Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[29]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[49]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[29]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-19 03:44:25.816
	1	+2017-02-19 03:44:25.0

Caselist.CitesClass[49]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,13 @@
	1	+K
	2	+The endorsement of moral agnosticism in academic settings is a return to sophistry – this teaches us to believe that “nothing is true and everything is permitted”, and we act accordingly.
	3	+Adler 1
	4	+Adler 01 Mortimer J. Adler, “This Prewar Generation”, Philosophy is Everybody’s Business, Volume 7, 2001
	5	+The real trouble is that our college students and recent graduates do not take any moral issues seriously, whether about their personal affairs or the economic and political problems of the nation. Their only principle is that there are no moral principles at all, their only slogan that all statements of policy, all appeals to standards, are nothing but slogans, and hence frauds and deceptions. They are sophists in the most invidious sense of that term which connotes an unqualified skepticism about all moral judgments. Such skepticism leads naturally to realpolitik: in the game of power politics—and there is no other—only force and propaganda count. The issue between fascism and democracy can not be argued as if there were a right and wrong to it. Whoever wins is right; whatever works is good.
	6	+This isn’t even controversial in relation to their advocacy. They are saying that literally all acts are morally permissible. There is nothing their advocacy can let them take a legitimate stand against torture, rape, murder, slavery, genocide, and the Holocaust. These things should obviously be morally impermissible, and any justification for them should be rejected as moral idiocy. There are real world impacts to this discouse –-columbine shooter Eric Harris was inspired by skepticism to kills dozens of people.
	7	+Langman 8
	8	+Langman 08 Peter Langman, Ph.D. Lehigh University. He is the sought-after expert on the psychology of youths who commit rampage school shootings, and conducts trainings for professionals in the fields of mental health, education, and law enforcement. “Influences on the Ideology of Eric Harris.” www.schoolshooters.info/ideology-of-eric-harris.pdf. © 2008. Accessed 7/9/13 AJ
	9	+Manson and his followers rejected the idea that words had real meanings. They also rejected basic concepts of right and wrong, guilt, crime, and sin. If the concepts have no mean- ing, then people are free to do whatever they want and feel no remorse. This rejection of values and meaning appears repeat- edly in Helter Skelter as well as Eric’s writings. For example, a Manson family member said, “Sorry is only a five-letter word.”23 Eric wrote, “Sorry is just a word.”24 Other quotes from Helter Skelter demonstrate a rejection of morality:¶ • “All words had no meanings to us”25¶ • “Guilty. Not guilty. They are only words.”26¶ • “There is no crime, there is no sin, everything is all¶ right.”27¶ • “Whatever is necessary, you do it. When somebody needs¶ to be killed, there’s no wrong.”28¶ Eric repeatedly made statements like those from Helter¶ Skelter in which he rejected traditional values and morals:¶ • “There is no such thing as an actual ‘real world.’ Its just another word like justice, sorry, pity, religion, faith, luck and so on.”29¶ • He wrote “Fuck money, fuck justice, fuck morals, fuck civilized, fuck rules, fuck laws...DIE manmade words ... There’s no such thing as True Good or True evil.”30¶ • “‘Morals’ is just another word, and that’s it.”31¶ • “Just because your mumsy and dadsy told you blood and violence is bad, you think it’s a fucking law of nature?¶ Wrong.”32
	10	+You should re-envision how we look at moral skepticism in debate. Instead of saying moral uncertainty permits everything, we should accept that there are some things we cannot know with certainty, that moral judgments are inevitable, and so we might as well say that some things are not morally permissible from a humanist standpoint.
	11	+Lom 1
	12	+Lom 01 Petr Lom Associate Professor in the Nationalism Studies Program at Central European University The Limits of Doubt, The Moral and Political Implications of Skepticism. 2001
	13	+While Montaigne's skepticism remains with him to the end of the Essays, he concludes not with doubt but rather with humanism. Though he reaffirms that all of our knowledge is faulty and feeble, especially knowledge of any cosmological or metaphysical matters, he advises us to seek after self-knowledge, for "there is no one who listens to themselves himself does not discover in themselves himself a pattern all their his own."104 And he insists that "of the opinions of philosophy I most gladly embrace those that are most solid, that is to say, most human and most our own."105 For the student of skepticism, the question is whether Montaigne's humanism—that is, his effort to avoid metaphysics—is successful. Unlike the believer or the denier, whether the nihilist or the relativist, the skeptic tries to maintain neutrality, suspending judgment about ultimate cosmological questions. Montaigne tries to holds to this middle ground by turning ethical inquiry inward, from the study of all of nature to the study of inner, human nature. But is such humanism a possible way out of skepticism?106 Many critics, of whom the most famous is undoubtedly Heidegger, deny such a possibility. Heidegger claims that if we reflect upon human beings and attempt to answer the question of what is human nature, we inevitably make claims about all of nature.10? Every humanism necessarily makes judgments about metaphysics, though it may pretend to ignore these fundamental questions.108 Nonetheless, our study of skepticism indicates that perhaps Heidegger may be mistaken. From skepticism, we learn rather, that we can be aware of these highest metaphysical alternatives. But we also realize that we are unable to honestly decide between them, following Socrates' observation that we are ignorant of what is above and below heaven, or Montaigne's admonition that "we have no communication with being."10? Yet, we are then still left with the question of how we may be able to live in the face of this doubt. For we have also found that complete skepticism is impossible; life always demands at least a minimal level of moral decision and commitment. Is it then possible to live without having to judge—at least tacitly—about these ultimate cosmological issues? Or to put it more simply, is it possible to live a life without either believing or denying that there is something greater than humanity? This is the fundamental question that a study of skepticism places before us: might humanism be a way to avoid either of the extremes of dogmatism or skepticism? From the study of skepticism, we thus ought to turn to a study of humanism.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-19 03:44:38.221

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lucas Bailey

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Pine View TA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+29

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lexington Weiler Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1- K- Skep

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard