Skip to content
September 1, 2014 / compassioninpolitics

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

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.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: