizen to violate the laws of his state, even if the state has done him an injustice. Socrates chose not to escape his death sentence because of this argument, although escape had been arranged by his friends.

What is the state of nature?

This is a situation where people live without any government or rules over them. It is sometimes thought of as an actual historical situation, as a hypothetical historical situation, or as a potential situation that could come about again if government were to collapse. The purpose of talking about the state of nature is to justify a certain type of government by appealing to what things would be like without government and determining what kind of government totally free people would be willing to agree to (in a social contract.)

What is the social contract?

This is a hypothetical agreement between the people who are in a state of nature. This agreement is supposed to transform people out of a state of nature and into a civil society (i.e., a governed state) by their agreeing to allow an authority to rule over all those who consent to the contract. The basic idea is that no one has any natural authority over another person (in the state of nature), so in order to make an authority legitimate (e. g., a government), people must freely agree to be ruled over by agreeing to a social contract. This would give the government a way to justify its authority because the citizens agreed to give it that authority.

What are some problems with the social contract?

The problem is that the social contract is hypothetical, no one has actually ever made such an explicit agreement. Constitutions, and other such documents, do not count as social contracts because they are not signed or agreed to by the general population. Not only that, but even if people had once made such an agreement, why would their children (not to mention their great great great great grandchildren) be bound by their agreement. There are a couple of responses that those who use the social contract can use:

1. The social contract theory is supposed to work because it is argued that anyone (nowor then) would agree to the social contract if in a state of nature (or if there was a chance of falling back into the state of nature by the government dissolving). Because the people would agree to the social contract, we can treat them as though they actually did agree to it; thus, government has a right to rule over them.

2. An even better response is to claim that people in civil society have tacitly consented (i.e., implicitly agreed) to the social contract. One can argue that by accepting the advantages of living within a civil society, people have agreed to abide by the rules of that society. Society provides education, infrastructure, financial stability, etc. and because everyone in society benefits from these things, everyone tacitly consents to the social contract.

The response to the tacit consent argument is that it is really not applicable. Never has there been any realistic alternative for people. Even if someone were willing to foreswear (e.g. go without) the benefits of civil society (education, roads, police protection, etc.), such a person would likely be unable to do so because there is no way of living as if civil society did not exist. Of course, one could be a hermit or move to Antarctica, but that is not a fair alternative. The agreement to the social contract is supposed to be a choice between a state of nature and civil society, but being a hermit bears little resemblance to being in a state of nature since there are no other people around in Antarctica, but there are in a state of nature. Therefore, no fair alternative to accepting the benefits of society of society exists. Because there is no fair alternative, it is improper to construe my acceptance of the benefits of civil society as my tacitly consenting to a social contract.

The three primary social contract philosophers agree pretty much on what has been said so far. The differences will be covered in the next few sections, and they are not minor differences. Many debaters will base arguments on what they call “the social contract” without specifying to whose version they are referring. The differences are so vast that it is reasonable for you to ask them to specify to which they are referring, or whether they are making up their own (which is likely to be what they are doing, but it won’t sound very good to the judge). Once you have

made them settle on one of the particular theories, you can proceed to attack that specific theory in the ways discussed. If they do not specify which theory they are using, then you can claim that in fact none of the three major social contract theories support your opponent’s conclusion and so claim that your opponent’s “social contract” agreement is not reputable.

John Locke1632-1704

John Locke articulates the view that a Social Contract between people is the basics of a worthwhile world. The Social Contract theory posits that each individual has complete freedom to do whatever he/she wishes to do. The individual, seeing that he/she cannot live successfully without the cooperation of others, voluntarily comes together with other people for the purpose of obtaining his/her objectives. In doing this, the individual gives up some measure of his/her freedom to a government and retains the rest of his/her freedom. Thus, all governments which are just are governments which contain only the authority granted by individuals who contract together to produce that authority. A social contract is an agreement among people of a society to grant a limited amount of power to the government. If the government exceeds the amount of authority voluntarily given by the individuals in the contract, the government violates the terms of the contract, and the exercise of that power is illegitimate because it exceeds the grant of authority originally provided to the government by the contract.

Locke argues that God has established eternal law for men to discover and follow. This law is found in Nature and is discovered by observing human experiences. Based on his observations of man, Locke concludes that the natural rights of man are life, liberty, and property. These rights come from God, not man, and they are intrinsically good. The state of nature is such, however, that man’s natural rights cannot be guaranteed, and thus the necessity of the “Social Contract”, wherein each individual will voluntarily give up some of his/her natural rights to provide security and order necessary to guarantee individual natural rights.

Locke’s analysis of the state of nature is critical to understanding the necessity for the “Social Contract.” The state of nature can be described as men living together according to reason, without a common superior to guide them. All people are equal in that they all possess natural rights, and each individual has the right to do whatever he/she pleases, so long as the natural rights of others are not violated. Unfortunately, people do not always act according to their moral obligations, and thus may commit acts that undermine or violate the rights of others. With no neutral or official power to enforce the laws of nature, people have two choices when rights are violated. First, they can individually punish those who have violated the rights of others. This, Locke concludes, will only produce chaos and war, and the further violation of natural rights. The second choice is to establish a “Social Contract,” or government, which will establish law and punishment necessary to guarantee natural rights for all. Government exists only by the consent of the governed, and is a trustee for its citizens. The laws of government must be the least restrictive possible in order to maximize natural rights. Locke argues that democracy, majority rule, is the best form of government to guarantee individual rights.

You can use the philosophy of John Locke in a variety of ways. First, Locke’s philosophy provides support for a significant number of values. Locke argues that the values of life, liberty,

and property are intrinsically good. They are good in and of themselves, because they come form God. In addition, Locke also supports the values of security, majority rule, individualism, knowledge, and the social contract.

Consider the resolution, “that a just society has a duty to provide for the basic needs of its citizens.” In affirming this resolution you would argue that a just society is determined by the extent that it promotes human life. You would use Locke’s philosophy to argue that Life is intrinsically good and moral. Life is good in and of itself and that duty of any government is to support human life. The basic needs of society are survival needs, and thus a just society (one that preserves human life) will provide for the basic needs of its citizens.

You can use John Locke’s philosophy of the “Social Contract” as a value criterion on a number of political issues. In debating the resolution, “violence is justified to overthrow a repressive government,” the affirmative would use Social Contract theory to claim justification for violence against repressive governments. Argue first that the only power of government comes from the consent of the governed. Individuals give up some of their rights to government for the purpose of establishing order and security. While their consent is voluntarily given, it is given with the expectation that the government will establish the least restrictive legislation to guarantee individual freedom and security. Repressive action on the part of the government is a violation of the Social Contract, and the withdrawal of the consent of the governed is justified. Once the consent to be governed is withdrawn, there is no authority of government, no Social Contract. The overthrow of the government through any means, including violence, is justified.

Consider the resolution, “Laws restricting the use of private land are justified.” In negating this resolution you would want to use Locke’s theory of the Social Contract as the value criterion to determine what laws are justified. The Social Contract is established in order to provide the least restrictive environment of human liberty, and to maximize man’s natural rights. The only justification for law is to prevent actions which infringe on individual rights. To the extent that private use of land does not undermine the natural rights of others, there is no justification for restriction. You would argue that in most instances, the private use of land is not likely to undermine another’s rights.

You would also want to use Locke’s philosophical position to indicate that property is one of the natural rights of man, given by God, and thus intrinsically good in and of itself.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau1712-1778

Rousseau’s theory is often referred to as the philosophy of general will. Rousseau claims that people voluntarily surrender some of their autonomy to the government so that their overall freedom will be maximized. Government exists to serve the general will. Rousseau further argues that only through social order can people truly realize their aspirations.The social order arose out of humans’ dissatisfaction with the state of nature. In the state of nature, humans were completely free. They lived only to satisfy their basic, instinctive needs.

They were little different than the rest of the animals. As humans began to use their capacity for reason and thought, they began to reject their instincts and accept principles of justice instead. Reason enabled humans to see that a better life exists out of the state of nature, a life in which the benefits for all can be maximized. The social order arose out of this realization. It is only through social order that humankind rises above animalistic instinct and into a state of morality. People voluntarily give up their rights to the social order. While the social order denies humans the right to satisfy their savage impulses, it increases the freedom of all humans through protection and cooperative action. The benefits obtained through the social order outweigh the benefits of the state of nature.

At first glance, it appears that Rousseau is merely outlining the social contract, as discussed by other philosophers. The social contract is a contractual agreement among people. In the contractual agreement, all people give up their sovereignty in order to obtain benefits from the government.

Rousseau’s theory differs from traditional notions of the social contract. First, Rousseau does not believe that the social order is the product of a voluntary institution desired by all the people. The social order exists solely to serve the general will of the people. This has two important implications. First, the social order is not part of natural law and, therefore, is not intrinsically valuable. Some philosophers, such as Locke, argue that the social contract is an end in and of itself. It is part of the natural law of humankind. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that there is no natural law. In the state of nature, humans were completely free, driven only by their impulses. Rousseau believes that the social order was established by the process of reason. Humans concluded that a social order was in their best interest. It is voluntarily accepted by all. The social order represents the voice of the people which is the voice of God.

Second, Rousseau does not believe that sovereignty can be taken away from those in command of the social order. Some philosophers argue that the state might abrogate the terms of the social contract by violating the natural rights of its citizens. At that time, the state ceases to be a legitimate political institution. Rousseau rejects the concept of natural rights as well as the concept of social order. The government represents the will of the people. Hence, Rousseau can see no potential for the government to abuse its subjects. Since sovereignty is essential to preserve the community, which in turn is essential to preserve human virtue, Rousseau does not believe the people have the right to revoke the government’s sovereignty. The only way sovereignty can be taken away is for the people to return to the state of nature, which can never be in their best interests.

You can use Rousseau’s philosophy of general will in two ways. First, you can defend Rousseau’s philosophy as the criterion for evaluating resolutions on a variety of political issues. Consider the topic “Resolved: That the individual is of greater value than the society.” In debating the negative, you would argue that Rousseau’s theory of general will should establish the criterion for determining what is of greater value. You would then argue that society represents social order, which in turn embodies the general will of the people. People voluntarily give up their individual freedom to the social order. Ultimately, each individual gains even more freedom when he substitutes social demands for personal inclination. Clearly, under Rousseau’s logic, the individual is subordinate to society.

You can also use Rousseau’s philosophy as an alternative criterion to the social contract. Assume that your opponent defends a particular philosopher’s concept of the social contract as the criterion for the debate. You can argue that Rousseau’s theory of general will is a superior criterion. Consider another resolution “Resolved: That violent overthrow is a just response to authoritarian rule.” The affirmative may defend the resolution using Locke’s social contract as the criterion for determining what is a just response. The affirmative argues that authoritarianism constitutes a government breach of the social contract, since the government is obligated to uphold natural law freedoms. These include basic liberties such as freedom of speech, which are restricted under autocratic rule. You would argue that Rousseau’s theory of general will offers a superior criterion for determining if a response if just. The object of evaluation “violent overthrow” does not meet the criterion. The social order represents the will of the people so even if it is authoritarian in structure, it still acts in the best interests of the people.

Under Rousseau’s theory, every state must retain sovereignty since it is voluntarily accepted, it serves the interests of its people, and it is vital to maintaining social order.

Thomas Hobbes1588-1679

Thomas Hobbes offers a theory which says human life is the only intrinsic or true value and that humans are justified in any action which provides for self-preservation including the destruction of another human life. He proposes a form of social order, the strong sovereign, as the only solution capable of guaranteeing the preservation of human life.Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy is based on the study of human beings in nature and advances the position that life is the essence of being; without life there is nothing. Human life is the only good, the only intrinsic value. Preservation of life is the first priority of humankind.

The second priority of humankind is happiness and the avoidance of pain. In nature, each human being is equal and free to follow any course of action he/she deems appropriate for preservation and satisfaction.

The happiness or survival of one individual is likely to run counter to the happiness or survival of another. The resources for survival and happiness are limited. Limited resources result in conflict which potentially undermine both life and happiness. Hobbes argues that no one can ever achieve enough power to guarantee survival or enough material goods to guarantee happiness. People are constantly in jeopardy because someone else may obtain more power which threatens life and/or possessions. Further, the happiness standard of one person may not be the happiness standard of another. For example, I may require your material goods for my happiness. This would surely run counter to your happiness. Conflict is again the result. Because all people are free to follow any course of action they choose, conflict will be inevitable.

Hobbes argues that there is, in nature, a constant threat of war. Life is not safe in this environment and any happiness is likely to be short-lived.

John Rawls1921-

Rawl’s political philosophy espouses a modern-day theory of distribute justice. His philosophy has two components. First, every member of a society should enjoy equal liberties. Rawls believes that equal freedom for all is a prerequisite to a just society. At the very least, a just society must ensure that all of its members start out on equal footing. Second, society should allocate benefits to its members such that the least advantaged among them receives the greatest benefits. This is the most significant and controversial aspect of Rawl’s theory of justice. According to Rawls, society’s highest priority should be to serve its most disadvantaged member. Its next highest priority should be to serve the next most disadvantaged member, and so on. The interests of the most advantaged member of society should be government’s lowest priority.

Rawls’ philosophy, outlined in his 1971 book A Theory of Justice, allows for inequalities to exist only if two conditions are met. First, the inequalities are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged member. An inequality is just only if it can be shown to benefit those worst off. In other words, a policy that increases benefits to those most well off must likewise increase benefits to the least advantaged so that they are better off than under the previous system. Second, all members of society must have an opportunity to join the ranks of the most advantaged.

In order for you to defend the superiority of Rawl’s philosophy, you must first examine how he arrived at his two principles of justice. Rawls believes that there must be certain universal principles of justice governing all societies. He does not believe, however, in ultimate truth, the notion that certain values are intrinsically true and cannot be justified. Rawls believes that people can, through the process of reason, determine what is just and unjust. Of course, each person has different concepts of justice based on self-interest. The poor view social welfare as the most just system, whereas the rich support a free market economy. To overcome the bias inherent in self-interest, Rawls attempts to determine what standards of justice people would choose if they did not know what their positions were in society. As such, he asks us to consider humans in the “original position,” meaning in the state of nature, prior to the establishment of social institutions. These individuals have decided to form a social order. They must determine what principles of justice to impose. Since each of them has an equal chance of being one of society’s least advantaged members, each would accept a principle of justice that favors the least advantaged. This is because any other social order would be far too risky. The least advantaged live in a precarious position, consistently on the edge of life and death. A social order that favored the upper or middle class might devastate the least advantaged. On the other hand, a social order that favored the least advantaged would still provide a high standard of living to the most advantaged citizens. While the most advantaged would not enjoy as high a level of benefits

under such a system, this cost is minimal in comparison to the costs to the least advantaged imposed by the other system.

Excepted from The Value Debate Handbook

PHILOSOPHY OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Kant’s standard of morality is called the “categorical imperative.” He defines an “imperative” as a principle (or law governing our behavior.) A “hypothetical” imperative is a standard of conduct based on the benefits produced by a particular act. A “categorical” imperative, in contrast, sees the act as good in itself, irrespective of anything it produces. Only a categorical imperative can establish a moral duty. And since a categorical imperative is true regardless of its effects, Kant’s theory directly contradicts the theories of utility defended by Bentham and Mill. Kant believes that categorical imperatives can be determined through reason. Each of us, through common understanding, can determine what actions are morally demanded. Kant establishes a simple test for judging whether our decision to behave a certain way is consistent with a categorical imperative. That decision is morally just if we could establish it as a universal law. If we can justify our decision as the way people should act in all similar circumstances, then the decision constitutes a categorical imperative.

Kant argues that a particular act is moral if it is a product of good will, that is, if it is motivated solely by one’s sense of duty as opposed to one’s personal inclination. In other words, an act is moral if it is undertaken solely because it is the right thing to do, not because it is beneficial in some way. Assume that a man has decided to contribute a large sum of money to a particular charity. This action may or may not be moral, depending upon whether or not it is motivated by good will or self-interest. The man may contribute the money to obtain a tax write-off, or he may contribute it to improve the image others have of him. In either case, the act should not command our respect. It is motivated by self-interest rather than a sense of duty. The fact that the donation may save lives is irrelevant to our evaluation of its moral worth. Saving lives was not his exclusive motivation for contributing. Motivation, not effects, determines moral worth.

Assume that a man is in great need of money. Assume that he chooses to borrow the money even though he cannot pay it back. He has decided that his basic needs outweigh the harms of his dishonesty in promising to repay the loan. His decision would be morally correct if he could justify it as a universal principle governing all other people’s decisions as to when to borrow money. Clearly he could not justify it as such. If he and everyone else borrowed money with no intention to repay, no one would lend money to him or anyone else, since the promise to pay would have no credibility. Kant further argues that all people can determine what is morally

right without resorting to this test. Common understanding can discern whether an act is our duty our merely a means of satisfying our personal wants.

You can use Kant’s theory of the categorical imperative both as the value standard for your case and as an alternative standard if your opponent defends utility as the value standard. Consider the topic “Resolved: That a just society has a duty to provide for the basic needs of its citizens.” You would argue that the principle of moral worth, as established by Kant’s categorical imperative, provides the best criterion for determining what is a social duty. You would then argue that meeting basic human needs is a moral responsibility of government. You could do this by arguing that common sense tells us this is right. You could present evidence from philosophers indicating that this is the basic duty of government, indeed, the primary reason for governments’ creation. The negative would respond by saying that providing for the basic needs of citizens is an undesirable government activity. It leads to a variety of economic problems that ultimately reduces everyone’s standard of living. The negative position would be based on a standard of utilitarianism, since it judges the government policy on the basis of its effects. You would respond by arguing that the negative claim is irrelevant. The moral worth of an act is determined not by its effects but by its motivation. Is it a product of good will? Clearly, a government’s decision to ensure the basic survival needs of its people is a product of good will and is an act that common sense says is right. The fact that it ultimately has undesirable consequences is extraneous to the question of whether it is morally right.

A “universal imperative” is something society believes to be always true. We believe it to be true without regard to particular circumstances. It is a general principle of right and wrong. Examples of categorical imperatives are “Stealing is wrong” and “We should treat other as we expect others to treat us.” Kant says we come to know something to be a categorical imperative through a process of reason. And we accept it as true without regard for the consequences it produces.

You can attack the categorical imperative as a value standard primarily in two ways. First, you can argue that there is no way of knowing what are and are not universal truths. There is no categorical agreement that anything is always good or bad, right or wrong, no matter what the circumstances. You can also argue that the moral worth of something can be determined solely by the effects it produces. Every act can be good or bad, depending on the consequences.

At first glance, killing is an act we might consider to be universally wrong. Yet after due consideration, we can think of many instances where killing is just. These may include acts of self-defense, acts in times of warfare, capital punishment for repeat murderers, abortion when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and suicide by terminally ill patients in great pain.

Consider the resolution, “Honesty is the best policy.” The affirmative might argue that the categorical imperative establishes the criterion for this resolution. The affirmative would then argue that the resolution is a categorical imperative because each of us reasons that honesty is good regardless of circumstances or effects. The negative could respond that this is simply not the case. We do not always accept honesty as always good. As a society, we sometimes judge honesty’s worth according to context and results. For instance, when telling the truth will hurt someone’s feelings, without producing any good effects, we believe that honesty is wrong. If a

murderer knocks on your door, asking if the victim he seeks is in your home, and the victim is there, you certainly would not tell the murderer the truth. In this circumstance, honesty would be immoral.

UTILITARIAN PHILOSOPHERS

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)Utility: The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number

The philosophy of Jeremy Bentham is based on the principle of utility, that which produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Bentham argues that the best measure of the morality of any action is the extent to which it produces the greatest good for the greatest number. The principle of utility recognizes that individual happiness is the ultimate good, and that all people are equal and should be free to pursue a course of action that results in their own happiness. That which is good, or moral, is that which produces individual happiness. Each person is allowed to determine his/her own standard or definition of happiness and then pursue the course of action most likely to produce happiness. With different concepts of happiness, the likelihood of conflict between individuals is great. The course of action that makes one person happy is likely to produce unhappiness for someone else. Because each person is allowed to determine his/her own happiness, there is no objective standard for resolving conflicts among people in a given society by determining what produces happiness for the greatest number of people in that society. If the act produces happiness for the majority, it is judged to be good and moral. If the action produces happiness for only a few, then the act is judged immoral.

Bentham argues that human beings, driven by self-interest to seek pleasure and avoid pain, often find themselves in conflict. For example, my pursuit of happiness or pleasure may cause pain for someone else. The responsibility of government is to prevent conflict and unhappiness while at the same time establishing opportunity for the majority of society to have the greatest happiness. To accomplish this task, it is necessary to measure happiness.

Happiness is the measure of pleasure, which is easily defined. Bentham argues, “In this matter we want no refinement, no metaphysics. It is not necessary to consult Plato, nor Aristotle. Pain and pleasure are what everyone feels to be such.” By observation and reason, we can determine what things are pleasurable, and what things cause pain. The degree of happiness is measured quantitatively (by amount). More pleasure produces greater happiness. Less pleasure produces less happiness. This, then, is the first measure of happiness. But this measure of happiness is not helpful in preventing conflict since all or even the majority can have the most units of happiness.

To prevent conflict, Bentham devised a system to measure the magnitude of happiness. He held that the value of pleasure (and pain) is proportional to its intensity and duration. Multiplying intensity and duration gives government the appropriate measure of happiness to establish policy guaranteeing the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

For example, we have one hundred dollars that we intend to give to ten different people. One way to divide the money would be to give ten dollars to each person. This would provide a measure of happiness for the entire group, but it might not provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number, we must know about the economic condition of each person in the group. Let’s assume that seven are extremely poor, while the other three are millionaires. Using Bentham’s measure of the magnitude of happiness we can easily determine that ten dollars given to a millionaire will not produce a great deal of happiness or at least not the magnitude of happiness provided for those that have no money. To divide the one hundred dollars equally among the group would not produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Bentham’s principle of utility would require that we give most, or all of the money to the seven who have none, since they are the majority, and a greater magnitude of happiness would be produced by giving more to those who have nothing.

Bentham argues that we can, through reason, determine what actions will produce happiness. The government is thus instituted to establish an environment that produces happiness for as many of its citizens as possible. If these is conflict, the magnitude of happiness becomes a determining factor in conjunction with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number.

You can use Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism on a variety of political topics. For instance, consider the topic “Government is morally obligated to provide health care to its citizens.” The affirmative could defend utility as the value standard, arguing that a governmental system that provides health care for its citizens produces more happiness for more people than a system that does not provide health care. Absent government-provided health care, many lower income individuals, who form a significant part of any society, have to go without health care. This produces great suffering. So government health care, by reducing suffering for many, thereby produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

The negative will argue that governments are not morally obligated to provide health care because to do so violates the freedom (property rights) of the middle and upper income individuals who will have to pay for the health care. This reduces their happiness and therefore does not produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. You can respond by arguing that the pleasure produced for the poor by government health care is of greater intensity and duration than the pleasure the money used to fund health care would bring the upper and middle class individuals if they were allowed to keep it. Government health care prevents death, debilitating illness, and much pain and suffering for poor individuals, whereas the money involved, if left in the hands of the rich and middle class, would produce only marginal happiness. Therefore, when the magnitude of happiness is considered, government health care produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and therefore satisfies Bentham’s utilitarian standard.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)Utility: Maximizing Individual Freedom

John Stuart Mill was a student of the Bentham school of utilitarianism. Like Bentham, he believed that the morality of an action is determined by whether the action produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Mill’s philosophy emphasizes the importance of providing maximum individual freedom. Mill differs from Bentham, however, in his analysis of how happiness can be measured. Unlike Bentham, Mill does not believe that happiness can be determined objectively. Mill believes that since each person has different wants and needs, what produces happiness can be determined objectively. Mill believes that since each person has different wants and needs, what produces happiness for one person may not produce happiness for another. Moreover, the duration and intensity of pleasure an act produces will differ from individual to individual. Since only individuals know what will produce their own happiness, individuals must be given maximum freedom to pursue their goals.

The principle of individuality, or sovereignty of the individual, is the foundation of Mill’s philosophy. By observing human experience we can easily conclude that the goal of all people is happiness, or pleasure, and the avoidance of unhappiness, or pain. Since all people must be respected as ends in themselves, all must be allowed to pursue the ultimate goal of individual happiness. Happiness can only be determined by each individual. For example, you may find the greatest happiness in participating in the activity of debate while another person may find it in participating in sports. That is why, as the saying goes, we have both vanilla and chocolate ice cream. Happiness means different things to different people, and only the individual can determine what makes him/her happy.

While Mill does not believe that the intensity and duration are easily determined, he does believe that the highest level or the greatest quality happiness is found in self-development, self-improvement, self-formation, self-respect, conscience, and honor. In an often quoted passage, Mill writes, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

The responsibility of the state or government is to produce an environment that allows for the greatest pursuit of individual happiness. The best environment for the pursuit of happiness is individual freedom, and, to that end, no law or regulation should be imposed by the government save that which prevents one individual’s course of action from undermining or preventing another individual’s happiness.

You can use Mill’s theory of utilitarianism as the value standard when you seek to justify an object of evaluation on the basis that it maximizes freedom. Consider the resolution “That the principle of majority rule is of greater value than the principle of minority rights.” The affirmative could defend Mill’s theory of utility as the value standard. The affirmative would then present evidence from philosophers such as Mill that only governments run by the majority of citizens have respect for individual freedom and support policies that maximize freedom. A system emphasizing majority rule produces greater freedom for its citizens than a system in which minority rights are paramount.

Utilitarianism vs. Categorical Imperative

The theory of utilitarianism states that an action is justified if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people when compared to other actions. This theory directly conflicts with the categorical imperative in that utilitarians believe that nothing is good or bad in and of itself. A thing’s worth can only be determined by examining its effects. If an act produces greater benefits for a greater number of people than the alternative, then the act is just. Utilitarians thus believe that the goal of any act, whether it be the act of an individual, a business, or a government, is to maximize happiness.

You can attack the theory of utilitarianism as a value standard in two ways. First, you can argue that there is no objective standard for measuring the happiness or pleasure people experience. What is most important to society’s members – freedom, equality, money, or leisure? Suppose one course of action maximizes society’s wealth but at the cost of freedom. The alternative course of action maximizes freedom but at a significant economic cost. Which policy produces the most utility or happiness? Utilitarians have no answer. Second, you can argue that utilitarianism is morally bankrupt because it does not consider the inherent morality or immorality of certain actions. For instance, assassinating a Mafia leader, killing unproductive people, turning off expensive life-support machines, and sterilizing convicted child abusers and welfare mothers are policies that could be justified as producing the greatest good for the greater number of people. While they impose great hardship on the particular people involved, they arguably produce substantially greater social benefits. Yet each is immoral. In fact, the theory of utilitarianism was Hitler’s primary justification for the Holocaust.

Consider the resolution “Freedom is desirable.” The affirmative could defend this resolution as a categorical imperative, arguing that through reason, we know freedom to be good in and of itself, without regard for its effects. On the other hand, the affirmative could argue utility as the value standard, arguing that freedom produces the greatest good for the greatest number. That is because freedom facilitates pleasure-seeking, self-actualization, the acquisition of knowledge, majority rule, and progress.

Rule Utilitarianism vs. Act Utilitarianism

Until now we have understood utilitarianism to be act utilitarianism, which claims, “This right action is the action that will maximize utility.” The new alternative, rule utilitarianism, claims that “The right action is the action which follows the rule, the following of which maximizes utility.” This differs considerably from act utilitarianism because it does not evaluate each act on an individual basis, but rather evaluates groups of acts under rules. Rule utilitarianism claims that in any given situation, one should follow the best moral rule. The best moral rule is determined by which rule, if followed in all situations of that type, would maximize utility.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Theory

What is debate? How does it differ from discussion? How does it differ from an argument? Debate is organized argumentation directed toward a third party for a decision. It differs from discussionbecause debaters do not seek to compromise their positions; debaters maintain their position throughout the debate. It differs from an arguments because the debaters try to convince a third party, not each other.

Format of a Lincoln Douglas Debate:

1st Affirmative Constructive 6 minutesCX 3 minutes

1st Negative Constructive 7 minutesCX 3 minutes

1st Affirmative Rebuttal 4 minutes1st Negative Rebuttal 6 minutes2nd Affirmative Rebuttal 3 minutes

Each debater gets 3 minutes prep time

Definitions:- Affirmative

Argues in favor of the resolution

- NegativeArgues against the resolution

- ResolutionThe subject for debate; Llso known as the proposition, topic, questionDivides ground evenlyWorded affirmatively (so that the affirmative answers “yes” and hopefully

without “not” words)

- ConstructiveThe first speech given by each debater - used to build all the major arguments that supportthe debater’s position

- RebuttalSpeech used to summarize and analyze

Refute opponent’s argumentsRebuild by answering your opponent’s attacks

- Cross ExaminationA questioning period designed to clarify issues, expose weaknesses, and set up arguments

- CaseContains the major reasons for supporting a particular position

- RefuteArgue against

- Prep TimeThe time allowed between speeches to prepare

- FlowSheets of paper set up to take notes of the arguments made in a debate

Types of Resolutions

Propositions of Fact -

Argues that something exists, occurs, or is related to something else in a specific way.

Examples: Illegal drugs exist on campus. Drug abuse occurs among students.

Abuse of illegal drugs harms students.

Propositions of Value -

Requires a value judgment such asis better thanis more important thanis justified

Example: Random testing of students for illegal drug use is justified.

Propositions of Policy -

Advocates a course of actionExample: All high schools in the United States should adopt a policy to randomly test

students for illegal drug use.

Values and Value Hierarchies

What is a value?

An ideal toward which people striveWill be used to determine comparative worth of ideas in relation to social preferenceValues are judgments based on our experiences - they are neither right nor wrong

What are some common American values?

Equality Justice Privacy Happiness LifeFreedom Progress Safety Knowledge National SecurityFreedom of Expression Individual Rights Quality of Life

What is an intrinsic value?

Something has intrinsic value if it is valuable for its own sake and not merely as a means to other values.It is a terminal or ending point value. -Happiness, Life, Peace

What is an instrumental value?

Something is an instrumental value if it helps us achieve a terminal value.-Equality, Justice, Cooperation

What is a value hierarchy?

An ordering or ranking of valuesIn placing one value over another in decision making, we do not eliminate a value; we merely give ita less important standing.

Can you debate whether or not something is a value? NoExplain.

The issue of whether or not something is a value is NOT debatable.How a value’s worth is weighed in relationship to other values (value hierarchy) is debatable.

What are some current issues in our society that involve a clash of values?

Universal health insurance; school prayer; adoption; abortion; welfare; flag burning;

ANALYZING A RESOLUTION

1. Find the object of evaluation, evaluative term, and context of evaluation.

Object of Evaluation - the subject of the resolution; the “thing” that determines the value

Comparative Judgment - evaluates one thing relative to anotherNon-Comparative Judgment - evaluates something on its own merits

(Evaluative Term) - method by which you are to judge the object of evaluation

[Context of Evaluation] - a phrase that places limits on the object of evaluation of the evaluative term

Examples: Resolved: That U. S. military interference [in the internal affairs of other countries] (is justified).

Resolved: [In the criminal justice system,] truth seeking (ought to take precedence over) privileged communication.

Resolved: Liberty (is more precious than) law.

2. Define the terms of the resolution.DictionarySpecialized Dictionary such as Black’s Law DictionaryField Context such as Supreme Court decisions, journal articles

3. Determine perspectives from which one could view the evaluative term.

“Justified”Legally, morally, economically, politically, educationally, intrinsically, extrinsically

“Is more important than” Instrumental value Produces better consequences Preserves intrinsic values

4. Determine the values that could be affected by the resolution.

What values would be enhanced, protected, promoted, or preserved by the resolution?

What values would be undermined or diminished by the resolution?

5. Brainstorm contentions that could support your position.

Contentions are major arguments. They are like the topic sentences in an essay.They must then be supported with reasoning and evidence.

Ways of Comparing Two Values

1. The value that applies to more of humankind is the best value.

A value that affects all societies (equality) is greater than a value that affects only selected societies(democracy).

Development of natural resources may allow for the value of progress, but only for the present generation.In contrast, if present and future generations are given the value of safety (from pollutants), safety is ofgreater value than progress.

2. The value that fits the resolution in context will ultimately be the better value.

“National security” and “quality of life” are both important values. When questioning geneticengineering’s worth, however, quality of life fits the resolution is better.

3. The value that enhances other values is greatly advantageous.

Upholding individual rights is even greater when we consider that it enhances liberty, equality,and quality of life.

4. The value that limits or destroys other values is not as advantageous.

Progress may be important, but it would be considered a lesser value if it diminishes safety and liberty.

Why Study Ethics?

Every society has a set of moral rules or guidelines that set the boundaries of acceptable behaviorBehavior that might harm other peopleBehavior concerned with the well-being of othersActions that touch on issues of respect for other persons

Moral codes are seldom completely consistent. Our everyday life raises moral questions that we cannot answer immediately.

Contradictions among different valuesUncertainty about which value should be given priorityTraditional values do not cover new situations

Ethics is the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs.

On what basis do we make moral decisions?

Divine Command - Being good is equivalent to doing what the Bible or some other sacred text tells youEthical Egoism - One’s only duty is to promote one’s own interests - to do what is really in his best interest

over the long runThe Ethics of Duty - Begins with the conviction that ethics is about doing what is right, about doing you dutyThe Ethics of Rights - Establishes minimal conditions of human decencyUtilitarianism - Seeks to reduce suffering and increase pleasure or happinessThe Ethics of Justice - What is fair for one should be fair for all

How is Ethics useful in debate?

Some value resolutions ask us to weigh one value in relation to another valueSome value resolutions as us to determine the rightness or wrongness of an actionSome value resolutions ask us to determine which action is preferred in relation to another action

Ethics gives us the moral theories we can use to make these determinations - the criteria we use as a yard stick to measure values

Moral Theories

A moral theory tells you what you should do (what is right, what is good, what you should do)This is an independent question from the question of what people WILL doIt is irrelevant to the moral question whether it is actually likely to be done

Consequentialist Deontologist(Non-consequentialist)

Any position in ethics which claims that the rightness Any position in ethics which claims that the or wrongness of actions depends on their consequences. rightness or wrongness of actions depends on

whether or not they correspond to our duty.

The ends justify the means. The ends cannot justify the means. Themeans must be moral themselves.

Consequentialist DeontologistConsequentialism Deontological Ethics

Utilitarianism Categorical ImperativeCost Benefit Analysis Judeo-Christian Ethic

Rights Based Theories (social contract)

Common Philosophies Used as Criteria

1. Utilitarianism

Actions are right to the degree that they promote the greatest good for the greatest number.Jeremy BenthamJohn Stuart Mill - On Liberty

Actions are judged right or wrong solely by their consequencesRight actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappinessEach person’s happiness is equally important

Strengths Weaknesses

Promotes human well-being One person’s good can be another’s evil

Attempts to lessen human suffering Hard to predict accurately all consequences

2. Cost Benefit Analysis

A “real-world” method for weighing ethical and pragmatic decisions by simply weighing the costsof an action versus the benefits

Costs can be in terms of lost values

Benefits can be in terms of values gained

3. The Ethics of Duty

Motivation, not effects, determine moral worth

Most of us live by rules - these rules are called imperatives by Immanuel KantKant divides imperatives into two categories: hypothetical and categorical

Hypothetical imperatives result from our desires “if. . .then”Categorical imperatives result from our duty which we can determine through reason - they are

unconditional - they apply at all times

“Always act in such a way that you will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law” (the Golden Rule)

“Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as anend and never merely as a means” (respect for persons)

Strengths Weaknesses

Doing the right thing because it is the right thing Yields only absolutes - moral dilemmas are because it is the right thing to do - duty created when duties come into conflict

What’s fair for one is fair for all Excludes emotions from any positive role inthe moral life

Respect for humans as autonomous beings Consequences do countcapable of reasoning

4. The Ethics of Rights

Many of the greatest documents of the last two centuries have centered around the notion of rightsThe Bill of RightsThe United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

Many of the great movements of this century have centered around the notion of rightsThe Civil Rights MovementEqual Rights for women

Rights express a certain kind of relationship between two parties: The rights holders - a right is permission to act or an entitlement to act, exist, enjoy, demand

The rights observers - the right imposes a correlative duty or obligation upon themNegative Rights - to refrain from interfering with the rights holders exercise of the rightPositive Rights - to assist in the successful exercise of the right

Negative Rights - simply impose on others the duty not to interfere with your rights (right to life,right to free speech, right to freedom of religion)

Positive Rights - impose on others a specific obligation to do something to assist you in the exerciseof your right (to provide health care, to provide income, to provide education)

John Locke, Ronald Dworkin, Robert Nozick

Political Philosophies used as Criteria

Social Contract TheoryJohn Locke - Second Treatise of Government

Jean Jacques Rousseau - Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes - The Leviathan

John Rawls - A Theory of Justice

Natural Rights (human rights) belong to everyone by nature or simply by virtue of being humanLegal Rights (social contract rights) belong to people by virtue of their membership in a particular political state

Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition others follow those rules as well

For example - John LockeThe social contract is a unanimous agreement among all free members of the state of nature to join

together to become a civil society. The population agrees to allow the majority to create a governing body which will in turn make and enforce society rules.

Researching a Topic

1. Read for understanding and background information.

2. Mark ideas that would help develop a case.

3. Highlight specific quotations that would support your contentions.

Rules of Evidence #11. Have available a full source citation.

Author, author’s qualifications, date, title, page.

2. You do not need to read the full citation.

3. Give enough of the citation to give the quote credibility.

Rules of Evidence #21. Make available the entire quote.

Internal ellipses are not allowedQuote may be read in paraphrased form

2. Be certain the quote is not taken out of context.

3. Be faithful to the author’s intent.

“Quotable” Evidence should be

From a reliable sourceConcise - short and to the point

Making a persuasive pointSupporting of itselfnot dependent on other sentences to make sensevague words or pronouns identified in brackets

Use of Evidence in Debate

Background - any and all evidence that helps your understanding of the resolutionEvidence to Prove a Point - statistics, quotes, examples

Evidence to Clarify and Explain - examples, definitionsEvidence to Impress & Persuade - short quotes, examples, statistics that drive a point home, dramatic illustrations

Use at least one quote to support each major idea in your case.Have available evidence to refute arguments you expect your opponent to use.Have available evidence to support your arguments against the refutation you expect from your opponents.

Constructing an Affirmative/Negative

I. Introduction

A. Attention Getter - quotation, story, historical example which outlines general position B. State the resolution - “I stand resolved. . .”

C. Define key terms - use mainstream, accepted sources; try defining phrases togetherD. Establish value/criteria - state and give a brief explanationE. Preview Contentions - lists contentions in orderF. Observations (optional) - states what should be accepted facts not favorable to one side

II. Body

A. Use clear contentionsB. Use short contentions (7 words or less when possible)C. Use evidence and your own reasoning to support contentions/sub pointsD. Tie contentions to value/criteria

Contentions are argumentsEach argument contains three parts

The ClaimThe WarrantThe Impact

The Claim is a statement of the argument (the main idea) “Nuclear weapons testing harms innocent people”

The Warrant is the analysis that explains why the claim is valid and may include evidence “Innocent people are affected by nuclear weapons’ testing due to radiation fallout. People living near testing sites during World War II’s Manhattan Project evidenced

increased rates of cancer and other diseases as a result of exposure to radiation during testing.”

The Impact is the analysis telling us why the argument is important. “The supposed need for nuclear weapons does not justify putting innocent people at risk. A government is not justified in putting its own citizens in danger. Such a government would not only be illegitimate, but also immoral, thus rendering nuclear weapons’ testing immoral.”

III. Conclusion

A. Summarize key pointsB. Conclude persuasively 1. Quotation 2. Return to attention getter 3. Persuasive rhetoric

Note: Negative Constructive will refute the affirmative as part of the body before going to the conclusion.

Example Case Structures

Resolved: The benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the harms.

V = LifeC = Consequentialist

I. Genetic engineering prevents genetic diseases.

II. Genetic engineering leads to cures for diseases.

III. Genetic engineering can wipe out hunger.

Resolved: That an oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

V= Order (Social Order)C= Cost Benefit Analysis

I. The Order created by the Social Contract is the most fundamental value to mankind.

II. Governments must oppress the individual to maintain order.

III. Without government, we lose both human rights and justice.

Cross Examination

The Purposes of Cross Examination:1. Clarify Issues2. Expose Weaknesses3. Set Up Arguments

Cross Examination Basics

BE DON’T BE

Calm ArgumentativeCooperative BelligerentIn-Control EvasiveKnowledgeable ArrogantPoised Flustered

The questioner controls the time.This is not the time to make speeches.This time is not recorded by the judge.The most important aspect of CX is creating Image.Both debaters face the judge.Both debaters should be courteous.Both debaters should prepare ahead.

Tips for the Questioner:

Ask questions that are short and to the point.Avoid drawing a conclusion; leave that for your next speechRefrain from arguing or pressing for an answer you obviously can’t get.Politely control the tone and pace of the period. Realize that your goal is obtain information which can be used later to attack your opponent’s position The more threatening you are, the more you increase the witness’ defensiveness The best way to obtain information is to relax the witness

Be friendly and non-threateningBegin with easy questionsAvoid the temptation to impress the witness with your debate ability

Use a short series of questions rather than open-ended questionsUse admissions you get in your next speech.

Tips for the Respondent:

Answer questions directly and confidently.Avoid evasive responses because they suggest you have something to hideIf you don’t know the answer, admit it.If you need to qualify an answer, do so before answering “yes” or “no.”Refuse demands for “yes” or “no” answers when they are not possible by stating that such an answer is not possibleNever answer a question you don’t understandDon’t respond to a question by asking a questionComply with reasonable requests to limit answers.

Staging Cross ExaminationMaintain eye contact with the judgeDo not be upstaged by your opponent

Preparing for Cross ExaminationAnticipate areas of attack on your case

Anticipate areas of attack on cases you may meetPrepare lines of questioning on anticipated areasAsk team members to both ask and answer questionsSeek to reduce ambiguity in both questions and answersRefine wording

Using Cross Examination StrategicallyMost judges do not flow CXAn observation at the beginning of your next speech is good if there has been an important gainUse information gained in CX in developing arguments in your speech by reminding the judge, “In CX, my opponent told us...”

Ways to Attack an Argument

1. Is there a contradiction within the case?

2. Does any argument assume that something is inherently good?

3. Is the argument realistic?

4. Is the argument supported by a quote from a credible source?

5. Is more harm produced than good?

6. Are there impacts to the argument your opponent has failed to recognize?

7. Can your side of the resolution actually do a better job of achieving the value or benefits your opponent claims?

8. Is your opponent guilty of using fallacies of reasoning?

Fallacies of Reasoning

Appeals to Tradition An argument that claims something is preferable because it has always been so

Example: References to the Supreme Court’s decisions or the Constitution

Faulty logic because to argue that we always have doesn’t justify the action. The Supreme Court often reverses itself. Another problem is assuming the Constitution or Supreme Court decision is applicable world-wide.

Hasty Generalization A conclusion based on incomplete evidence.

One of the most common fallacies in debate. Example: An argument based on the belief “democracy is the best form of government” - cannot fall back on childhood impressions - must justify democracy in today’s world

Bandwagon (Popular Opinion) An argument is based on how many people believe in or do something.

Ad Hominem (Against the Man) Means “against the man.” The argument is made against a person instead of against the person’s ideas.

Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning) Circular reasoning. The claim and the reason for making the claim are the same. Example: Arguing that something is the moral and correct thing to do because it is moral. Morality is left unproven.

Red Herring Introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion

Comes from an old trick used by farmers in England to keep fox hunters and their hounds from galloping through the crops by dragging a smoked herring with a strong odor along the edge of the fields

Either-Or Forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist Sometimes called a “false dilemma” Statements often oversimplify a complex issue

Slippery Slope Assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented Speaker should provide evidence or reasoning to support the claim

Five Steps of Refutation

1. State position you are refuting in your opponent’s language, making sure to sign-post.

My opponent’s first contention states that nuclear weapons’ testing harms innocent people.

2. Summarize the idea to get at the key meaning

What this means is that danger is involved in nuclear weapons’ testing

3. State your response or counter argument – CLAIM

A government must defend its own citizens.

4. Provide support for your counter-argument with analysis and possibly evidence – WARRANT

Part of a nation’s self-defense may require owning and maintaining nuclear weapons. For the weapons to be reliable, they must be tested. Therefore, nuclear weapons must be tested for a nation to adequately defend its citizens.

5. Give IMPACT to your response . . .

Citizens rely on their government for protection from outside attack. A government must use any means necessary, sometimes even dangerous means to defend its citizens. Conversely, a nation that puts its citizens at risk of nuclear attack is not only not a legitimate government, it isn’t moral either.

. . . And weigh it against opponent’s argument.

The potential harms of weapons’ testing must be weighed against the real danger of nuclear annihilation. Thus, nuclear weapons’ testing doesn’t harm but in fact protects innocent lives.

This creates CLASH and is important to winning the round

Organization of a Rebuttal

1. Begin with a strong overall statement of philosophy

2. Clash with definitions as needed

3. Clash with Value/Criteria

4. Refute opponent’s contentions

5. Rebuild your own contentions

6. Conclude with a strong persuasive statement. Do not simply ask for the ballot.

Clashing Value and Criterion

Show why your value ought to rank higher in priority than your opponent’s value.Show how you better achieve your opponent’s value that he does.Show how your value is better upheld by your opponent’s criterion than his valueShow why your opponent’s criterion is less appropriate for this debate than yours

Secrets to a Great Rebuttal

1. Extend arguments - provide new logic, analysis, or evidence.

2. Do not repeat evidence

3. Stay organized - use the flow

4. Group similar arguments

5. Cross-apply arguments when appropriate

6. Watch time carefully

7. Signpost clearly - let the judge know where you are

Debate Protocol

Dress for successBe on time for roundsShake hands at the end of the roundDon’t “bad mouth” opponents and judgesPre-flow before the appointed time for the round to begin

How a Tournament Runs

Generally there are four preliminary roundsYou will debate two affirmative and two negative roundsAdvancing to elimination rounds is based on wins and speaker pointsMost tournaments “flight” LD rounds

Debate Ethics

Don’t lieDon’t slimeDon’t purposely misquote or confuseDon’t steal casesReturn cases or evidence at the end of the round

Study Sheet for Philosophy Test

John LockeSecond Treatise of GovernmentSocial contract is an agreement among people of a society to grant a limited amount of power to the government. If the government exceeds its authority, it is illegitimate.The goal of the social contract is to maximize natural rights.People in a civil society agree to be ruled by majority rule.Intrinsic values are life, liberty, and property.Government exists only by the consent of the governed.Idea of tacit consent is that by living within civil society, people have agreed to abide by the rules of that society

Jean-Jaques RousseauThe Social ContractThe state of nature is fiction. People have always lived in tribes or extended families.A social contract empowers the government to behave in a way which is consistent with the general will.The general will is NOT the same thing as majority rule.Man’s foremost desire is for his own well-being.His social contract theory prevents individuality and could be cast as oppressive social engineering and indoctrination.Does NOT accept the concept of natural right.

Thomas HobbesThe LeviathanGreatly affected by growing up during the civil war in EnglandOnly intrinsic value is human lifeThe only government capable of providing the security necessary for all is a strong sovereignUphold the value of life and securityThe only natural right retained by citizens is the right to self-defensePeople give up almost all natural rights in exchange for security

SocratesIt is wrong for a citizen to violate the laws of his state even if the state has done him an injustice

Immanuel KantMotivation is what determines the social worth of an action.Each individual knows right from wrong through his own soul and conscienceCategorical imperatives can be determined by reason.An imperative is a command.A decision is morally just if we could establish it as a universal law.

John Stuart MillOn LibertyThe effects/consequences standard is most often associated with utilitarianism.A major criticism of utilitarianism is that it treats all values equally.The responsibility of government is to produce an environment that allows for the greatest pursuit of individual happiness.

Jeremy BenthamThe modern originator of utilitarianism.

Know these terms:Social contractGeneral WillUtilitarianismNegative Rights, Positive RightsLegal RightsSocietal RightsNatural RightsCategorical ImperativeAct utilitarianismRule utilitarianismMoral theory

Short AnswerWhy is it important to place philosophers in a historical context?How does Hobbes’ view of the state of nature differ from Locke’s?What legal rights do the citizens have in Hobbes’ society?How does Locke justify punishment that denies a citizen his life, liberty, or property?How did the time in which they lived influence Locke’s and Rousseau’s view of government power over the individual?