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 t... |
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 anyt... |
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 pos... |
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 a... |
<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... |
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 ... |
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 ... |
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, ... |
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 the... |
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. Fir... |
</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 ... |
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 impo... |
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 ... |
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 o... |
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... |
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 thei... |
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,... |
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 t... |
<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 ... |
</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 ... |
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 diff... |
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 y... |
<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... |
</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, some... |
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 an... |
<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 slaver... |
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 gover... |
</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 appl... |
<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 th... |
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, rathe... |
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 ... |
</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 mi... |
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 bas... |
<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 t... |
</poi> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.