Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[11]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[17]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[11]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-10 23:50:52.615
	1	+2016-12-10 23:50:52.0

Caselist.CitesClass[17]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,30 @@
	1	+====The source of normativity is reason. To be moral is to be in line with reason. To be immoral is to be in violation of reason. ====
	2	+Velleman, Professor of Philosophy, Bioethics; Director of Undergraduate Studies, Ph.D., Princeton, 1983, 2006
	3	+**(J. David, "A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO KANTIAN ETHICS," 2006, accessed Dec. 1, GS)**
	4	+ As soon as we ask why we should act for reasons, however,
	5	+AND
	6	+defeating about ~~to~~ asking for a reason to act for reasons.
	7	+
	8	+
	9	+====Reason is universal; a reason for you must be a reason for me. ====
	10	+Velleman, Professor of Philosophy, Bioethics; Director of Undergraduate Studies, Ph.D., Princeton, 1983, 2006
	11	+(J. David, "A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO KANTIAN ETHICS," 2006, accessed Dec. 1, GS)
	12	+In Kant's view, being a person consists in being a rational creature, both
	13	+AND
	14	+in similar fashion, by offering an attractive vantage point of some kind.
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+====2. Actions are expressions of an agent's reasoning from their end to the means, which unifies their action into a cohesive movement as opposed to fragmented steps. The end of reaching the bakery unifies the individual actions necessary for that end, like crossing the street; otherwise the individual steps would not have any meaning. Thus, contradictory ends would never yield an action because willing A and not A would not allow you to unify the necessary steps to achieve that end. And, this also proves an intent foresight distinction. If consequences were relevant, we would have to will the possibility of contradictory ends since an action can have different and conflicting results, which wouldn't allow you to unify your will. ====
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+====3. Non-contradictions are meta-constraints because a principle cannot be true and false at the same time otherwise it yields incompatible obligations, so the form of the will to abide any moral theory must first will it as universal.====
	21	+Thus, the standard is consistency with universal reason.
	22	+Universal reason negates.
	23	+
	24	+You cannot universally will a violation of freedom because doing so presupposes the freedom to bring about that action in the first place. This entails an omnilateral will or a higher authority to deal with rights conflicts.
	25	+Ripstein, Arthur. “Kant on Law and Politics.” University of Toronto Law School. http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Ripstein/Kant_on_law.pdf.
	26	+Kant’s point about ... of instituting it.
	27	+
	28	+The AFF allows people to sue police officers as private persons for grievances committed when acting as a public official. As a public official, the police officer is acting as an extension of the omnilateral will since the omnilateral will needs people to enforce its laws. Creating a distinction between people’s actions as expressive of the omnilateral will and their actions as expressive of their private will is key to the framework.
	29	+Ripstein 2, Arthur. "Force and freedom." Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy (2009).
	30	+Powers exercised within ... its own law

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-10 23:50:54.845

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Mesha Knatt

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Bellaire JK

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+11

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Law Magnet Gao Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOVDEC - Kant NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Isidore Newman