Lincoln-Douglas: The Inquistive Debate of Philosophy

Transcription

1 Lincoln-Douglas: The Inquistive Debate of Philosophy

2 The Art of Philosophy Perhaps the most intimidating aspect of LD debate is the fact that it relies upon philosophy more heavily than any other debate than one might be familiar with. However, there is no real reason to lose heart do to this; indeed, every form of debate, even basic dialogue involves philosophy. It is because philosophy is the framework upon which any argument is made; research may support an argument, but at any argument s heart is a philosophical assumption. Indeed, the only difference between LD and any other form of debate is really that its topics are designed to encourage debate upon not only research and data, but upon the philosophical assumptions of the arguments upon which each debater s case relies. Therefore, while many reading this packet will perhaps not ever try LD debate, one may at least learn the importance of understanding the philosphical assumptions we make every day as well as in debate in general.

3 Philosophical Thinking After one realizes the importance of Philosophy in debate, it is important to begin thinking about arguments in a philosophical manner. LD provides a good format for this in that it generally assumes that one will choose a value upon which to build any one case. While there are inevitably a whole plethora of values which one might use in a single case, there is always one underlying value upon which a case is made. However, before such large overreaching values are examined, it is best to look at simple values underlying some basic arguments. Here is a general outline of a case that one might see in a debate. Try and see if you can find the philosophical assumptions made by each of these arguments, and then try and see if you can come up with counterarguments to each of the contentions (fancy LD word for arguments) that rely upon minimal to no research. If you re stumped, or if you want a second opinion, you may refer to the following page for my counter-arguments. However, remember that it doesn t matter what you come up with, but how you come up with your arguments, and you support them. Position: Animals ought to be treated as equals to humans Contention I: Many animals demonstrate higher-level mental processes including judgement, language, and even empathy. Contention II: Animals can experience pain or pleasure just as well as humans can. Contention III: By treating animals as equals, there will be fewer arguments about specific animal rights as there will only be the need to debate rights in general, for both animals and humans.

4 Counter-arguments Examples Contention I: This argument assumes that the basic judgement factor between beings is the degree of sentience, or mental activity, that the being exhibits. It could obviously be attacked on the grounds that people treat other people as generally equal, yet there are large mental gaps between every individual human being. Therefore, a more reliable way to judge a being might be to judge it based upon the category to which it belongs, such as human beings, animals, and even potentially sentient alien life. Contention II: It should be noted that this argument could be labeled as contradictory to contention I do the fact that it submits two standards of judgement for beings. This argument assumes that the ability to experience pleasure or pain is grounds for equal treatment. Of course, this argument is then subject to similar criticism as the first since there are people who experience pain or pleasure in greater or lesser ammounts, and it would seem very unjust, perhaps even more unjust than in contention I, to give greater privledge to those who experience greater pleasure than others. It should also be observed that this example relies upon text-book definition Utilitarianism (the idea that morality is based upon how much pleasure or pain an action elicits). Contention III: This argument is probably the weakest of the three because it first assumes that an action ought to be judged solely according to its consequences, and then further that we ought to perform actions that provide for the easiest course of action. Therefore, a potential counterargument might be that, according to the philosophy of the arguer, that it would be morally acceptable to never strive for greatness since that would of course require effort and that they should instead live as average a life as possible and strive to always find the easiest path. Overarching Value: While there isn t a single identifiable value that connects all of this, it is important to note that there is a very distinct pattern of thinking. In the case of all the arguments, the arguer relies upon the assumption that actions ought to be judged by their consequences. Thus, there is never once a mention of the value of a human being as being dependent solely upon said subject s status as a human being. Of course, this assumption is almost essential given the position of the arguer, and therefore it would be a good idea to base a potential case for the negation based upon the philosophy that human beings ought to be treated better than animals because human beings as a category are higher than animals. If you want to read more about that particular position, it would be advisable to consult Immanuel Kant and his intellectual descendants.

5 Essential LD Vocabulary Contention: Fancy LD word for overlying argument Utilitarianism: The greatest good for the greatest number of people. Good is often interpretted as that which elicits the most pleasure. Categorical Imperative: The belief that the means (the actions a person takes) justifies the end (the result or outcome of the action). It is important to note, however, that the end is only justified if and when the means is moral. Often assosciated with duty to fellow human beings. Principal philosopher associated with it is Immanuel Kant. Libertarianism: The idea that government ought to only protect individual rights including property rights, right to life, etc. Individualism: The value of the individual, furtherance and growth of the individual. Life: Refers to life itself, with the inherent value, regardless of quality. Quality of Life: Refers to the condition of living, e.g. I d rather die than live like a vegetable. Civilization: A society that has reached a high measure of development: or (non-traditional definition) A society acquainted with both pragmatic and idealistic methods of operation. Progress: Development or improvement in knowledge or skill (opposite of stagnation). Quality of the Future: Either (1) Doing not necessarily what s best for NOW, but definitely will benefit us later or (2) Concern for the quality of life from this coming second on, not worrying about the past. Future: Very similar to Quality of the Future, but more leaning towards the hope that we will live on into the future at all. Global Security: Not blowing up the world; the U.S. not being invaded. Justice: Use of authority to uphold what is correct or true. A good working definition is treating two equal entities equally (i.e. if there are two clones who are exactly identical except for IQ, the one with the higher IQ ought to be treated in accordance with his higher IQ, whatever that means). Truth: Inherent value, some religious associations, conformity with fact. Human Dignity: The individual ethics which make us human and not animals nor slaves, adherence to personal ethics. Social Contract: Essentially the agreement between a citizen and his government. Dignity: Human dignity as well as the justifiable pride in a country or nation. Potential: Judgement not by what somehting is doing, but by what it could do. Potential Good: The good that something could be doing. Critereon: Fancy LD word for how a case fulfils a stated value. You should prove your critereon in your case. Objectivism: The basic assumption that, to live a moral life, one should be concerned with is own intetrests. A person should take actions that will benefit himself first and foremost.