Skip to content
September 1, 2014 / compassioninpolitics

D & G have an ethics and use normative values even if its not explicit

Part I:

Maury says:
“in fact, Deleuze and Guattari are writing in a way that is specifically a-historical and sidesteps the ethical plane entirely.”

I say:

I should say…I appreciate Maury’s contributions to this and other threads on D & G. That said…I have two key questions/concerns.

A-historical? Isn’t that a bit like clean slate “objectivity” of the enlightenment. Does that mean they don’t care or pay attention to history or historical movements?

Are they utilitarians or consequentialist? No one is amoral or sidesteps the ethical plane entirely. Ethics is embuded in everything we do. Not talking about it doesn’t make this amoral. For instance, shoulds, oughts, norms, being against something or being for something….all are forms of ethics.

——————————-
Part II:

If there is an alternative….there is a should.

The debaters in this case are creating shoulds about how the judge should or should not act.

No use of normativo words? Fairness, justice, ethics, etc.. at all??? What exactly is the terminal impact of these harms they are describing? Why is their terminal impact more important than other potential terminal impacts? (that is to say why are their values–that there analysis assumes more important than others).

Thats challenging for me to wrap my head around because it flies in the face of the debate round and resolutional reality in a couple of ways….you can’t have a debate argument without an ethical call of some sort that contexualizes the evidence to the ballot. Even topicality the most descriptivist argument in debate has shoulds & ethical standards that is it based on and/or creates/established/perpetuates.

If it was just a factual argument it would be a harms takeout.

At a minimum that implicitly sounds utilitarian, consequentialist, or like pragmatism. If that is the default framework in which they are using to analyze.

The inclusion/exclusion of subject matter also speaks to ethics/value. They clearly value education and truth and a methodology of truth discovery. Thats a worldview–thats ethics.

The lack of explicitness doesn’t mean its not there. Thats the nature of hidden premises and worldviews. Worldviews and ethics are often acting beneath the surface.

——————-
Part III:

“Even if a debater makes a normative or ethical claim, that doesn’t mean the DnG themselves are using a certain ethical system. Per your original post, nothing you described above proves that DnG use some form of ethical calculus, only that debaters apply an ethical calculus to DnGs work which is completely irrelevant to the work itself.”

True story. Perhaps on the surface at least….

1) First. My question, thought pointed beyond a purist discussion to the application in debate. Because this is a debate forum. The readers are debaters. And the context of application is debate.

2) All authors have ethics and imply world views. Why do they write? Thats both a motive and ethic.

There are answers in 32 and 33 on this thread.
http://www.cross-x.com/topic/57612-ways-to-argue-against-a-dg-aff/page-2

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: