where could i find a good deont framework? also resources about it? I think it is really strategic in pf imo but I don't think my health can handle looking for cards to cut bline
ld, look to ld (ld 2023/2022 wiki look at prospect st, most goated kant debater ever). theres a bunch of kant affs that'll have good deont stuff, but alot of it in pf will rely on your ability to win consequentialism is wrong/incorrect (otherwise extinction prolly outweighs). winning a round on deont is usually premised on just winning that, and once you've done that their impacts really don't matter because only you prolly have a developed deont framework. heres an example of consequences fail - a) Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence meaning no impacts can be deliniated from action, b) Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events which means its non-normative, c) Aggregation Fails - suffering is not additive can’t compare between one migraine and 10 headaches, d) Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands, and the fact that we can't 100% know means it's a non-normative framework, e) To account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs freezing action and making generating normatively binding obligations a priori impossible also check this out ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Philosophy
great video, but i honestly disagree with you that probability first isn't defensible --- especially, as you note at the end that extinction actually only means 8 billion lives lost. Have you seen Rafael Pierry's lecture on going for these arguments? ua-cam.com/video/d2CyV4spzlM/v-deo.html I would love to know your thoughts. I've personally had a lot of success using probability arguments as reasons to prefer rule utilitarianism.
Thank you Mac! Can u please make a video for the Jan PF topic and PF prep for it? Thanks man and great vid!
Great video. Keep up the hard work!
are you gonna release prep on january?
2:50 my guy starts paraphrasing the infamous Bostrom of Oxford 2011 card
where could i find a good deont framework? also resources about it? I think it is really strategic in pf imo but I don't think my health can handle looking for cards to cut bline
*blind
ld, look to ld (ld 2023/2022 wiki look at prospect st, most goated kant debater ever). theres a bunch of kant affs that'll have good deont stuff, but alot of it in pf will rely on your ability to win consequentialism is wrong/incorrect (otherwise extinction prolly outweighs). winning a round on deont is usually premised on just winning that, and once you've done that their impacts really don't matter because only you prolly have a developed deont framework. heres an example of consequences fail -
a) Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence meaning no impacts can be deliniated from action,
b) Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events which means its non-normative,
c) Aggregation Fails - suffering is not additive can’t compare between one migraine and 10 headaches,
d) Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands, and the fact that we can't 100% know means it's a non-normative framework,
e) To account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs freezing action and making generating normatively binding obligations a priori impossible
also check this out
ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Philosophy
great video, but i honestly disagree with you that probability first isn't defensible --- especially, as you note at the end that extinction actually only means 8 billion lives lost. Have you seen Rafael Pierry's lecture on going for these arguments? ua-cam.com/video/d2CyV4spzlM/v-deo.html I would love to know your thoughts. I've personally had a lot of success using probability arguments as reasons to prefer rule utilitarianism.