| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,14 @@ |
|
1 |
+Permissibility and presumption negate—aff has a normative obligation to prove the res true, so neg gets anything to deny that. Unjust is “characterized by injustice : unfair” if nothing is just or unjust, appropriation is not characterized by injustice which disproves the aff |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+Ethics must be based on context - philosophy isn’t perfect and as we learn new things, moral truths evolve - infinite different circumstances that ethics must account for but only a finite foreseeable ones means context is all we can look at |
|
4 |
+LaFollete 2K "Pragmatic Ethics" Hugh LaFollette In Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory 2000. Hugh LaFollette is Marie E. and Leslie Cole Professor in Ethics at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg. He is editor-in-chief of The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Dulles AS |
|
5 |
+Pragmatic ethics takes ... minimally tolerable way |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+Thus, the standard is consistency with the particularity of moral judgements. Its not to say that nothing’s universal, but there’s no way to compare or codify values independent of context. This means even if they win their framework, our framework is a question of when to APPLY their framework in the first place which comes on a higher layer. Means responses to our framework or net benefits to theirs are nuq since particularism is an incorporation of every framework, so if our theory is wrong, EVERY theory is wrong. Prefer additionally: |
|
8 |
+1. Collapse - their theory can’t be applied absent particular contexts, conceding the authority of mine |
|
9 |
+2. Probability - to prove that their framework is a universal good, they have to win a 100 risk that it is a good framework. A 1 risk that another framework may be better is a reason that we need to look at the particularities of their framework and concedes the NC’s authority |
|
10 |
+3. Use epistemic modesty - we can never be 100 certain of any framework so its the most logical to recognise multiple frameworks may be right. Offense under my framework has infinite magnitude since it incorporates infinite frameworks to arrive at a conclusion thus is relevant offense under infinite different ethical theories |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+I’ll contend the lack of a universal obligation to the aff. Negate: |
|
13 |
+1. Conext is too significant~-~-every private entity has different intents and each part of outer space is different with several ways to appropriate it each with different implications e.g. colonization and militarization~-~-independently negates under their framework too because there may always be an unforeseen circumstance in which the aff is worse under their framework |
|
14 |
+2. Marking space as property is key to describing particular parts of space to particular actors rather than homogenizing it all as outer space writ large |