Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[1]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[1]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-17 20:29:05.731
	1	+2016-09-17 20:29:05.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,69 @@
	1	+====The standard is consistency with a Hobbesian social contract, defined as a hypothetical political arrangement where contractors agree to lay down their right to private judgment in favor of absolute sovereignty. ====
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Justification:====
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====Meta-ethical constructivism – moral facts aren~’t "out there" to be found but linguistic categories created by humans for humans====
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+**====Parrish 04 ====**
	11	+~~Rick, "Derrida~’s Economy of Violence in Hobbes~’ Social Contract."  1/5/16 6. Pg 4-7. Rick Parrish teaches at Loyola University New Orleans. His current research is focused on the play of violence and respect within justice. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=026type=summary26url=/journals/theory_and_event/v007/7.4parrish.html~~
	12	+
	13	+"For Hobbes truth is a function of logic and language, not of the
	14	+AND
	15	+regarding whether or not a specific situation fits a commonly-held definition."
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+====Prefer Parrish because it~’s a linguistic warrant – it defines what we~’re doing when we use ethical terms.====
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+====Only a sovereign can unify conficting assertions of value from individuals. ====
	22	+
	23	+
	24	+====PARRISH 2:,,====,,
	25	+~~Rick, "Derrida~’s Economy of Violence in Hobbes~’ Social Contract."  1/5/16 6. Pg 4-7. Rick Parrish teaches at Loyola University New Orleans. His current research is focused on the play of violence and respect within justice. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=026type=summary26url=/journals/theory_and_event/v007/7.4parrish.html~~
	26	+
	27	+All of the foregoing points to the conclusion that in the commonwealth the sovereign~’s first
	28	+AND
	29	+security dilemmas and attempts to force one~’s own meanings upon others are overcome.
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+====Independently, stable political order is a prerequisite to any theory of the good since no one can guarantee they achieve their ends or have their desires fulfilled in a disordered state of nature. Rights are meaningless in a societal arrangement where they cannot be protected. Only absolute power prevents warring factions or political gridlock that makes political organizing impossible. ====
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+====And **absolute power is key to avoid the problem of private judgment. Widespread ethical disagreement creates disarray – everyone has a different conception of how political systems should be built and what policies should be passed. ====**
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+**====Only submission to an absolute sovereign solves, ====**
	39	+**Renzo 11**
	40	+~~Renzo, Massimo. "State Legitimacy and Self Defense." Law and Philosophy. 4 May 2011. http://philpapers.org/rec/RENSLA~~
	41	+
	42	+As Gregory Kavka has persuasively argued, there are at least three kinds of reasons
	43	+AND
	44	+an important sense there can be no justice in the state of nature.
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====And ought implies can justifies stability as a prereq. No one can fulfill their obligations in a state of nature where basic means of living and safety aren~’t guaranteed. For instance, if you don~’t have the means to live a decent life, you can hardly fulfill special obligations to provide for your family members.====
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+====It~’s incoherent for the sovereign to be subject to laws because then it wouldn~’t be sovereign, something else would because it has the power to judge and punish. ====
	51	+
	52	+
	53	+====Also proves the inevitability of absolute sovereignty,====
	54	+**Hobbes 68 **
	55	+Thomas — philosopher, historian, ethicist, geometrician, squarer of the circle — Leviathan, selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668, ed. w/ intro by Edwin Curley, Hackett. p. 213
	56	+
	57	+XXIX ~~9~~ A fourth opinion repugnant to the nature of a commonwealth is
	58	+AND
	59	+and so continually without end, to the confusion and dissolution of the commonwealth
	60	+
	61	+The sovereign unifies the desires and wills of the entire commonwealth into one body, which means my framework controls the internal link to intent-based and ends-based frameworks since the sovereign resolves conflicting claims among citizens. That~’s key to avoid intent-based problems for government actors. You can~’t analyze the intent of a group since they have conflicting motivations and judgments, but you can for the sovereign.
	62	+
	63	+I contend that a prohibition on the production of nuclear power is inconsistent with sovereign authority for three reasons.
	64	+
	65	+1. Affirming isn~’t part of the state~’s duty since its duty is to be the definer and prevent regress to the state of nature. Not affirming doesn~’t actually lead to a regress to the state of nature, which means the status quo is actively good because it is consistent with state created standards for goodness. The squo negates. ~~Extend out of their AC.~~
	66	+
	67	+2. It~’s impossible to generate external obligations for the sovereign because to do so would require that there~’s some higher power to order the sovereign to do so, but since the sovereign is all powerful that~’d be impossible. The only obligation a sovereign can have is one that it creates itself but that would still concede the authority of the sovereign.
	68	+
	69	+3. Affirming imposes an obligation on the sovereign to prohibit nuclear power, even if they do not want to – inconsistent with absolute sovereign authority. That~’s Hobbes 68.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-17 20:29:05.791

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Neal Kapoor

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Valley AJ

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Walt Whitman RobertsGaal Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SO16 NC Hobbes

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Yale