Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k

<dpm>
As any good philosophy around to go, I'm going to start with an intuition pump strategy. It may be immoral to kill one person, even if you save five people with it, because the act itself was a harm that was done unto them. In the same way, there are different, competing moral considerations. John and I aren't saying that the only moral consideration that exists in the world is the fact that you are wealthier than others and have more than your basic needs. But it's a prominent one. When all the claims that we get from open opposition talk about trade and other abstract ideas, I think it misses the crux of this debate, because it is true that there perhaps may be other competing moral ends, but in an abstract sense, when we say this act is immoral in the vast majority of circumstances. And that was a claim that we provided in our pre government. I want to engage with a few different things. First of all, I want to deal with the purely principled, philosophical question of this debate that I want to move into some of the more practical implications that come out from the opening opposition side.
Let's talk about the principled issues at a large or broad perspective. A few claims that we get from the opening opposition to claim number one, that proximity does, in fact, matter, that in many circumstances, these are people who have helped you and have made your life significantly better, and you haven't done anything to hurt someone else. No, thank you. A few different responses. The first thing that I want to point out is that this is clearly a silly intuition pump, because we have clear limits to these obligations. So for instance, in the case that you choose to use nepotism like maybe someone like Lee Chen, we would that leads to significant hearts even if you're benefiting a particular individual. That's to say, those moral obligations do not trump the broader fact that you're hurting other people as a consequence.
The second thing I'd like to point out is that there's a significant activist distinction that they time along, they say you did not get to hurt anyone else, and therefore you're not responsible. But the claim from opening government is that the mission, in and of itself, is a harm that is done unto them. I want to posit a few different reasons for that. First of all, that passively observing the state of the world, like when a murder happens beside you, is something that we would commonly describe as moral, and the reason why is he could have done more the fact that you didn't choose to stab that person in the heart does not change the fact that you could have saved a life, and those consequences are one most prominent. The second thing is that the act of mission distinction completely falls apart in this debate, a few different reasons. First of all, because there are some things that you were responsible for in some kind of way, in a sense that perhaps you gained massive wealth from slavery. You're a white American, and the fact that you are acting is complicity. The fact that you're acting means that you are contributing to that oppressive system, and that the fact that you have benefited off it means that you have a reciprocal obligation to return that money and show that other people do well. The second thing is that the idea of Acts and omissions are given to themselves incredibly vague. So for instance, if you hit someone because you failed to break that can either be called a failure to drive, sorry, a failure to drive well, or that you kept on holding down the pedal on a car. These distinctions are remarkably vague and legal scholarship. We acknowledge that.
The last thing that I want to ensure that uh, no thank you, is that if your child starving you can, still ensure that they have their basic needs. That is fine with our side of the house, because we are fine as well as everyone has a basic need. But the question is, when that child is past their basic needs? When you allocate that money, and we argue that you should allocate that money to someone else who is more deserving and more in need overall, sure,


<poi>
Is it a moral to not work as much as you possibly can?
</poi>


Absolutely, yes, you have a moral duty to everyone else in this world. You have a moral duty to ensure that they have a better life overall. We argue that this is the same thing as the activation distinction, and just because you don't Intuit it doesn't mean that you aren't contributing to the pressure that people face when they aren't able to access clean drinking water as a consequence. Now, I do want to put a limit on this if you working more would not improve the world, then you don't have an obligation to where you are, but given the fact that you have the ability to improve the world on our side of the house, that's a massive benefit that we are able to claim overall.
The next thing that we get to is philosophical issues that you don't consent to this, and as a consequence, you can't be held responsible. This is ludicrous. I don't consent to being born into a society where we ban murder, but when I'm bad, when I do murder someone that is certainly wrong. No, thank you. The issue of consent is irrelevant, because there are some objective moral wrongs. It caused harm to someone else, and more importantly, that person did not consent to your existence, infringing on their own existence. So their argument is on consent that's at best, symmetrical and doesn't actually gage with the vast majority of circumstances that we're talking about. No thank you.
Let's engage with some of the practical issues that they bring up. Practical issue number one, they say that mutually beneficial trades are very good, and therefore you should be allowed to do this. As I pointed out before, this is obviously an issue which we aren’t talking about in the abstract. But let's engage with as if it was still a valid claim in this man. What I posit is that the system of inequality that we've created means that it doesn't actually improve people as beneficially as possible. So this is going to be a Marxist argument, but the fact that some people are able to accumulate wealth means that they control government, that they can choose where the redistribution of funds go. That also conveniently outframes their arguments about redistribution writ large, and that means that those benefits include a very small class of people think about the Afrikaans in South Africa. And so to say that is mutually beneficial when you're systematically oppressing a certain class of people is something that isn't kosher in this debate. So I think overall, even if you buy this argumentation, you can't accept that it leaves the people improving are like the meaningful people that we care about improving, because those are the people who are hurt overall. No, thank you.
The next thing that we get is you should not feel bad all the time. Okay, when John said you should feel bad, that isn't to say that you do feel bad as consequence of this debate. When we say a murder should feel bad, we're not saying that every murderer does feel bad. It's just that when you commit the act of murder, you do you should feel bad from a moral perspective. No. Thank you. So I think it was just a silly this trauma of what John told you, next
The claim that I'm anticipating that we're going to hear from No thank you. The back half is idea that you should use the means that we have to make the world better. So I want to add some construct material here, just to start off with, first of all, I want to point out that the vast majority of people misperceive their capabilities and the things that they want to do. No thank you. So for instance, when you improve wealth, you might believe that you're going to help other people, but the fact is, the psychological biases that we have mean that our empathetic gap only extends to certain people. Our empathy primarily goes to people who look like us, people who we can prophetize. That we talked about in round two, those types of people are self interested ends. It has a natural feature of humanity. So for them to claim that this is the reality of this debate, if they want to make this debate about practical consequences and misperceive that in the vast majority of circumstances, the accumulation of wealth does not get distributed. CF, every single billionaire in the world that hasn't donated their entire wealth, which is the vast majority of them.
The final thing that I want to point out is their claim generally, that no one is happy as a consequence of this policy, because they aren't able to meet the minimum threshold of thriving, etcetera. Engage with John's recommendation about why it's the case that this is part of her basic needs to be happy, etcetera. First of all, even if that's not true, suffering is far more damaging to most people than being able to watch TV or feel slightly more happy because suffering is all consumed you feel hungry and want to alleviate that. The second thing I want to point out is that's not always true that the cumulant accumulation of wealthy skin in societies for happiness because of jealousy, the fact that you have some phenomena Keeping Up with the Joneses we look at other people and the comparison makes you hard, harmed as such, I think the claims of positive are clearly immoral and that we Need to stop environmental damage and civil war. Very proud.
</dpm>


<dlo>
I want to talk to you about three things in the speech. First, what the government's burden is why they have not looked up to it, and rebutting the things that we have heard from the government. Secondly, about autonomy, and why this is a terrible notion, morally as well as practically, for people, that we should have people feeling bad. And thirdly, allowing for actual social progress, and why this is just a terrible idea, both morally and practically.
But let's start with the government's burden. Look, government needs to convince you that all wealth beyond basic needs is immoral. They can talk about things like the accrual of very few in a paradise states. Note, that is not our burden to defend those because we. We can easily and happily say that we think it's important to have wealth versus we think it's important to have an ecosystem. We think we can even support vast redistribution of wealth, just not to the extent that, literally, when Bill Gates has more than he needs to buy his next meal, he will have to give it away.
Secondly, they try and run by this idea of a birth lottery and saying, Look, you know, if you inherited it, then you didn't earn it. Fine, don't eat inheritance. This is not what this motion is about. But then say, look, but there's so many things, it's hard to tell how much of it is. You right? It's hard to tell what you've earned from the state and so on. We think that's a reasonable statement. We think therefore it is hard to tell what percentage you are responsible for and how much have you earned? We think it is implausible to conclude that therefore you have zero influence, and your actions and your choices have zero effect, or Thank you, on what the results of your life. And therefore, we think it's plausible that you have earned, to some extent, some of your wealth.
Then they say they try to avoid any problem with the idea that this is a moral by saying, look, there are other considerations, right? And sometimes those other considerations win, but whatever those local considerations win, that's not a hit against the motion. But note, we believe that when you make everyone better off, it is not that there is an overriding principle that defeats it. We think you're doing a good thing if you have a mutually beneficial trade with someone, and you say, Okay, give me that money in return for me working more. Give me that money as well. We think you've made the world a better place. It is not that you have harmed someone by making someone else and then, but still, it's worth it. We do not think you did a bad thing. They then say, Look, this is they say, I ask you, why do people have to work as bad? And they say yes, why do they say yes? Because they realize that the case is extremely inconsistent. If they say no, right? The idea that we can the way that we can, I can trade my time for money, but that would be immoral, but then not doing that productive, productive work would be somehow more.


But wow, that's important to take and I'll talk about this for my points. But note what they are saying. They are literally saying that every single person in this room, morally should be forced to work how long and however, as much as they need until they cannot work any further. This is not a statement about how some of the most extreme rich can live in excess at the expense of it is generally a statement that says that people have no way to autonomy, and as a result, our tools and the optimization of other people's happiness. I'll go on to that more in my second point, that they but less than they attack us on this idea that they don't think and omission are different. We disagree, and they say, sometimes it's vague. Sometimes it's hard selling. That's fine. We're okay with sometimes that being vague. What we are not okay is with the statement that a baby that has just been born is an immoral baby, because they have because they live in a world where they have received a silver spoon. We do not accept even more, the specific definition of OG which comes up and says that, therefore, we think it is better. We think it is good. We want that baby, no thank you, to feel negative feelings and feel bad, just like we should not never harm a baby. We should never wish upon that baby harm just because it was born into a true family.
Let's talk about innovation. No thank you. One is the first is autonomy. Look, first of all, note that again, they agreed to principally slave labor that people shouldn't, should work as much as necessary, otherwise they are involved. We think that people have an innate right for autonomy. This applies not only to their work, but also the money, the autonomy over their body. They have autonomy over their choices, and they have autonomy over their actions. That right is more important than the things, the little items and products that we're moving around between people. How do we know that? We know that because the vast majority of people would not let go of their economy and sell themselves into slavery to get slightly better products, the retain and it is important to us to retain the basic right that every person born retains. Not only it's much more important than the kind of conceptual products of wealth that we have only in civilized societies as an innate right. As people born anywhere, they have the right, no thank you, to express their will and do what they like.
Note that if what they do causes less harm, no thank you than the importance of that autonomy itself. We don't accept that this is an immoral act. We think that people it is, it is unworthy to claim that by not sacrificing a huge harm for a smaller benefit, you're doing something immoral. And much like as a government, you shouldn't punish individuals who do not work as much as or not doing all of them above. So should we not wish upon them harm in other ways, even if it's magically rather than government. No. Thank you.
Lastly, let's talk about allowing for social progress, because Stephen already explained to you that mutually beneficial trades cannot be immoral. They are better for everyone. We want people to do them. We don't want them to feel bad while they're doing this. But this isn't just a small. Scale question of whether we trade apples and bananas, this is the basis of a functioning and successful society in two ways. One the first point.


<poi>
So if everyone worked for the benefit of others, the burden and infringement of autonomy wouldn’t be very high. Just because you live in a world where most people are immoral doesn’t mean your actual yourself stop being immoral.
</poi>


So first of all it's not relevant what would happen if everyone were to do this because you think that each person individually Immoral so it would be okay to and slave that person because he alone cannot do as much as solved all the other problems so we don't think that is a response.
So first of all capitalism on on the basis of that trade allowing people to work under the incentive of getting something in written and not donating that necessitates That people are able to aggregate wealth that means we don't want them to feel bad when that happens that will take down are economic society but even more so know that wealth is necessary for the important things we want in life we think that art and philosophy and all higher efforts only occur when people are genuinely comfortable. We think that it's not a coincidence that the last majority of medical advancements only happen in developed countries we think its credible important that people are, A incentivised which is what I talked about and capitalism but B, allowed to be have that wealth. Again note we are not confusing this debate with a debate where we are talking about government actions we are saying it is incredible important it is the best thing that they can do is to allow themselves without feeling a single bad feeling to look after their interests to be productive society to improve our world, and since we need that, we want that to happen, is the farthest thing from a moral please. I pause.
</dlo>


<mg>
What does it mean when we say something is immoral As hinted at the point of information we offer it cannot be about consent, because if this were true, none of us ever consent into a system of morality. No moral statement could ever be made, because you could always use Steve's argument that as baby or as Young adult never consented to agree that Murder was wrong or death is wrong. The reason morality is a very fundamentally different thing from, say, the law or judicial systems or the rules of society is that it's not directly prescriptive. It's an evaluated task. It asks us to evaluate the features of an act, and as a result, come to a decision about how we feel about it. And I think that's what OG is going for. But the key thing is, it's not just about feeling. It is about the most reasonable understanding we have about what we owe each other, and as a result, when that shakes up to one side or the other, so we disagree with opening opposition. I think they themselves disagree with this case when they make arguments about the world being beneficial or better off, we are going to buy into a broadly consequentialist and utilitarian world. The claim we are going to make is the one Jason tried to make at 707, without much justification, namely, that utility isn't absolutely the way that economists, as much as pains me to say, would think, and that because we are social creatures, given that utility is judged subjectively inducted to other people. The act of accumulating utility destroys utility and act in the lives of others, and that is a moral harm in the same way it would be if you had stolen this stuff and reduced the ability to obtain that utility.
But before I want to remark a few things that Sella says, the main thing is here, he used the phrase this means that morally, you should be forced to work all the time, and that you have no autonomy, akin to slavery. I think this misses the distinction. And I think Bucha, right? The distinction here is, there is a difference between morality, which is what you should do, and the law or ethics, or like, not ethics, like political, political theory, right? But you can, and here's a good illustration of this. You would save morally. If you walked by someone who was drowning, you could save them at absolutely no cost. It would be morally wrong not to save them. Some version of this must be true, right? That would seemingly break autonomy, because you would technically be free, even if the cost of autonomy is smaller, to just keep walking, likewise with what they would call them deeper. But the fact that you still make moral statements suggest to us that autonomy isn't what we use to decide these issues. We decide if you have autonomy as a human being, what should you do with that autonomy? And that is what involves. But you guys are nothing just point out that we’re established with the burd here. They said literally, comically is whether you feel good.
So the claim of the utility isn't absolute. Other opposite that beyond your basic needs, where I think it's quite clear, thank you, how obtaining a bit of resource to fill a basic need would directly make your life better, and it wouldn't be starving. We couldn't be denying participation in some meaningful way making your life better. The pursuit of happiness beyond that point is about a subjective pursuit of a good life. So sure, some people will do it differently, but let's be honest, there are only so many ways you can pursue a good in your life, and it will not be 6 billion people, or any number of people, each pursuing their own good life. There's an extent which will pursue similar conceptions of good life within that. The second key feature I'm going to point out is that men, men are social creatures. We live in communities, because that is the cooperation that best allows us to achieve basic needs and all capitalism, no the result of that is that in that community, no matter how big or small it might be, whether it's a commune or a city or a country, your idea of good is often defined relative to what people around you have. You often make comparisons to others, and in some cases, you're encouraged to do so as a means to encourage you to produce more wealth or to consume more things, which is how others might produce more wealth. Those are some structural reasons to think this might happen. But I think the unique biological reason is, when you live with those individuals, you see yourself as equal, and as a result, the pursuit of happiness, should you be equally successful as a result, when you don't have the wealth that others have, even if they didn't work for it, mind you, you feel in some way less than others. You feel in some way despite perhaps having started at the same starting point in the same resources. You know your life is less happy to you, to objective you, than it was before. There are two things you can do. One, you can try and copy them. But all know this is a race at the bottom, in that your life is now worse because you work longer hours. Hypothetically, you spend more time foraging from the darkness like what administration one views. The point is you don't get the. Happier than you were before. You end up as happy as them because you don't have the same as them, but you're not any better off net than you were before, No. Second you might not be able to do that, in which case, no, okay, we end up at luxury of birth. But, OG is unfair. I think it's worse if you just give helpless, and that helplessness is a huge harm that would not have talked about if you did not try to pursue this in the first place. And note that pursuit was a harm directly generated from someone else trying to build up their wealth. So I think this means the test that Steve let me not consent, because that's wrong, but it does mean the test of, did your action willfully create consequences to others? I think the answer is yes, and as a result, we can say that it is immoral. It leaves others directly with less than they would have had. And it's not less than an absolute resource sense, but it's less than the important sense of what matters within us as human beings, how we subjectively perceive the world, which I think, as most of you would agree, is how we value whether someone is doing well or not, whether they are flourishing or otherwise. Go


<poi>
There’s a lot of talking about a specific, rather minor harm of me working and then being able to afford, I don't know, a hamburger, but your burden is to show that I have to remove all or according to your metric, it will always be utilitarian bad for me to agree one.
</poi>


Yaeh, because anytime you try and consume more than that, you make it worse for others. And the best case scenario is everyone does the same thing, and you're all roughly the same state as you were before.
So I want to point out one last thing here, which is that when Steve says in his speech that speech that obligations exist to people who are closest to you, we agree, and that's why the harm of our case is that this sort of effect might not be known to people who live half the world away, but they sure as hell have the largest effect of people who are closest with and arguably have the strongest obligations to which, if anything, magnifies the impact of our case visibly but Opening up have talked about. So last of all, opening up have the three criteria that's left over from Steve's speech. I felt the fact that consensus now is going to be in the context of morality, the direct action stuff dealt with no extension, I think, with each case, to be honest, also deals with that criteria. Last one that deals with the idea of mutual trade for advantage, sure, but the debate is about what advantage looks like, Right? Steve will not trade the bananas and apples and more people could have basic needs because one people was one person was good at growing apples and never growing bananas. That's fine. Reasonably, all comes from our case. And to be fair, opening up the crew when you meet those trades, and there is no other in that particular action, normal way of redistributing those returns. The last thing I want to say about opening opposition case is the reason why you have obligations to whatever individuals they keep if you didn't consent, even if you might have directly caused the action or ambiguous what the level of directness was, and there might have mutual advantages, is because those obligations are reciprocal in the same way that they say you shouldn't murder someone that's wrong. It's because that obligation would exist on that person as well if they were your in your situation, that's what makes moral statement. That doesn't allow us to make moral statements, because it means that even if in this particular world that doesn't exist, doesn't matter what is it in alternative world in position to afflict they will have that obligation to you, meaning that whether or not you consented to it, it's ultimately fair, it's sustainable, it's viable, and it is how we should think of morality. Morality isn't just the way of justifying what we do now, it's we have identified what is right. That's why we oppose.
</mg>


<mo>
No time for fast introduction, three points of extension. First of all, why we believe that essentially, the implication of the entire government bench that seeking to be hobbies immoral and that's abhorrent. Secondly, then, a step further than opening opposition, claiming, even if it is your fault in marketplace, someone else is suffering while it's still not immoral. Thirdly, going beyond the scope of this debate, and explaining why, essentially how to the logic of both governments, like the human condition would be moral and why that’s also a horrible proposal? First things, first happiness. Happiness is your primary need in life. Everything we do, we ordered to be happy because happiness is what fulfills us, and happiness is something based on which we evaluate our lives. Now all as ovo correctly points out the bare minimum is very often not enough, because you want to be able to send your child to be able to send your child to college. Want to be able to go to college yourself. You want to be able to go outside the boundary city and experience other cultures, different things, and simply have fun in life. You very often do not be fulfilled if you do not, if you would like to pause it, regardless what that way says, even if other people around you are in a similarly bad embrace state, you still, on an absolute level, aspire to more, because, as a human being, you are aware of other possibilities, even if people around you are not fulfilling. Here's the problem, happiness is the most basic biologically conditioned human need. In other words, you never chose to desire happiness. You were born with the desired happiness, which was then socially prevented any trench even. Further within you and determines your quality of life. Unfortunately, today, what happiness is correlated to money and wealth, and you need to spend money in order to achieve happiness. You never chose the correlation, but you never chose to inform the system that prioritizes money. However, you still need to do that in order to achieve happiness. Therefore, the implication of both government cases, is this immoral to seek happiness simply because you have to find yourself in the system less in means of transaction? That is why? Why is very important, and where we go beyond opening opposition here is because we claim, look, morality necessitates agency. That's why, in courts, we reduce the amount of culpability people have when we believe that they did not have full control over their actions. It is important for other people that someone knowingly made a decision. Takes example, reinforces that, because his person is perfectly healthy, has no cost to saving or not saving a traveling person, therefore have full autonomy, and then we judge their morality. That's why it's not experiment. So if you never chose to desire happiness. You are biologically conditioned by the way you are created as a human to desire that, and you also cannot choose the system within which you realize that means there is essentially no agency at the end of the day after this also the fact that very often people simply psychological condition to want more. We believe we cannot judge the morality of an act if the quality of life of a certain person, and whether their life is happy or sad, and how they perceive it is ultimately conditioned exclusively by that. In other words, we can have a discussion about whether money is a good form of transaction. We do not believe we can judge people for using money, even though we might dislike it, because we do not use money, you cannot buy food. You cannot buy food, you will die. So therefore, even if using money is being complicit in the system of money, it's still necessary in other agency to choose that.
But secondly, let's go beyond what opening up one state here. So even if it is your fault that you are complicit in somebody else's suffering, let's make an analogy here. So even paying taxes United States of America, I'm probably complicit in police brutality. I'm probably complicit in other countries being invaded and imperialism being perpetuated. However, if ot wants me to feel bad about this, what are alternatives? I can either stop paying taxes, which essentially means I end up in jail, or second, I can move through which there are probably very huge barriers, like, for example, my family, my friends are here, my finances might not allow me to do that. It is immoral to force me to abandon my routines and for me, happiness every day, and this is linked to happiness. So given you probably not imposed that bored other people, you probably not impose this one as well, because the barriers are higher, because everyone is conditioned to desire happiness in the same way, everyone has equally no agency to be born into this system. So what is the logic here, even if you are complicit, given that you cannot stop being complicit, or it will destroy your life, which is equally valuable within the equal Moral Act of freedom, of utility that next brings us, and given that your individual actions probably cannot change the system. I if I were to move from the United States, there would still be imperialism, the capitalism is very logical. I'd not tell anyone, however, white light would be destroyed on the other half. That's a very good comparison to make here. But before I’ll take


<poi>
I am sure would have said it, would have been a huge bug than to let their slaves go. It doesn't mean we think that they’re good bloods?
</poi>


I do not see how this is necessarily related, because, look, here's the difference. We believe that pursuit of happiness is legitimate, as long as it's not directly harm other people. So make an analogy for you here. If I enslave somebody, I directly caused harm to them. I chose to coerce them into a position of slavery. In this situation, there is a mediator. So the construction of wealth in our society for the past 300 years has primarily been due to landed gentry, corporations and governments expropriating their people's money, which then create echelons of power which are transgenerationally distributed. But this was not of my doing. I was born into that world. In fact, I exist. Am necessarily complicit in its benefits. But that is not directly true to appropriate authoritarians of like pre Soviet Russia for goodness sake, moving on beyond the scope of the main habit up to now, everything is zero sum, and everything is impacted by the lottery of birth, very simple analysis. So if not the lottery of birth, I'm more more extroverted and more handsome, I will probably have more friends and more chance of achieving a romantic relationship. So under the logic of both governments, this would probably be immoral, because according to what text says, I am reducing the utility of another person by capitalizing on my privilege to have utility. So even though John defines like romantic and socialists as being foreign based, means that basic needs are also a spectrum, so there is inconsistent in all cases, because in every case within the spectrum, basic means someone is fulfilling their basic needs more than someone else. To the extent to which that is true, any contest taking happiness in life is necessarily more because it necessarily decreases utility and it necessarily capitalizes all benefits you have. Up given to the lottery of birth, it applies to every single facet of life. So if that is true, then there could be no a priori moral responsibility apart from the fact that we've not directly cause harm to others, because any action that we do is necessitated by some kind of privilege and precipitated by some kind of privilege.
The last thing I want to note here, if that explains that utility is an absolute on their side, there is less absolute utility because all people constrain themselves to a certain smaller, bare minimum level of utility. Know that things being zero sum does not mean they're equal in relations. So, for example, the government expropriating your wealth to get access, reduces your utility by at the level five. But then using that provided, hospitals increase their utility by 20. To think between zero something means equal therefore it has less absolute utility on the side as well. So we everyone’s magic.
</mo>


<gw>
Opening government tells us in this debate that it's intuitive that we should have two equal grade lines, and if they equal, we should get them the same kind of stuff. I think it is intuitive, but there's reasonable faith from both opposition teams, which is what it's mutually beneficial for them to exchange their apples and their bananas and be better off together. I think we solved this well, because we show that it is necessarily not mutually beneficial. And in Texas analysis, we show that the process of capitalistic accumulation, even if it's only marginal, perhaps if sellers only possession is a havoc, we would still feel jealousy for that havoc, in a way which would prevent us from optimizing our enjoyment of life, and which would eat away in our sense of our personal relative to seller. So we think, therefore, that we solve the debate in closing government, because we demonstrated this isn't a clash between a utilitarian worldview and a principled worldview, but in fact, that inequality is necessarily a utilitarian harm, and that's what texture in the speech. And we received no responses to from closing opposition. So two things in this three things, firstly, responses to closing opposition. Second, responses to opening opposition. And third, the explanation further of why texture extension has a really worthless debate, and if that's taking later. Firstly, in terms of responses to closing opposition, the main thing we would note is that extension comes down saying this is not reasonable. It is not reasonable to expect people to sacrifice their own happiness. We say that morality has nothing to do with what is reasonable. We hold people morally responsible for participating in a genocide, even if not to have done so would have caused them to be murdered. We think the fact that they have to that horrific thing to someone else, even if it is the only reasonable thing they can do for the purpose of their own interest. No, thank you is not something they are morally justified in doing, and is immoral. Therefore we conclude that reality has nothing to do with reason. CF, give away everything you have before me, Christ, type, secondly, the pursuit of happiness is Secondly, claims about Pursuit of Happiness being a moral we are very open to claiming the pursuit of happiness is immoral in some circumstances, or even in many circumstances, especially if the effect of everyone pursuing happiness is there is a net lower level of happiness for everyone involved. I think that's what texting this extension generates. Firstly, about the level of happiness being a primary need. The first thing to note is that opening government already said that the level of basic need would result in people having a level of basic happiness. Now it is not necessarily clear to me that they are correct when they do so, but I note the opposition have never actually contested that claim, and therefore it does have to stand at this stage in the debate, or at least be a reasonable thing which hasn't been rebutted by close opposition, and therefore troubles, their troubles, their case. But I will also note that bluntly, it seems pretty plausible that like is us flying round and round Europe, debating against each other, working very, very hard on the pursuit of very competitive careers, necessarily making us happier. It's not intuitive to be the thing. Maybe it would just be like nicer if people weren't so competitive about the way they pursued the accumulation of wealth in general and stuff specifically. Secondly, it is a moral to seek happiness. I really think that the slave owner poi for opening government is very good here, because their claim is that pursuing happiness is the fundamental act of humans, and therefore it must be moral. There is no reason why the fact that it's the fundamental act of humans means that it is moral. It can be who are pursuing it in an immoral way. And I think the slave owner example demonstrates that very intuitively, finally, they say that you can't judge people for things they do, which are necessary, which they do, because it's the pursuit of fundamental human functions. I think if I'm starving and I kill, opening government to take their stuff that might be necessary for me, and it might be reasonable, it would still be immoral. And therefore, I think, in the same way, harming other people, even if it seems reasonable to you, is immoral. And their final plan, which I think is a good intuition part, but ultimately nothing more is it can't be a moral to chase happiness in other ways, like the pursuit of debating, competitions or other forms of life happiness, to the extent those things are competitive, we think that is immoral. If you give us the win in this debate, we will have committed a moral harm against the other three teams in this debate. But do so anyway. Um firstly second go


<poi>
CG’s evaluation of morality concludes that only authoritarianism matters, and never any autonomy, obligation or moral desert, and magically, even if I produce medication and keep my salary, it is always bad for employment utility. Why is any of this true?
</poi>


So I think the reason it's true, or at least the reason it's true in such a large majority of cases that we should assume it's always true. It's because of the way human nature works. I think this is what text explains and is never abutted, which is that people judge themselves relative to each other, because that's the way we've evolved with social animals. And therefore, the act of looking at someone else and seeing that they have something, even if the wealth differential isn't that big, quite a large amount of stuff which you don't have, causes you to evaluate yourself against them, and to change your life priorities in such a way as to pursue that stuff that isn't necessarily harmful to you. It might not be a big harm to you, but it is a harm to you, and therefore you are inflicting a harm on someone else. Our play from government is that inflicting a harm on someone else, even if it isn't the largest harm in the world, is a is immoral, in some sense, and therefore the motion has to pass. Open opposition response might be, but it's not a big harm. It's definitely still a harm, and therefore it's immoral to inflict it upon in terms of weighing up the other stuff we get coming out of open opposition.
The first thing, first thing that, I think, is that sellers burden shifting stuff is brilliant, and demonstrates why closing government wins this debate, because it shows why opening government have failed to meet their burden, which is to prove that there is like not just this would be intuitively objectionable, rather what tech waiting decision shows and shows successfully, which is that people are worse off as a result of this, if you are harming someone else. Secondly, in terms of autonomy. Firstly, I don't understand why people have a right to autonomy. They tell us, people inherently, do people have just boundaries of chemicals like this building? Does this building have a right to be autonomous? Not particularly. Therefore, why should I, which is different sort of chemical?
Secondly, they say because people feel they should have autonomy, that's not universal. A man's peasant does not feel they should have autonomy. But even if they did, people could be wrong. There's no reason why the fact that everyone feels something gives that a sort of moral value of any sort. They say that there is an intuition part, that if you if you are all benefiting mutually, then that can't be harmful or morally wrong. Firstly, tech way shows you why you can't all be benefiting from the fact that one of you is harming someone else. Makes the act of moral and uncontested analysis where you necessarily are. But secondly, it could strike me that the settlement of the US or Australia was overwhelmingly on net beneficial for the average person who's called a huge amount of resources. Doesn't mean that it wasn't immoral because of the effects it had on the native population. So the fact that people are being lifted out of poverty great. They were living out of poverty in an immoral way, and we have deep moral qualms about that fact, the fact that capitalism has been net beneficial is not a moral get out of jail or three card. I think what opening opposition card is is a number of really beautifully framed assertions. And what tech wake has is analysis why someone is harmed, harming someone is necessarily moral. Therefore, every act harm someone has To be moral, for CG.
</gw>


<ow>
So I usually dislike morality motions, and you can probably tell how I feel right now because of this, because I think this was very good before my switch. So let's start with the slave slave owners burn. That's the same thing as pushing the burden also on us to defending exploitative billionaire who stole his first million, literally, in this debate, this is the biggest wealth a person can have, and that's owning a difference person's life. That's not what we have to defend in this debate. We have to defend that you are legitimate and morally okay to seek further than your basic needs, not okay and legitimate in seeking, literally, to own another human being. Secondly, when they try to push the problem here and they talk about genocide. Look, they say morality has nothing to do with agency, but that's not true. In war, we literally allow humans to kill other humans because it is self defense. The reason this does not apply to genocide is because it's inherently disproportionate. You never need the genocide in order to defend yourself, and you're always doing this not to defend yourself, but to cause harm to other persons, even genocide Perpetrators are sometimes acquitted if we decide that they have no agency and that their life would otherwise not exist. It's not moral to steal belts from all the people in this room, and some people we don't have to defend, but having more than you actually need as a basic necessity is something that's moral, so that others in this room might have something less if you decide to do so on closing government and their idea of utility is subjective, cool, but that means that it's a lottery, of course, totally because your utility curve is something that's biologically and physiologically determined. That means that the same event does not cause the same amount of happiness in our peoples meaning that the same amount of basic necessity, which has to be the same for everyone, according to opening government, does not cause the same amount of happiness with people, because some people's utility happiness curve, consistent to the basic needs, is lower than with other people. That means that your happiness curve that's predetermined before determines your happiness terrible, and you cannot do nothing about it, because you are immoral if you try to compensate that your happiness curve consistent of material that might be lower than other people. So you need to have more than your basic needs in order to reach the same amount of happiness that are people. This is the same thing. People who have one to five happiness and people who have three to have seven happiness. People who have three to seven cannot go lower than three, but people who have one to five can go lower than three. This is like on their side of house. Even if this is true, the utility is not something that's good on their side of house, on open government. A lot of their claims are based on the idea that wealth happens only for the rich, only for the privilege and only for the groups that oppress itself. But let's put that they also have to defend this idea that groups who were dead, who were disprivileged Do not, are not morally like justified in seeking more than they had by the during the time that they were oppressed by the group who actually wanted them to have basic necessities to survive.
So in Africa, in post African clubs, in South Africa, they would want these groups that they would want people who were oppressed by the regime and kept their bare minimum not to seek something further, or if they seek something further, to get ahead of the mind that they had before, but they would oppress a cap to basic needs. They would say that this is a moral if we talk about this, no when we talk about comparative with closing with opening opposition here, like positive externalities, donations and benefits of trade, they help each other and are counterbalanced to some of the stuff that we hear from governments in this video, but they depend on the idea that it is still a criteria, anticipated and poor criteria, that we help each other, that we help other people by maximizing our wealth. And this is important to like watch this debate our cause. Our case was about this because it shows why we don't have the agency and are forced to act on the pursuit of happiness for the urge. So even if what opening opposition doesn't it's not true. When they say the important we have our people, we say this is still more than legitimate, because you are helping your very basic urge for happiness. If you go beyond necessity,


<poi>
It's true that some people might feel jealous of Stella has a hammock, but it's probably far worse. There's money sitting in his bank account that isn't able to be used for a beneficial trade, that he's not actively spending on saving people's lives and doing stuff that feels like a much more important practical harm to people than something that seems important when you agree.
</poi>

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.