| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,28 @@ |
|
1 |
+Util cannot make claims of what is permissible and what isn’t in debate because it is based on the consequences of the action, so nothing is intrinsically bad. This makes debate unsafe because literally anything could be justified if it appeals to net better consequences, so anything from rape to child murder is a ok if it saves us from the utils. The intent-foresight distinction is key. |
|
2 |
+ANSCOMBE: |
|
3 |
+Modern Moral Philosophy. |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+Now the consequentialist |
|
6 |
+AND |
|
7 |
+does so-and-so. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+ANALYTIC |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+And, util was used to justify atrocities like slavery, holocausts, and the killing of millions – this supercharges the safety critique and only perpetuates the logic that justified the enslavement of the black body en masse. |
|
12 |
+Anderson n.d: |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+Kerby Anderson, no date, Kerby Anderson is president of Probe Ministries International. He holds masters degrees from Yale University (science) and from Georgetown University (government) “Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number”, http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4224805/k.B792/Utilitarianism_The_Greatest_Good_for_the_Greatest_Number.htm |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+There are also a number of |
|
17 |
+AND |
|
18 |
+to judge the action itself. |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+And, the prima facie role of the ballot is to maintain the safety of the debate space – it’s a voting issue since the judge can’t evaluate who is winning under a framework if you exclude others. |
|
21 |
+Teehan: |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+Ryan Teehan NSD staffer and competitor from the Delbarton School – NSD Update comment on the student protests at the TOC in 2014. |
|
24 |
+“Honestly, I don't think |
|
25 |
+AND |
|
26 |
+unsafe for certain people.” |
|
27 |
+ |
|
28 |
+Outweighs fairness – analytic |