Ncfl-2018-neg.docx

I negate the resolution, Resolved: Bystanders have a moral obligation to act in the face of injustice

I value morality as the resolution makes a normative claim with the statement “moral obligation”

My value criterion is minimizing violations of autonomy.

First, we must respect autonomy to truly value the worth of individuals. Edmundson 08 [Robert Edmundson. “Principle of Respect for Autonomy”. Key Ethical Principles. Scension. Professor of Ethics. Washington University in St. Louis. January 26th, 2008.] As commonly understood today, autonomy is the capacity for self-determination. Being autonomous, however, is not the same as

being respected as an autonomous agent. When one respects a person’s capacity for selfdetermination they

acknowledge[s] the worth of that individual[s] as an independent

agent[s]. To respect an autonomous agent is to acknowledge[s] that person’s right to make choices and take action based on that person’s own values and belief system. The principle of respect for autonomy implies that one should be free from coercion in deciding to act, and that others are obligated to protect confidentiality, respect privacy, and tell the truth. The principle of respect for autonomy, however, does not imply that one must cooperate with another’s actions in order to respect that individual’s autonomy.

Next autonomy is a pre-requisite for people to pursue other desires and goals. Without autonomy, one cannot have the freedom of individual choice to try and obtain other desirable aspects of life. Moreover, regardless of what ethical principle is the best, people must be able to rationally choose that principle to obey, which requires an expression of

autonomy. This makes autonomy a pre-requisite to picking a moral framework in this round. And. Autonomy violations are the impacts that matter the most, because there are no good impacts with violations of autonomy.

Contention One: Acting in the face of injustice is supererogatory. Supererogatory means the action of doing more than duty requires.

While it is commendable to help others, people are not morally obligated to do so; it is supererogatory. Olufemu

Badru, Department of Philosophy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria, December 09

(http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.whitman.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7e70c8c7-36fa-47fa-ac65e76d59278270%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=111)

Although it is the last in the listing of the principles that under pin the society of peoples,

the duty of assistance is

very important to Rawl’s internationalism. As stated in the earlier part of this work, it is the only principle that shows that the society of peoples owes anything at all to the distant other in the sense of positive action to bring the peoples in the burdened societies out of their problems. Laudable as this principle might have otherwise been, its central defect lies in the

supererogatory implication. The principle grants a duty that does not morally obligate society of peoples to help the distant needy in those burdened societies. What it allows to get to those needy peoples is just humanitarian services. Thus, the recipients of the assistance from the society of peoples are deprived of any moral right to make a morally binding demand on the society of people if they fail to fulfill this duty of assistance.

The justification is twofold First) When we place blame on someone it is when they fail to do something they are accountable for, i.e. if someone promises to give their kid a ride to a soccer game, but then fails to do this, they are blame worthy. Next, when we praise people it is because they go above and beyond, i.e. if someone jumps on a grenade, that would result in a lot of praise, as nobody expects someone to do this. This means that actions that result in praise are supererogatory. Lastly, we praise people when they intervene during injustice (he concedes this in cross-ex), thus there is no MORAL OBLIGATION to act. Second) Philosopher Bernard Gert, has ten rules to abide by and everything else is supererogatory. They are “Do not kill, Do not cause

pain, Do not disable, Do not deprive of freedom, Do not deprive of pleasure, Do not deceive, Keep your promises, Do not cheat, Obey the law, Do your duty” None of these are act in the face of injustice, meaning it is a supererogatory.

Contention Two: Individuals have the right to make their own decisions.

Individuals should judge what they deem to be just and then act accordingly Larry

Krasnoff, Professor of Philosophy at College of Charleston South Carolina, October 10

(http://ejournals.ebsco.com.ezproxy.whitman.edu:2048/Direct.asp?AccessToken=5WN4444TRZPSQYJJW66BQSUPZYPBTRN69U&Show=Object)

Of course

we ought to do what we judge to be good, and of course we ought to do it because of its

goodness. The model here is one of recognition, drawn without fundamental alteration from the case of belief. Certainly

we

ought to exercise our autonomous judgment about what to believe, but just as certainly we ought to believe what we judge to be true, independently of anything about ourselves. In the theoretical case, our thoughts are necessarily directed towards objects beyond ourselves, and so the role of our will must be to subordinate itself to our best judgments about the nature of the object.

And. There is no universal moral obligation, as it is determined on an individual basis. Ana Iltis, Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, 03 (http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.whitman.edu:2048/pqdweb?index=0&did=575822021&SrchMod e=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1310274871&clientId= 48453) The multiplicity of autonomous selves do not sustain a single standard of morality. MacIntyre argues that we possess “the fragments of a conceptual scheme…

We possess indeed simulacra of morality, we continue to use many of

the key expressions. But we have – very largely if not entirely – lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, of morality.” The most striking feature of contemporary moral debates is “that they apparently can find no terminus.

There seems to

be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture,” The ongoing debate concerning the morality of immorality of abortion is a clear example of this lack of agreement or spectrum of views. There are significant disputes concerning the moral and legal permissibility of abortion

A successful account of

moral integrity and moral responsibility, therefore, cannot be universal but must be situated in a particular context. Absent a universal understanding of morality, no single sense of moral obligation is

available. There appears to be no framework within which we may justifiably assert that all individuals are morally obligated in particular ways beyond a limited set of side constraints we may recognize as universal. It nevertheless is the case that we routinely wish to attribute moral obligations to individuals and to understand the moral obligations particular persons bear. We may understand particular individuals as having particular obligations only with an appreciation of their moral characters and moral integrity. Moral character allows us to attribute moral obligations, and moral integrity is the mechanism by which we can evaluate the extent to which they satisfy the obligations.

There are two implications First) Each person has a different view of values and what constitutes moral action. Only individual morality exists. Thus, the concept of universal morality is an illusion, so saying that every individual has the same moral obligation to act in the face of injustice makes no sense. Second), Affirming is a double-bind, either A) The aff tells everyone what is just and what is unjust which is oppressive, and is a clear violation of autonomy, as individuals are not allowed to judge what is just and unjust. But it also forces them to act on ideals that may not be theirs, which is oppressive. - Also even if the aff is not forcing people to act it is pressuring them to act, as people will be pressured by society as others will be doing it and people will view them as bad people if they don’t. OR B) The aff allows each person to decide what is injustice and what isn’t, which is subjective. Everyone deciding what injustice is, causes chaos, because there is no room for compromise under the aff, and that will create crisis. For example, if one group of people believe that gun control is unjust and the other believes guns are unjust, it will surely lead to chaos.

Neg cross-ex strat Do we have to act in every single instance of injustice? Do you defend minimal or extreme actions, Why? - They give reasons why, neg uses this in 1NC Explain the moral obligation?  Why is there a moral obligation? Do we praise people when they act in the face of injustice?

2NR Strat Autonomy framework - The only unique value to individuals and their lives. - Pre-requisite, as everything presumes having autonomy, PICKING THE AFF’S FRAMEWORK REQUIRES HAVING AUTONOMY, MEANING WE MUST PRIORITIZE AUTONOMY

Key Voters for the round 1. The framework debate flows to the negative, because of ….. It o/w their framework on timeframe, because It is a pre-requisite to their framework, meaning you need to prefer my framework. a.

2. My first contention, that there is no moral obligation to act, but rather it is just supererogatory flows to the negative, because a. The warrants are… b. This gets rid of all their offense, meaning they cannot win the round, because there is no moral obligation to act, so even if they prove it is good it does not mean it is necessary. 3. My second contention that there is no universal moral code, also flows to the negative, because …. a. O/W on magnitude, injustice will become worse

AT: Aff says they defend extreme actions The moral obligation to assist others is limited to not causing harm to ourselves. Defending large actions has lots of disadvantages. RJ

Howard, MD, Surgeon University of Florida School of Medecine, August 06

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.whitman.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d03cba5ceff1-4dd9-b7e2-891a9cba96c4%40sessionmgr104&vid=2&hid=111 In developing his thoughts about ‘the obligation to assist’, Peter Singer separates preventing evil from promoting good and contends ‘if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it’. Slote argues that

‘one has an obligation to prevent serious

evil or harm when one can do so without seriously interfering with one’s life plans or style and without doing any wrongs of commission’. For a person to give beyond their means or to negatively affect their ability to give in the future would be counterproductive to the very

nature of aid, and demonstartates that there is no moral obligation to do this.

AT: Virtue ethics - It is impossible to define objective “virtues.” What constitutes a “virtue” depends on cultural orientation. What constitutes a virtue is open to infinite interpretation which creates a double bind: either a) virtue ethics is entirely relativistic and therefore empty, or b) virtue ethics depends on duty-based ethics to define the “correct virtues” through some meta-ethical system. Either way reject virtue ethics as a standard. - Virtue ethics provide no way to determine what virtues are- virtues are defined through other ethical theories.

AT: It will create good results (On neg) - It will actually not create good results o Turn: the affirmative will not actually end up helping, but rather it will just make people ignorant and not see injustice, because they will not want to be obligated to intervene. o Turn: cross-apply my second contention, that states it will create chaos, because people will be acting in what they see as injustice. - Next the perpetuators are the only people to blame

AT: Personal responsibility (On neg) - This standard does not make an actual stance on when people are responsible, rather it is just saying people are responsible. - It does not have any weighing mechanism, which is very is a reason to not accept it.

AT: Deontology Kant doesn’t apply to governmental policies because the theory is impractical. It is impractical, because It does not take ends into account, meaning results do not matter, which is very detrimental. Moreover, this framework sees extinction and genocide as not necessarily bad. If the intent of an action is good, but results in genocide that would not be considered a bad action. Furthermore, if a meteor hit Earth and killed everyone that would not be considered bad under deontology. Thus it is illogical. Also, deontological frameworks are abstraction, which is bad and should not be used as a standard, because we need to focus on material conditions of oppression not abstract philosophy. We can’t restrict anyone’s freedom, so any action is bad. Meaning no permissibility, so stopping slavery would be bad, so don’t accept their framework.

AT: Util Don’t buy my opponents standard of utilitarianism. Aggregation is nonsensical since combining disparate experiences is impossible. Ten headaches don’t become one migraine as there is no actor capable of experiencing the collective pain of ten people. Util fails to respect the inherent value of each human being, if slavery produced more good than harm it would be viewed as good under Util. Triggers permissibility, because we cannot calculate actions, because of infinite chains, so we cannot calculate how good it is, meaning under this framework all actions are permissible. Because all actions are permissible that means slavery and genocide are allowed, meaning reject this framework.

AT: Small actions (On neg) - These actions do not do much if anything.

AT: Act omission distinction (On neg) No act omission distinction makes Morality over demanding - i.e. if one had to murder someone in order to have a kid that would be immoral, but kids cost a lot of money, and that money could

have gone to saving a life, thus it would be immoral to have a kid. Triggers permissibility, because no actions are allowed. - AT; to this. Not mutually exclusive, there is a line, you can still do things and donate and help out, just doesn’t have to be this extreme. - Only need to act against a few injustices

First, my opponent proposed no definitions for the following words, so you have to use the following definitions to evaluate the round. Merriam-Webster defines “negate” as “to deny the existence or truth of” And according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “Face” refers to, “the front part of the head that in humans extends from the forehead to the chin and includes the mouth, nose, cheeks, and eyes” Injustice doesn’t have a face, so this statement makes no sense and is false. Endorse a negative ballot, because the resolution is false.

Next, according to Cambridge Dictionary “act” means to, “perform a part in a film, play, or television production.” The result of acting is a production, which spreads malicious propaganda to its viewers, as well as creating an

actor-viewer relationship, in which the viewer is subservient. Entertainism (“Movies and Its Deep Impact on Society: An Issue No One Talks About.” Entertainism, Entertainism, 2018, entertainism.com/movies-their-impact-onsociety.) The Negative Impact of Movies on Society Spreads Propaganda Movies are successfully able to influence its viewers

to a very large extent,

which is exactly what the advertising industry capitalizes on. They

use a few

seconds of movie footage in order to market their products to the whole world. For instance, a new car model, or new designer clothes and accessories, are showcased to the world by the actors enacting their roles. This makes us aware of the new product, makes us curious and interested. This results in us finding out about the new product through the internet and through discussions with friends. This way, the chain of advertising and communication of the information continues in a flow smooth, without making the advertising companies spend a dime. Affects Lifestyle Everything we watch and listen to, affects and influences us at some level or the other. If not consciously, it leaves its traces in our psyche. Since we

consider actors

as superiors and almost have god-like devotion for them, whatever they do affects us as well. We

try to emulate them and

behave like them. We emulate their newest fashion trends, the way they speak, and the lifestyles they lead, both on and off-screen. We are interested in finding out which celeb is dating who, and what all they are up to in their personal and private lives. This is exactly why smoking

in movies has been banned,

because people watch their favorite actors smoking on-screen and it makes the people of society

feel that they too must try it. At some point, we all

think that it is the new cool thing to do, and we do it because it makes us feel special. Media affects our culture in many ways. For instance, movies have significantly affected our moral beliefs as well, by seriously jeopardizing the very foundation of marriage.

Movies make it seem like it's normal to indulge in extramarital affairs, and polygamous relationships, which in reality [are] might turn out to be an extremely unsafe and detrimental practice[s] for everyone involved. Movies have their own plus and negative points, just like everything else in the world. Nonetheless, movies and their impact on society runs very deep and has become an integral part of our very existence. It affects us in more ways than we can imagine.

There is no justification that bystanders have a moral obligation to act in movies. The acting industry should be minimized rather than increased, so the negative world is better.