| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,13 @@ |
|
1 |
+1. Actor specificity-key to the text of the resolution which is the basis for all burdens-the resolution is a question of government action for which there is no act/omission distinction. |
|
2 |
+Sunstein Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermuele, “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs,” Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 85 (March 2005), p. 17. |
|
3 |
+The most fundamental point is that unlike individuals, governments always and necessarily face a |
|
4 |
+AND |
|
5 |
+policy instruments that does not adequately or fully discourage it. |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+If there’s no act/omission-life comes first since its instrumental in pursuing all other values so means based frameworks collapse to the aff. Impacts: A. Morality by very nature is a guide to action, it has to provide a normative structure that generates prohibitions or obligations on action for individual agents or else it would be meaningless. Generic deflationary arguments have no impact, since the government always has to act, so on a substantive level, skepticism and permissibility are excluded. B. No links indicts of the standard- policymakers act in cases of uncertainty without full knowledge of every consequence or implication in the universe but are always obligated to act. Desirability and pain and pleasure are irrelevant since life comes first. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+2. Moral uncertainty means we should preserve life to find ethical truth in the future. |
|
10 |
+Bostrom Nick Bostrom, 2001 prof of Philosophy, Oxford University Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, March 2002. First version: 2001 March, JStor |
|
11 |
+These reflections on moral uncertainty suggests an alternative, complementary way of |
|
12 |
+AND |
|
13 |
+to increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value. |