| ... |
... |
@@ -1,97
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-====Rational entities must adhere to Constitutivism, or risk falling to infinite regression==== |
| 2 |
|
-Katsafanas Paul (Boston University) "Constitutivism about practical reasons" March 6th 2014 JW |
| 3 |
|
-Normative claims make demands on us: they tell us which actions to perform and |
| 4 |
|
-AND |
| 5 |
|
-not invoke external facts in order to legitimate their claim to authority.15 |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
- |
| 8 |
|
-====Obligations of institutions like a government must come from their constitutive aims—i.e. their inherent purpose. Otherwise, we can always ask why do we care, and never be able to generate normative obligations for the state.==== |
| 9 |
|
-Surgener writes: Kirk Surgener, Neo-Kantian Constitutivism and Metaethics. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3298/1/Surgener12PhD.pdf 2011. DD |
| 10 |
|
-Constitutivism tries to ground the claims about agency Korsgaard uses in her argument for the |
| 11 |
|
-AND |
| 12 |
|
-system of distribution must embody to be a system of distribution at all. |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
-====For entities to achieve ends, constitutivity must be adhered to, as entities exist over time consistent action must be taken to achieve the stated ends. Variation from the intended purpose creates infinite regression.==== |
| 16 |
|
-Korsgaard 1 writes: Christine M. Korsgaard. "Personal Identity and the Unity of Agency: A Kantian Response to Parfit." In Personal Identity, ed. Raymond Martin and John Barresi. Blackwell: Malden, 2003. |
| 17 |
|
-The considerations I have adduced so far apply to unification at any given moment, |
| 18 |
|
-AND |
| 19 |
|
-clear content can be given to the idea of a merely present self.~^ |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
- |
| 22 |
|
-====Free Speech is Key to Autonomy==== |
| 23 |
|
-Leanord, James. Jul 9 19:54:18 2016. Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University. Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org).DA=7/9/16.-SVJK) |
| 24 |
|
-Apart from any contribution to the advancement of truth, the attainment of knowledge, |
| 25 |
|
-AND |
| 26 |
|
-undergo a continuing process of introspection and evolution of their ideas and values. |
| 27 |
|
- |
| 28 |
|
- |
| 29 |
|
-====Since independence is a necessary aim of each person, they need to rationally respect each other in order to ensure others respect their independence, too. Yet, in the state of nature, people have no independence because there's no central authority to regulate disputes over rights claims. The government is thus created as an arbiter of these rights claims.==== |
| 30 |
|
-Ripstein 2 writes: |
| 31 |
|
-The second problem ~~with the state of nature~~ concerns the enforcement of rights |
| 32 |
|
-AND |
| 33 |
|
-common) and powerful will, that can provide everyone this assurance."17 |
| 34 |
|
- |
| 35 |
|
- |
| 36 |
|
-====Since individuals can't have independence in the state of nature and a government that acts on behalf of all citizens is the only way to secure this freedom, they have an obligation to form the state. The constitutive aim of the government is thus to act as the collective will of the people by securing rights claims.==== |
| 37 |
|
-Ripstein 3 writes: |
| 38 |
|
-These difficulties for innate right in the state of nature—indeterminacy, lack of |
| 39 |
|
-AND |
| 40 |
|
-on behalf of everyone~~.~~, and authorizing both enforcement and adjudication under law. |
| 41 |
|
- |
| 42 |
|
- |
| 43 |
|
-====Only restrictions predicated on independence create limitations that are fair, since they are equally restrictive to all parties.==== |
| 44 |
|
-Ripstein ~~Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom: Kant's Legal and Political Philosophy, 2009~~ |
| 45 |
|
-Independence is the basic principle of right. It guarantees equal freedom, and so requires that no person be subject to the choice of another. The idea of independence is similar to one that has been the target of many objections. The basic form of almost all of these focuses on the fact that any set of rules prohibits some acts that people would otherwise do, so that, for example, laws prohibiting personal injury and property damage put limits on the ability of people to |
| 46 |
|
-do as they wish. Because different people have incompatible wants, to let one |
| 47 |
|
-AND |
| 48 |
|
-entitlement to accept or decline your invitations is simply their right to independence. |
| 49 |
|
- |
| 50 |
|
- |
| 51 |
|
-====View the framework debate as a question of which ethical theory is better justified, rather than whether one is absolutely true. This is a better philosophical methodology.==== |
| 52 |
|
-Ross writes: Jacob Ross. Rejecting Ethical Deflationism. Ethics. 2006. DD |
| 53 |
|
-Before considering the question of what ethical theories are worthy of acceptance and what ethical |
| 54 |
|
-AND |
| 55 |
|
-the problem of theory acceptance, both in ethics and in other domains. |
| 56 |
|
- |
| 57 |
|
- |
| 58 |
|
-====Free Speech is Key to Autonomy==== |
| 59 |
|
-Leanord 1, James. Jul 9 19:54:18 2016. Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University. Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org).DA=7/9/16.-SVJK) |
| 60 |
|
-Apart from any contribution to the advancement of truth, the attainment of knowledge, |
| 61 |
|
-AND |
| 62 |
|
-undergo a continuing process of introspection and evolution of their ideas and values. |
| 63 |
|
- |
| 64 |
|
- |
| 65 |
|
-====Restricting free speech opens up the playing field to majority override autonomy abuses. Utilitarian balancing doesn't justify the denial of first amendment rights.==== |
| 66 |
|
-Baker, Edwin C.1989.Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech.Book. Copyright © 1989 by Oxford University Press, Inc.DA=7/14/16.-SVJK) |
| 67 |
|
-Historically, not all societies have exhibited the view that these premises of respect for |
| 68 |
|
-AND |
| 69 |
|
-~~s~~ why utilitarian balancing does not justify limiting first amendment rights. |
| 70 |
|
- |
| 71 |
|
- |
| 72 |
|
-====Resentment of Speech Codes Kills Potential Solvency==== |
| 73 |
|
-Leanord 2, James. Jul 9 19:54:18 2016. Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University. Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org).DA=7/9/16.-SVJK) |
| 74 |
|
-In fact, the effect of the codes will probably be negative. The one |
| 75 |
|
-AND |
| 76 |
|
-sense of equality will emerge from an atmosphere of resentment against university paternalism. |
| 77 |
|
- |
| 78 |
|
- |
| 79 |
|
-====Speech Codes Only Transform Hate Speech into Something Worse==== |
| 80 |
|
-Leanord 3 James. Jul 9 19:54:18 2016. Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University. Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org).DA=7/9/16.-SVJK) |
| 81 |
|
-Perhaps the most insidious effect of thought restrictions is the removal of offensive thought from |
| 82 |
|
-AND |
| 83 |
|
-ugliness of a thought is a reason to expose rather than hide it. |
| 84 |
|
- |
| 85 |
|
- |
| 86 |
|
-====Long term impact of speech codes is racial violence==== |
| 87 |
|
-Leanord 4, James. Jul 9 19:54:18 2016. Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University. Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org).DA=7/9/16.-SVJK) |
| 88 |
|
-In the long term, resentment over thought control will probably harden~~s~~ |
| 89 |
|
-AND |
| 90 |
|
-campus that emphasizes differences over shared values is hardly promising and probably doomed. |
| 91 |
|
- |
| 92 |
|
- |
| 93 |
|
-====The Aff Doesn't Exacerbate Hate Speech==== |
| 94 |
|
-Leanord 5, James. "Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University." Ohio Northern University Law Review, 1993 |
| 95 |
|
-An additional point should be made at the risk of stating the obvious. The |
| 96 |
|
-AND |
| 97 |
|
-or "long live civility,!" the principle of free expression is preserved. |