Common Good Vs. Personal Interest

[AmbivalentEye]

Hello everyone,

Once again, I'm about a week away from going to another debate tournament, but this time, I will be doing Lincoln-Douglas, and I was wondering if any of you could help me come up with and organize my points for the discussion.

I have to give 3 speeches throughout the duration of the debate. The first must be entirely memorized (6 minutes), and the other 2 I must have valid arguments for but the context of the speech depends heavily on the points of my opponent which I must counter or disprove.

The Resolution for the debate goes as follows: "As a general principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good over their own interest."

First, I must determine the following:

-Who/What: The Individual

-Context: Society

-Argument: Common Good vs. Personal Interest

>>Affirmative:

Value: Altruism

Value Criterion:

-Need to coexist

-Utilitarianism

-Collectivism

Definitions:

-Altruism: Concept in philosophy and psychology that holds that the interests of others, rather than of the self, can motivate an individual. The term was invented in the 19th cent. by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, who devised it as the opposite of egoism egoism (ē`gōĭzəm), in ethics, the doctrine that the ends and motives of human conduct are, or should be, the good of the individual agent. It is opposed to altruism , which holds the criterion of morality to be the welfare of others. (Columbia Encyclopedia)

-Personal Interest: Also vested interest: refers to a special interest one has in protecting or supporting that which is to one's own personal advantage. (Wikipedia)

-Common Good: A specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. (Wikipedia)

-Selfishness:A vice utterly at variance with the happiness of him who harbors it, and, as such, condemned by self-love. (Sir J. Mackintosh)

-Citizenship: Virtue of working towards the betterment of one's community through participation, volunteer work, and efforts to improve life for all citizens.

>>Negative:

Value: Perseverance

Value Criterion:

-Rational Selfishness

-Individualism

-Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow)

Definitions:

-Value: That which one acts to gain and/or keep.(Wikipedia)

-Personal Interest: Also vested interest: refers to a special interest one has in protecting or supporting that which is to one's own personal advantage. (Wikipedia)

-Common Good: A specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. (Wikipedia)

-Perseverance: Value of striving to preserve one's own existence through rational and selfish means without detriment to oneself or others.

-Rational Selfishness: The way of living your life in such a manner that your own happiness and hunt for various benefits in life can co-exist with the same will of others.(Wikipedia)

-Altruism: The primary concern for the welfare of others, or the devotion to the interests of others. (Merriam-Webster)

-Citizenship: Membership in a political community (originally a city but now usually a state) and carries with it volitional rights to political and social participation. (Wikipedia)

This is the preliminary writing I had to do, but I still haven't begun my speeches and am not exactly sure how I should approach each argument. As you can see, there is always the chance I may have to debate either side, so there is no guarantee I'll be promoting Personal Interest.

I've given you my intended values and my criterion. If you know any good philosophers/philisophies/premises that could help to found my arguments, I would greatly appreciate it.

I'll try to post my speech before I have the actual debate for any extra feedback. I appreciate this very much.

[Evan]

Yo,

I was an LDer for three years. I qualled to NFL Nationals in LD (2002 Charlotte NC Natls) and didn't do too badly .

My girlfriend also has taught LD at VBI's summer camp for the last two years and is teaching there this year as well (Aracelis B.). I'm totally willing to help you out. My girlfriend might also be willing to help you out as well if you are interested (I can ask if you want and if she is interested, I will send you a PM with her email addy).

If you need any LD help in the future, send me a PM when you need some help.

As for this specific topic, I will post some suggestions tomorrow.

LD is really cool. They have really focussed on individualist versus collectivist debates in the last 6 years or so. The Nats topic like 6-7 years ago was, "Capitalism is superior to socialism as a means of achieving economic justice." Not too shabby huh? .

The eminent domain topic was also recently debated as well as environmentalism versus business a couple of years back. It is a pretty good time to be a debater and advocate rational view points. It really sucks to have to defend both sides though when one side is blantantly not Objectivist whatsoever.

Ah well. Like I said, I will try to give you some pointers after I wake up tomorrow.

I also PMed you my screename as well.

Have you ever posted on lddebate.org?

-Evan

Edited May 6, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist
Name edited at authors request

[AmbivalentEye]

Nope, can't say that I have, but I'll check it out.

[Evan]

Nope, can't say that I have, but I'll check it out.

Ah. Lddebate.org was/is the biggest LD debate discussion forum on the net with like 5, 000 registered members. The founder (Mike West) really kept it up for a while and just kinda let it go to hell over the last 8 months. About 5-6 months ago, someone hacked the site and put a stupid video of "All your bases are belong to us" up and some other harmless stuff. Apparently though, about 3 months of information was lost. Thus, the boards are in a weird transition state. They also aren't as useful as they used to be either.

HOLY SMOKES...I just caught this:

I have to give 3 speeches throughout the duration of the debate. The first must be entirely memorized (6 minutes), and the other 2 I must have valid arguments for but the context of the speech depends heavily on the points of my opponent which I must counter or disprove.

Your constructives are NOT memorized. Nobody on the debate circuit memorizes their speeches. Honestly, it would be really awesome if they did, but nobody really does. If you wish to memorize your constructives, cool. It is an extra burden of work for you to do though that is unnecessary. It is expected that you read your constructives. In my 4 years of debate, I have never ran into anyone (including the 2002 TOC champ and the 2002 National Champ) who didn't physically read their cases.

In fact, every debate campin the country has classes on case writing precisely because the burden of memorizing a case would be a whole hell of a lot for a debater to shoulder. Debate is a stressful enough intellectual activity even with written cases...you don't want debaters to worry about forgetting words in their constructives as well .

The structure of your cases should look something like this:

-Introduction (keep it short)

-Observations (if needed)

-Definitions (if needed and only define terms you actually need defined)

-The statement and justification of your Value/Value criterion

-Contentions

For some clarifications:

An observation is just a resolutional argument that discusses the context in which the resolution rests and should be debated in.

For example, on the neg side of this topic, you could make an observation that the Negative doesn't have to prove individualism should be valued above the common good. The reason why this would hold as an observation is that the affirmative has to prove that common good should be above self interest. By negating that, you don't have to prove the reverse (that individualism should be above the common good). If you can prove that the common good and individual self interest should be held equally during the valuing process and you win those arguments, you have successfully negated the Aff's premise that one should be held OVER the other.

That is how observations function. The prevent you from ending up in debates that you don't want to be in and don't HAVE to be in if you don't want to. You are only obligated to debate the topic as it is exactly stated. Thus, if someone tries to FORCE you into holding burdens of proof that the topic itself doesn't define, you can reject those on face (prima facie) after such an observation has been made.

Personally, I don't advocate making the negative observation I just gave as an example because I believe you can prove that individual self-interest is superior to the common good really easily using an Objectivist perspective to write your cases. In this case, you don't need to limit the scope of the debate for strategic advantage because it actually might NOT be in your strategic advantage (such an observation would make it impossible to run pure Objectivist arguments which are the best way to kick some affirmative butt on this topic).

The value is what you hold to be the most important consideration (principle wise) for the evaluation of why your side is correct. For example, if you declare that individiualism is your value, then you are saying that the principle of individiualism (and all of the good things about it) are why the judge must vote for your side of the debate. The value criterion is the standard with which you weigh values...i.e "the measuring stick."

For example Debater X is affirming this resolution and his value is Communitarianism. His value criterion is rights protection. Debater Y is negating this resolution and his value is Individualism. His value criterion is rights protection.

As you can see, the values function as a one word or two word phrase that distills the entire moral/ethical framework of the debate...making it explicity clear what side you are on. However, if you were only debating values without criteria, you wouldn't be in a better position to debate them with values then you would be by simply restating the original topic and saying "I affirm" or "I negate." As Ayn Rand asked in her novels, "by what standard?" That is indeed the proper question to ask in debate and when making evaluations and it is why the criteria is probably the most important part of the debate aside from the actual contentions.

When you and your opponent both agree on the standard (value criterion) your arguments should look like this:

1) We agree on the standards.

2) By the standard agreed upon, my opponent's value fails to meet that standard.

3) By the agreed upon standard, MY value does meet the standard.

4) Therefore you must affirm (or negate...depending on which side you are on when you make the argument)

In the case of the example above with debaters X and Y,

Debater Y would say

Premise 1: Both parties agree upon the standard of righ's protection. Whoever best upholds the protection of rights, should win the round.

Premise 2: My opponent's value of Communitarianism fails to protect rights for X,Y,Z reasons.

Premise 3: My value of Individualism protects rights because of A, B, C reasons.

Conclusion: That is why you must negate today's resolution.

When delivering your speeches you don't actually use a choppy progression of premises and conclusion. The actual logic is fine, but it would sound sort of clipped to say, "Premise one....Premise 2. Conclusion:"

If you were to actually give the speech you would probably say something like:

"Both my opponent and I agree upon the standard of rights protection. Whoever best upholds the protection of rights should thus, win your ballot. My opponenents value of Communitarianism fails to protect rights because of X. Moroever, Communitarianism also fails to protect rights because of Y and Z. On the other hand, my value of Individualism consistently upholds rights protection in A, B, and C ways. Thus, you must reject the resolution with your ballot and uphold the negative side in today's debate."

That is just one way that you could actually "say" what I just said above. You obviously want to make arguments in your own words and there are bajillions of ways you can do that. If you are logical and have good word economy (which is the ability to make a logically tight point with the smallest amount of words possible), then you have a recipe for success.

When you and your opponent do NOT agree upon the standard you have a situation like this:

Debater X is affirming with the value of Communitarianism with the criteria of utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number)

Debater Y is negating with with the value of Individualism with the criteria of rights protection.

In such a situation you have multiple ways of approaching this debate as debater Y.

You could say:

1) Debater X fails to meet his own standard, however you actually meet it.

In this case, you would say something like, "Individualism actually best provides the greatest good to the greatest number...just look at America. Communitarianism fails this in every way....just look at Soviet Russia. Thus, by Debater X's OWN standard, you must vote for the negative."

2) Debater X's standard is bad for X, Y, Z reasons, thus you must accept YOUR standard as the standard to judge the round. The arguments X,Y,Z could take any form. For example you could say that utilitarianism is a bad standard to weigh the round because there is no inherent worth to providing "good" to the greatest numbers of people. For example, Nazi Germany brought the German economy back onto its feet and provided the greatest good (at least in the short term) to the greatest number of Germans, but it was at the expense of liberty, justice, rights protection, and life. Thus, a criteria like rights protection is ALWAYS good and can never lead to crappy situations like Nazi Germany and that is why you must accept your standard and not Debater X's to judge the round.

Personally, I advocated a multi-faceted approach. If you have the time, show how Debater X fails by his own standard while you meet it. Then show how by YOUR standard, he also fails to meet the standards debate. The reason I recommend taking that extra step is because if your original argument was made properly and is correct, Debater X might actually end up kicking his own standard (the debater term "kick" is synonymous with "drop"). If Debater X, drops his standard, he very well might pick up YOUR standard and try to refocus the debate by essentially saying, "Fine...screw my standard, I still win by my opponent's standard." By taking the extra step of showing how Debater X also doesn't meet your standard, you preempt that and force him into an even more tenuous position.

Don't combine approaches 1 and 2 or else you will embody a contradiction that will probably make you look really silly.

If you try to say that your opponent fails to meet his own standard and you actually DO meet it (approach 1)...and then you go on to critique the standard (approach 2), the judge will be asking "who cares?" because you essentially at that point are saying that you and your opponent both meet a crappy standard which is of no value to anyone.

Contentions are really easy to understand. They are just the actual topical arguments that you make.

For example, on the neg, you could have a contention that says that historically the approach of valuing the common good above self interest leads to monstrosities like Soviet Russia and other statist variants like facism and Nazism.

Forgive me if this is all repetition to you (ambivalenteye), but I figured I would explain some of the terms and the framework in case anyone else wants to jump in as well but is deterred by the fact that the terms are sort of intimidating .

-E

Edited February 11, 2006 by Evan

[AmbivalentEye]

The structure of your cases should look something like this:

-Introduction (keep it short)

-Observations (if needed)

-Definitions (if needed and only define terms you actually need defined)

-The statement and justification of your Value/Value criterion

-Contentions

For some clarifications:

The value is what you hold to be the most important consideration (principle wise) for the evaluation of why your side is correct. For example, if you declare that individiualism is your value, then you are saying that the principle of individiualism (and all of the good things about it) are why the judge must vote for your side of the debate. The value criterion is the standard with which you weigh values...i.e "the measuring stick."

-E

I already knew this stuff cause it wall all in the info packet (no offesne). Are you saying that the values and criterion I have chosen are ineffective? why?

About the memorization: We have to debate this first in class and becauyse half the students in the class are a bunch of slackers that couldn't give a damn about public speaking, our coah likes to make us memorize things whenever she gets the chance. I don't really mind. I prefer memorizing it because that way I can guarantee that I'll always retain the information.

Aside from this, thank you very much, your suggestions at the end are very helpful. The only problem I have with the values of: individualism vs. communitarianism, is that I don't feel communitarianism is really accurate enough for what I want to oppose, and individualism is one of those values that every 3rd person uses in this case. I'm tired of people using "equality", or "natural rights" as their values because it gets really tedious and it seems like they don't really take the time to even think about what they are arguing. I think its alright for me to use altruism as long as I have it defined properly.

I'll comment some more tomorrow. It's getting late.

[Evan]

I already knew this stuff cause it wall all in the info packet (no offesne). Are you saying that the values and criterion I have chosen are ineffective? why?

About the memorization: We have to debate this first in class and becauyse half the students in the class are a bunch of slackers that couldn't give a damn about public speaking, our coah likes to make us memorize things whenever she gets the chance. I don't really mind. I prefer memorizing it because that way I can guarantee that I'll always retain the information.

Aside from this, thank you very much, your suggestions at the end are very helpful. The only problem I have with the values of: individualism vs. communitarianism, is that I don't feel communitarianism is really accurate enough for what I want to oppose, and individualism is one of those values that every 3rd person uses in this case. I'm tired of people using "equality", or "natural rights" as their values because it gets really tedious and it seems like they don't really take the time to even think about what they are arguing. I think its alright for me to use altruism as long as I have it defined properly.

I'll comment some more tomorrow. It's getting late.

1) I have ran into a TON of debaters (as has my girlfriend) who have really funky defintions of value, value criteria, etc. I only laid out the information as background information to make sure that we were all on the same page so that way I didn't assume that you automatically understood what a value and vc are.

Moreover, I don't want to assume automatically that I'm the only person with any valuable things to say on this subject, so I wanted to provide a framework that everyone can work with.

I think it would be helpful to your cause if people that weren't already familiar with debate jargon (a lot of people on these boards) had the jargon explained so that way they might be able to contribute.

2) I was just trying to make sure that you know that memorization isn't required at the actual tournments. It will probably get you scads of speaks though.

3)As far as your actual values/criteria themselves....

I think Perseverance is a really weak value on the negative because it isn't naturally something that is valuable. Perseverance is a value that is dependent upon other values...it is not a primary value. Thus, it isn't inhererently valuable. I might persevere in eliminating all of the ethnic minorities on this planet in order to promote the "pure white race" or some such nonsense, but such perseverance would actually be a horrible and immoral thing. When you are looking for values, look for things that can be supported across the board.

As for this

:

Value Criterion:

-Rational Selfishness

-Individualism

-Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow)

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Do you want suggestions as to which one of these is the best criterion? If you plan on using them all simultaneously as standards, they are value criteria (plural of criterion) and upholding multiple criteria is REALLY REALLY hard. Not only do you have to meet one standard, you have to meet them all.

The only problem I have with the values of: individualism vs. communitarianism, is that I don't feel communitarianism is really accurate enough for what I want to oppose

Fair enough. Altruism isn't really an explicit ethical philosophy, however. It is more of a defintion/term that people use when constructing their philosophies. Communitarianism is the most prevalent philosophy that upholds the community over the individual as an ethical thing. Communism/Socialism are more political philosophies that have moral implications...but they started as political suggestions based on altruism.

Altruism itself was has foundations in many variants from religion to modern philosophy (like Communitarianism) If you are going to use altruism as a value and try to justify it, it would help to pick one of those variants and stick to it. Altrusim is a sort of vague in that respect.

If I were debating you, I would ask you if you supported altrusim irrespective of it's philosophical applications. If you didn't...I would ask you which version of altruism as an idea that you DID support...religion, communitarianism, facism, etc. If you did support altruism irrespective of its integration into another philosophy, I would place the burden of defending that value against things like facism.

I would force you of taking on a larger burden and it wouldn't be too hard to do either. Either you support all interpretations of altruism, some, or one in particular. If you picked "some" or "one in particular" I would make you define which ones we were talking about and make you justify that choice and then I would debate you on the merits or flaws in each one that you picked. If you picked all of them, I would show that not distinguishing between philosophies would lead you to contradictory situations where some applications of altruism lead to facism whereas others lead to bleeding heart charity operations. The scope would force you to concede that altruism itself (like perseverance) isn't a primary value unless you imbed it in a particular philosophy.

Think this over and lemme know what you think.

individualism is one of those values that every 3rd person uses in this case. I'm tired of people using "equality", or "natural rights" as their values because it gets really tedious and it seems like they don't really take the time to even think about what they are arguing.

Don't base your debate strategies on what other people may or may not be doing in the way that you are doing. Obviously you want to think about all possible arguments against your positions and not run arguments that you know are weak. However, just because a ton of people are running X case doesn't mean that X case isn't the best way to answer the topic. Base your position around the BEST possible position regardless of how many people are running it. If it truly is the best position, it won't matter if it is extremely common and people have tried to "block" it out because you should anticipate those blocks and be able to respond to them anyways.

It doesn't matter whether or not people use "equality" or "natural rights" as values and they don't understand them. If they do, YOU need to understand them and YOU need to be able to show how those are crap values that suck and should be rejected by a ballot in your favor. If people are being stupid in debate, that just brings you one step closer to a trophy (and hopefully, better competition). Don't avoid a certain position just because you know that a lot of people are bastardizing it or misrepresenting it. Make sure that YOU don't bastardize or misrepresent and you should be A-ok.

I think its alright for me to use altruism as long as I have it defined properly.

As I say above...your current definition of altruism allows for Mussolini's Italy to exist as an example altruism side by side with a charity organization. It is going to be a lot easier to convince a judge that charity-altruism is worth a vote than statist altruism. Pick a philosophy that embeds the idea of altruism in it. The reason why I suggested communitarianism is that it gels perfectly with the definition that you gave.

The definition of altruism and Communitarianisms emphasis on social capital, positive rights, and the assertion that there are instances in which the community comes before the individual (and is ultimately 100% necessary for the proper development of the individual) all are reasons for embracing altruism.

Altruism is a definition that says, "You should hold others above yourself."

Communitarianism says, "You should hold others above yourself (altrusim) because of X, Y, and Z reasons."

From an Objectivist standpoint, both are morally bankrupt. However, considering you have to debate the aff side, you aren't going to have much flexibility here. Communitarianism allows you to work around crap like religious altruism (saying people have an obligation to their brothers because god said so) or statism/authoritarianism (you have to consider your brothers over yourself because the state has the guns and jails) which are going to be the big attacks on classic liberalism, communism, socialism, and authoritarianism/facism (all variants of the altruist ethics).

Communitarians rely on non-governmental organizations...so you can avoid the harms that embodying the altruist ethics create when you embody them in government. You don't have to worry about claims that altruism necessarily leads to things like Soviet Russia (which is impossible to defend if you have a judge who isn't retarded) if you deal with a philosophy of personal altruism and non-governmental altruism which is what Communitarianism essentially is.

Ultimately, this is your call, but I really do suggest you at least give this some thought.

-Evan

[AmbivalentEye]

1) I think it would be helpful to your cause if people that weren't already familiar with debate jargon (a lot of people on these boards) had the jargon explained so that way they might be able to contribute.

2) I was just trying to make sure that you know that memorization isn't required at the actual tournments. It will probably get you scads of speaks though.

That's perfectly reasonable.

3)As far as your actual values/criteria themselves....

I think Perseverance is a really weak value on the negative because it isn't naturally something that is valuable. Perseverance is a value that is dependent upon other values...

Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about all of this stuff, and I agree, but then I'm not sure what to use as the value because what I would like to defend is our selfish desire to want to mainatin ourselves primarily and further our lives, with benefit to society as a secondary byproduct of the personal drive for productivity.

I'd like to say that while personal interest should come first, by supplying all of your own needs, you help to maintain stability within society. If everyone strives to better themselves, the state of the nation naturally improves respectively.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Do you want suggestions as to which one of these is the best criterion?

...

Fair enough. Altruism isn't really an explicit ethical philosophy, however. It is more of a defintion/term that people use when constructing their philosophies. Communitarianism is the most prevalent philosophy that upholds the community over the individual as an ethical thing.

Pick a philosophy that embeds the idea of altruism in it. The reason why I suggested communitarianism is that it gels perfectly with the definition that you gave.

The definition of altruism and Communitarianisms emphasis on social capital, positive rights, and the assertion that there are instances in which the community comes before the individual (and is ultimately 100% necessary for the proper development of the individual) all are reasons for embracing altruism.

Altruism is a definition that says, "You should hold others above yourself."

Communitarianism says, "You should hold others above yourself (altrusim) because of X, Y, and Z reasons."

-Evan

Now I understand what you're saying about altruism. I actually had a discussion about it with my coach and she said pretty much the same thing. So, I'll have to do a lot more analysis on Communitarianism, but I'm starting to see why it is better. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

So far I know:

1) Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.

2) Ideological communitarianism is a radical middle ideology that emphasises the community, and is sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and conservatism on social issues.

I'd still like to keep altruism to support it, and I might cut out Utilitarianism because that branches off into completely different things and I want to keep from deviating off the context of the resolution.

>>Q: By putting, "need to coexist", isn't that kind of redundant, because that's basically communalism anyway, or should I use communalism?

The reason she asks us to have 3 criteria is because she wants us to incorporate various sources of philosophy into our argumentation. It's really just like "supporting ideologies" for whatever our points are, which I still have to work out.

Also, I'm reading books 1-3 of the Social Contract, and I'm finding a lot of great stuff. I'm just a bit overwhelmed by the prolific amount of data out there on all this. I have many classes, half of which are AP, so I'm constantly absorbing information. The good thing is that we don't have to have our constructives ready until next Wednesday, so I can still breathe...

Thank you again for your time,

-J.

[RationalBiker]

I think Perseverance is a really weak value on the negative because it isn't naturally something that is valuable. Perseverance is a value that is dependent upon other values...it is not a primary value. Thus, it isn't inhererently valuable.

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion so I posted a question regarding this comment over here.

[AmbivalentEye]

I hope no one minds me collecting information here, but here's some of the research I've been doing:

"Positive rights:

Central to many communitarians' philosophy is the concept of positive rights; that is, rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include free education, affordable housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, a social safety net, or even the right to a job. To this end they generally support social safety programs, free public education, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution and gun violence.

A common objection is that by providing such rights, they are violating the negative rights of the citizens; that is, rights to have something not done to you. For example, taking money in the form of taxes to pay for such programs as described above deprives individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights respond that without society, individuals would not have any rights, so it is natural that they should give something back to society. They further argue that without positive rights, negative rights are made irrelevant. For example, what does the right to a free press mean in a society with a 15% literacy rate? In addition, with regard to taxation, communitarians "experience this less as a case of being used for others' ends and more as a way of contributing to the purposes of a community I regard as my own" (Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 143). Alternatively, some acknowledge that negative rights may be violated by a government action, but argue that it is justifiable if the positive rights protected outweigh the negative rights lost.

communitarians argued that the standards of justice must be found in forms of life and traditions of particular societies and hence can vary from context to context."

"communitarianists are more inclined to argue that individuals have a vital interest in leading decent communal lives, with the political implication that there may be a need to sustain and promote the communal attachments crucial to our sense of well-being. This is not necessarily meant to challenge the liberal view that some of our communal attachments can be problematic and may need to be changed, thus that the state needs to protect our powers to shape, pursue, and revise our own life-plans. But our interest in community may occasionally conflict with our other vital interest in leading freely chosen lives, and the communitarian view is that the latter does not automatically trump the former in cases of conflict. On the continuum between freedom and community, communitarians are more inclined to draw the line towards the latter.

To remedy this imbalance between rights and responsibilities in the US, political communitarians propose a moratorium on the manufacture of new rights and changes to our ‘habits of the heart’ away from exclusive focus on personal fulfillment and towards concern with bolstering families, schools, neighborhoods, and national political life, changes to be supported by certain public policies. Notice that this proposal takes for granted basic civil and political liberties already in place, thus alleviating the concern that communitarians are embarking on a slippery slope to authoritarianism. Still, there may be a concern that marginalized groups demanding new rights, e.g., homosexual couples seeking the right to legally sanctioned marriage, will be paying the price for the excesses of others if the communitarian proposal to declare a moratorium on the minting of new rights is put into effect."

"Communitarians begin by positing a need to experience our lives as bound up with the good of the communities out of which our identity has been constituted. This excludes contingent attachments such as golf-club memberships, that do not usually bear on ones sense of identity and well-being."

>>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/#Rel

This is all good information, but I really hope I'll get to do the negative. I understand that the affirmative basically determines the course of the debate, but I'd like to defend something I actually believe instead of all this stuff. But so far, do you think I'm on the right track?

[AmbivalentEye]

I have edited my cases. What I plan to use for my constructives and the debate itself goes as follows:

>>Affirmative:

Value: Communitarianism

Why?

-It holds that the improvement and good of the community is primary because it is the support of its constituents and the basis of the nation.

Value Criterion:

-Social Contract

--Altruism

--Citizenship

Definitions:

-Altruism: Concept in philosophy and psychology that holds that the interests of others, rather than of the self, can motivate an individual. The term was invented in the 19th cent. by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, who devised it as the opposite of egoism. (Columbia Encyclopedia)

-Personal Interest: Also vested interest: refers to a special interest one has in protecting or supporting that which is to one's own personal advantage. (Wikipedia)

-Common Good: A specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. (Wikipedia)

-Selfishness:A vice utterly at variance with the happiness of him who harbors it, and, as such, condemned by self-love. (Sir J. Mackintosh)

-Citizenship: Virtue of working towards the betterment of one's community through participation, volunteer work, and efforts to improve life for all citizens.

-Communitarianism: Doctrine that humans have a need to experience life as bound with the good of communities out of which their identity has been constituted. (Wikipedia)

Criterion: Social Contract:

Main: “Each of us puts his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of a whole.”

Premise 1: “Act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act of unity, its common identity, life, and its will.”

Premise 2: Constitution: Declaration of Indipendence: “We the People”

Ø As derived from: “Those who associate in [the State] take collectively the name of People, and are severally called citizens, as sharing [rights], and being under the laws of the state.”

Premise 3: “As soon as the multitude is united in one body, it is possible [to identify the multitude as a whole]. Duty and interest therefore equally oblige the two contracting parties (Individual and Sovereign) to give each other help; and the same should seek to combine, in their double capacity, all the advantages dependent upon that capacity.”

Under Communitarian philosophy:

Premise 1: “Central to Communitarian philosophy are Positive Rights. These may include free education, affordable housing, safe and clean environment, universal health care, social safety, or even rights to a job.”

Premise 2: “Standards of justice must be found in traditions of particular societies.”

Premise 3: “Communitarians are inclined to sustain and promote communal attachments as crucial to our sense of well-being.”

Premise 4: “Altruism, in the sense that constituent members have the good of the community in mind and act on behalf of the community’s interest.”

Premise 5: “To protect and promote ties to the family and family-like groups.”

Collectivism and Social Contract:

“Collectivist political philosophy: Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “social contract”, which maintains that each individual is under implicit contract to submit his own will to the “general will” and that the state should enforce this general will.” (Wikipedia)

>>Negative:

Value: Individualism

Why?

-Holds LIFE as the ultimate standard of value and requires constant process of self-sustaining action; Emphasizes individual liberty.

Value Criterion:

- Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow)

-- Life (Ultimate Standard of Value)

-- Rational Selfishness

…Libertarianism?

Definitions:

-Value: That which one acts to gain and/or keep.(Wikipedia)

-Personal Interest: Also vested interest: refers to a special interest one has in protecting or supporting that which is to one's own personal advantage. (Wikipedia)

-Common Good: A specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. (Wikipedia)

-Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as they allow others the same liberty, by not initiating physical force, the threat of it, or fraud against others. (Wikipedia)

-Rational Selfishness: The way of living your life in such a manner that your own happiness and hunt for various benefits in life can co-exist with the same will of others.(Wikipedia)

-Altruism: The primary concern for the welfare of others, or the devotion to the interests of others. (Merriam-Webster)

-Collectivism: A term used to describe any doctrine that stresses the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of the individual. (Wikipedia)

-Citizenship: Membership in a political community (originally a city but now usually a state) and carries with it volitional rights to political and social participation. (Wikipedia)

-Individualism: Moral, political and social philosophy which emphasizes individual liberty, the primary importance of the individual, and upholds the virtues of self-reliance, and personal independence. (Wikipedia)

Criterion: Abraham Maslow: Hierarchy of Needs

Main: Requires that one fulfil all intrinsic personal needs, before deviating to seek extraneous gains or to pursue altruistic purposes.

Premise 1: Perseverance

- Natural impulse to preserve one’s existence and maintain a personal standard of life; including personal protection, and using the means necessary (Rational Selfishness) to fulfil the primary needs of the Hierarchy.

Premise 2: Rational Selfishness/Virtue of Selfishness

- Self-Esteem and Self-Actualization coming before any other act or value (not on Hierarchy) because human beings are selfish by nature.

Premise 3: “Love and Belongingness” as taken to represent a certain level of self-actualization that involves sanction of personal values/ideals, understanding and the freedom to exchange ideas as well as function out of mutual exchange with other Individuals.

As opposed to the antagonistic view that communal perspective is of higher credit and that “Love and Belongingness” represent a need to be a part of a collective.

Under Libertarianism:

Premise 1: “Liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society.”

Liberty: A condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority. (Wikipedia)

Under Natural Rights:

“These rights commonly include the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of religion and of expression, freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to education, and the right to participation in cultural and political life.” (Wikipedia)

Please do not hold back on any commentary.

Very Much Appreciated,

-J.

[Evan]

Under Libertarianism:

Premise 1: “Liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society.”

Liberty: A condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority. (Wikipedia)

Under Natural Rights:

“These rights commonly include the right to life,the right to an adequate standard of living, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of religion and of expression, freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to education, and the right to participation in cultural and political life.” (Wikipedia)

See those bolded things? Those are NOT compatible with the negative side whatsoever.

The topic is:

"As a general principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good over their own interest."

If you are negating that topic, you do NOT want to be supporting positive rights whatsoever. If you really DO believe that Objectivism is correct as a philosophical system, do NOT talk "natural rights" or use that definition.

Here is a link that discuss positive and negative rights. Read up on them and get aquainted with how they differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_rights

For one thing, natural rights (as defined by you) are not supported by Objectivists OR Libertarians (because they include positive rights which are rejected by both groups), so using that definition is going to set up a big fat contradiction in your case.

Another thing that I would recommend is avoiding libertarianism like the plague.

I will discuss this and other elements of your case as a later time.

-Evan

Edited February 18, 2006 by Evan

[AmbivalentEye]

Affirmative:

(Take into account that I don't know the exact debate "lingo")

"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and recieve each member as an indivisible part of a whole." -Jean Jacques Rousseau: Social Contract: Book 1

As is explicitly stated here, it is our duty as human beings bound by the links of society an coexistence to determine the worth of our values under public assembly. The focus here being, the People; the American People, which have been historically known to thrive best under social unison.

"United we stand. Divided we fall."

For the resolution that, "as a general principle, individuals have an obligation to value the ccommon good over their own interest", the statement may be upheld by stating that the common good is primary to society and essential for a nation's future as well as its present state.

To deter any misinterpretation of the terms, I offer definitions for the following terms:

(As set in previous posts)

-Altruism

-Personal Interest

-Common Good

-Selfishness

-Citizenship

-Communitarianism

I hereby declare that the common good is primary to society under the principles of communitarianism which states that "the improvement and good of the community comes first because it supports all its constituents and represents the basis of a nation". To defend this value, I shall use the edicts of Jean Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract, and the principles of social altruism.

By my first contention, I would like to ppoint out that in the Declaration of Indipendence, signed on 1776 by oour forefathers, commenced with the infamoous phrase: "We the People". The "People" there implied alluding directly to Book 1, Section 6 of Rousseau's Social Contract, where it is scribed, quote, "Those ho are associated wwithin the State take collectively the name of People, and are severally called citizens, as sharing in the Sovereign Power and subjects under the laws of the State." I therefore would like to emphasize that saidd document establishes "the People" as a ccollective, and should thus be responsive to a collective interest andd a collective (common) good.

Contentions 2 and 3 will come later...

[AmbivalentEye]

By my second contention, I’d like to once again point out that in the “Social Contract”, it also states that “the act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act of unity its common identity, life, and its will.” Thus, the aforementioned collective body, already identified as the People, is represented by the nation through means of democratic principles such as a citizens right to vote, it is thrugh these votes by a national majority that the terms of a society’s common good is established. Therefore, by the terms of the resolution, because representation of the people is determined by a maximum amount of votes sanctioning a ruling, doctrine, or legislation of he state, it is the common good which must always be regarded primary over any other interest that don’t have the collective (the people) as priority.

By my third contention, the social contract says “as soon as the multitude is united in one body, it is possible [to identify as a collective or whole]. Duty and interest, therefore, equally oblige the two contracting parties [the individual and the Sate] to give each other help; and he same should seek to combine all the advantages upon that capacity.” In other words, by taking part in the social contract, to reveice and be assured protection by the state, one incorporates the self to a collective people and according to the social contract, participation in the collective body instills the responsibility to represent, defend, and provide for such a union.

For these three premises I have stated, I affirm the rsolution on the priniciples of communitarianism that place the community as the axis of a nation and to instill the good of communities is to advocate common good, which should have take presidence over any personal interest.

Negative:

“This I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for this is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts.” - John Ernst Steinbeck

To go even further, Ayn Rand once procalimed that our “Life is a process of self-generating, self-sustaining action.” Both of these views express a fundamental perspective of man; man is a rational creature, and thus must survive through rational selfish means to provide for his/her most basic needs as well as to protect its own interest. Once these needs can be sufficed, and only then, can an individual deem the prospect of providing for any other being.

Resolution:

For the resolution that “as a general principle individuals have an obligation to value common good over their own interest,” I stand in firm negation under the conviction that no such obligation can exist without first fulfilling the basic needs of the individual.

Thus, out of this negation to the premise presented by the resolution I would like to clarify that the common good cannot be valued above personal interest because human nature requires an individual to seek fulfillment of personal interest first. I shall use individualism, the philosophy of personal liberty and self-reliance, as the value to support my stance, with the edicts of Abraham Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs as my criteria.

For my first contention I would like to present the principle of perserverance. The principle herein represented as a natural impulse of an individual to mantain a standard of existence which includes personal protection and the use of rationally necessary selfish means to fulfill the primary needs of Maslow’s pyramid. According to Maslow’s pyramid, those needs include the fundamental factors of survival such as: food, air, shelter, and clothing. What this means is that for the sake of perserverance individuals naturally act on behalf of their personal interest in order to ensure their own survival.

By the second contention, I would like to uphold the virtue of selfishness. As decribed by philospher Ayn Rand. According to Rand the virtue of selfishness is a form of rational selfishness that seeks personal benefits and fulfillment of personal needs in coexistence with the rational, selfish will and needs of others. Thus, by seeking to perservere the individual is capable of garnering its own basic needs without the necessity of common good or social altruism. Convereslely, if, by general principle, all individuals strived for self-reliance and productivity, the needs of the community, the State and essentially, the People are undoubtedly met without the need of valuing common good. In this manner, all individuals and even minorities have the capacity to meet the demands of the 5 levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy without obstruction to pursuits of others.

Finally, by my third contention I would like to point out that the third level of Maslow’s Heirarchy, Love and Belongingness, can be rightfully corellated to the fifth level, Self-Actualization. In saying that Love and Belonginingness represents a need to seek sanction for personal values and ideals, rather than the opposing view that communal livelihood is of higher credit. Thus, Love and Belongingness as bound to Self-Actualization rather than altruism or communalism. What this means is that in seking Love and Belongingness an individual seeks understanding and support for his or her own ideals, therefore isolating the entire Heirarchy of Needs from any collective interest. Then, in order for a person to even think of valuing common good above their own interests they are principly required to satisfy all 5 levels of the Heirarchy, which includes Self-Actualization, and not the value of common good.