Embedded Files
The Role of Philosophy in Traditional Debate
In traditional circuits, there’s a heavy emphasis on the use of values and value criterions in each round, as opposed to progressive debate. Framework is an essential standard of evaluation for the judge, enabling clash in the round. In order to provide a strong basis for moral arguments, an understanding of core philosophies is essential!
Core Moral Theories
Traditional LD tends to focus on relatively few, popular philosophical ideas which can be categorized into two main categories: political and moral philosophies. Political philosophy focuses on the role of institutions and government in society, while moral philosophy tends to focus on ethics, human behavior, and determining what is right or wrong in a given situation.
Chapter A: Consequentialism
Consequentialism is a broad ethical framework which posits that the morality of an action should be judged solely on the basis of its consequences. Unlike deontology, which will be mentioned later, consequentialism disregards intentions and moral duties, focusing purely on outcomes. For example, in the trolley problem, a consequentialist would argue that pulling the lever saves more lives, making it the only ethical choice.
Core consequentialist philosophers include Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, English philosophers credited with the creation of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism/Util is an ethical theory under the consequentialist umbrella which states that the most moral choice is the one that produces the greatest good (happiness, wellbeing, etc.) for the greatest number of people. Util inherently focuses on consequences rather than intentions, making it fundamentally a consequentialist philosophy. Key pillars of utilitarianism include hedonism, the focus on maximizing pleasure and minimizing plain, as well as the the Greatest Happiness Principle. Philosopher John Stuart Mill describes the principle, stating, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Here Stuart-Mill defines happiness as simply the absence of pain, providing a standard for ethical decision making, policy, and law.
Utilitarianism is the most commonly used consequentialist philosophy in LD debate. Common utilitarian values include societal welfare, quality of life, and human wellbeing. Because values are broader ethical principles you typically want to avoid running consequentialism or util as a value; instead save them for your criterion. Common value criteria in a utilitarian framework include maximizing well-being, minimizing harm, or simply utilitarianism itself.
Strengths
More objective than other frameworks
Useful for policy-making and real-world ethical conflicts
Intuitive to lay judges
Provides a clear weighing mechanism
Can be applied to essentially all resolutions
Weaknesses
Sacrifices individual rights for the “greater good”
Often fails to protect minorities in the pursuit of benefitting the majority
Ignores intentions and integrity
Subjectivity of happiness
Can be seen as demanding and “cold”
Chapter B: Deontology
Deontology is an ethical theory which judges the morality of an action based on whether or not it adheres to rules, duties, and obligations, rather than the consequences of said action. Further, deontology argues that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of whether or not they produce a bad result. For example, a deontologist would argue that lying, even in an effort to protect yourself or others, is inherently immoral, regardless of the positive outcome it may generate. In Lincoln-Douglas, deontological frameworks evaluate policies or actions by whether they respect moral duties, rather than by whether or not they maximize overall well-being.
The most influential and well-known deontologist is German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who argued that the moral duties at the core of deontology are defined through reason and the categorical imperative, which will be explained in detail later. Kant’s contributions to moral philosophy were so substantive that they make up a branch of deontology known as Kantian Ethics.
Kantian deontology makes up the vast majority of deontological theory. In his contributions to deontology, Kant came up with 3 key principles.
The Categorical Imperative:
The Categorical imperative is a universal moral law which states that you should only act on rules (maxims) that you would logically want everyone else to follow without contradiction. More simply, Kant is stating that actions can only be deemed moral if they could be done universally. For example, lying would be immoral under the categorical imperative as everyone lying would result in the destruction of truth as a whole. It's under this framework that Kant deems lying to be universally immoral, regardless of the circumstances.
Formula of Universal Law:
The Formula of Universal Law declares that one must "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time that it should become a universal law” (Kant). This is the core principle which guides the Categorical Imperative, operationalizing Kant’s idea of moral universality. It's important to understand that central to this reasoning is the principle of rationality. If an universalized action results in contradictions and irrationality, such as the destruction of truth in the above example, it is deemed immoral. There are two main types of contradictions, a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in will. A contradiction in conception occurs when a maxim (law) cannot logically be universalized, such as with lying or stealing. On the other hand, a contradiction in will occurs when the maxim could be universalized but no rational person would want it to be so. For example, refusing to help others in need, while logically possible, is still a contradiction as rational actors rely on cooperation and help from others.
Formula of Humanity:
The Formula of Humanity is the last core component of Kantian deontology discussed in this guide. It states that one ought to "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in any other person, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (Kant). Simply put, humans possess intrinsic dignity, making them “ends in themselves.” For this reason, Kant prohibits the exploitation and manipulation of someone in order to achieve a goal. This principle commonly contradicts utilitarian reasoning which permits exploitation in the pursuit of an “overall good.”
Deontology is typically the second most common philosophy in traditional LD after consequentialism, likely as it provides the most clash against utilitarianism or similar frameworks. Potential deontological values include human dignity, justice, moral duty, and autonomy. Potential value criterions include protecting individual rights, upholding moral duties, and respecting rational agency.
When running deontology, make use of the Kantian tools provided above, namely the Categorical Imperative. Further, in rounds with lay judges, make sure you have a strong grasp of deontology and are able to “dumb it down” so the average, inexperienced person could understand. Typically rounds in which deontology is run are very framework-heavy so ensure you understand the other key philosophies detailed in this guide and others.
*Remember that deontological cases cannot rely on consequentialist impacts!
Strengths
Moral consistency
Judge-friendly clash
Protects individual rights
Intuitive appeal
Emphasis on duty
Weaknesses
Inflexibility
Ignores consequences
Conflicting duties (which do you follow)
Practical difficulty
Overly absolutist
Chapter C: Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics is one of three philosophies (utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics) in the field of Normative Ethics, the branch of moral philosophy that establishes norms, standards, or rules for determining right and wrong behavior. Unlike deontology or utilitarianism, virtue ethics focuses on character, moral habits, and personal virtues. However, it focuses on cultivating a virtuous character, rather than merely determining right or wrong actions.
Virtue Ethics is one of the older moral doctrines, stemming from ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Confucius. It was later expanded upon by Thomas Aquinas who applied the concept to Christian theology.
Main Concepts and Principles:
Virtues and vices:
Virtues and vices are opposing moral character traits used to define human behavior and morality in a virtue ethics framework. Virtues are simply desirable character traits (e.g. humility, kindness, patience, etc.) while vices are undesirable, habitual behaviors that degrade character (e.g. sloth, pride, greed, etc.). Throughout history, these virtues and vices, along with virtue ethics as a whole, have been intimately tied to religion, for example, the seven deadly sins in Christian doctrines are clear examples of vices.
Eudaemonia:
Eudaemonia is an ancient-greek concept often translated as "happiness" or “living well.” In Aristotelian virtue ethics, it can be thought of as the ultimate goal, not dissimilar to the modern psychological concept of self-actualization. Eudaemonia isn’t a passing emotion but rather a mental state achieved by acting in accordance with reason and virtue over a lifetime. The primary critique of this concept is that eudaemonia, or happiness, is vaguely defined and inherently subjective. For this reason, it’s difficult to have a universal approach to the ethical outlook of humanity under a virtue ethics framework. However, what is seemingly universal is the tool by which eudaemonia can be achieved.
The Golden Mean:
The golden mean is a crucial part of Aristotelian virtue ethics and is defined as the desirable middle between two extremes: one of excess, the other of deficiency. Essentially, the principle states that everything is a balancing act, and acting in accordance with virtue concerns navigating conflicting extremes and finding the balance.
Virtue ethics is likely to be the least-encountered of the three main fields of normative ethics in traditional LD debate. It can often sound circular and cannot always be applied properly to institutions, making it less likely to come up than consequentialism or deontology. Still, it is one of the oldest schools of thought and one which many arguments still, whether intentionally or not, use as a foundation for their ethics.
Strengths
Holistic & person centered
Promotes moral growth & human flourishing
Focus on motivation & individual behavior
Relatively simple to lay judges
Weaknesses
Lack of specific guidance
Little access to consequential impacts
Potential for Circular Reasoning (e.g. moral action is what a virtuous person does, virtuous people act morally)
Difficult to apply to governments/institutions, as it is centered around personal ethical development
Chapter D: Social Contract Theory/Contractarianism
Contractarianism (not to be confused with contractualism, a Kantian philosophy) argues that moral norms and governmental authority are derived from a rational, mutual agreement among self-interested individuals to cooperate. Essentially, people consent to moral rules and authority in order to maximize their own interests, ensuring safety and cooperation. While other theories focus on inherent duties, character, or maximizing happiness, contractarianism simply argues that the “right” action is whatever is agreed on in order to avoid a “state of nature.”
Contractarian Ethics evolved from Thomas Hobbes’ 17th-century political philosophy, namely the social contract theory. It was later expanded upon by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau before being revived in the 20th-century by philosophers like John Rawls.
Main Concepts and Principles:
Social Contract Theory
First developed by Hobbes, social contract theory states that individual actors consent to governmental authority, surrendering certain freedoms, in order to protect their remaining rights and maintain social order. Criticism of the theory focuses on a lack of historical basis, philosopher David Hume argued that governments were established by force or conquest, not voluntary agreement. Nonetheless, it’s a key concept in understanding governmental legitimacy.
State of Nature
The state of nature is a hypothetical condition of humanity in which no government, laws, or social organization exists. Proponents argue that it describes the way humans existed prior to society or civilization. Hobbes explains the state of nature as inherently unequal and dangerous, justifying the need for a “social contact.” Other philosophers have disagreed with Hobbes’ negative outlook on humanity, namely Locke and Rousseau. Locke argued that humans were born a blank slate (“tabula rasa”) and shaped by their environment, while Rousseau believed humans were naturally good and compassionate, even in the state of nature. Regardless, each philosopher believed a social contract was necessary to establish government and protect individual rights.
The Veil of Ignorance:
The veil of ignorance is a philosophical thought experiment developed by John Rawls, in which one must design a social contract without knowing their race, gender, sexuality, or class. Essentially you are behind a “veil of ignorance." The experiment was created to foster fair, imperial decision-making regarding social structures. Rawls argued that, when ignorant of their position in society, self-interested actors would design a more just society.
Contractarianism is fairly common in LD, especially when resolutions concern government legitimacy or justice. When running contractarianism, clearly establish the condition under which rational agreement occurs, whether that be the state of nature or a veil of ignorance.
Strengths
Practical applicability
Grounded in rational self-interest
Strong, established framework for government decision-making
Less abstract than theories like deontology
Weaknesses
Historical fiction argument
Relies on hypothetical or "tacit" consent to social contract
Still can be too abstract or theoretical to lay judges
Excludes non-rational beings (animals, infants, cognitively impaired)
Final Overview
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse