JOKE LD - Moral Obligation and the "Tickle Cream of Death"

To offer a brief road map for this post, I shall first evaluate the framework clash, then I shall rebuild my own points, then I shall attack my opponent’s. Framework Clash While the negative side values moral consistency with the criterion of the categorical imperative, I value knowledge with the criterion of socialization of proper behavior. I will both address the attacks my opponent used against my V/C and introduce some of my own. 1. Knowledge isn’t concerned with morality. The Neg claims that “Knowing how to “socialize to proper behavior” isn’t the same as knowing how to ethically reason between right and wrong.” Yet here, my opponent neglects the value of having a teacher, in this case in the form of society, to instruct you. While one can reach many conclusions by one’s self, there is a large value in receiving external input. For this, let’s turn to “Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl” and see how Captain Jack Sparrow is able to help teach Will Turner by giving him new insight from an external perspective - “When Sparrow outwits Will in a sword fight, Will claims Jack "cheated" by ignoring the "rules of engagement," and would have killed Sparrow in a fair fight. Sparrow retorts, "That's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it." He impresses upon the naïve young man that the only rules that matter are, "What a man can do, and what a man can't do." It is a lesson Will is unlikely to forget.” While Will is a good technical sword fighter on his own from what he has taught himself, it is through the input of another external source that he excels. Clearly socialization is actually linked to learning to reason between right and wrong – think of how a parent teaches a baby the difference between right and wrong as they slowly teach them first what acts are and are not right (i.e. “no you can’t hit sally”) it is through this socialization that a child learns the rules that then later develops into a framework through which they can rationally think for themselves. 2. Cultural Norms are Inconsistent and therefore not Moral. This relates to the Neg’s O3 in which he states “contextual/cultural origins promote inconsistencies” and to his third attack on the value frame work where he addresses my CJ2 and CJ3; however, this is actually going to be addressed by my main attack against my opponent’s value. 3. Moral Consistency isn’t Attainable. Neg advocates for morality free from contradiction. Given his criterion of the categorical imperative it makes most sense to assume he means global consistency. There a couple of reasons why we can’t achieve global moral consistency. First, to be 100% morally consistent that require that humans always responded in the exact same manner to any situation, yet there is great human diversity in any situation. Therefore, we must see that we can’t achieve 100% moral consistency because people will never act in identical manners. Second, advocating for moral consistency implies that morality must have a consistent, determinable source and this isn’t attainable. Given that there is no discernable source for morality, this moral consistency has nothing to be based on. Therefore, given the lack of an official source this would require the creation of a source which, again to draw upon my opponent’s analogy, is akin to giving Emperor Palpatine sole control of the senate so that one person may decide what is right – it sends the galaxy spiraling into chaos. 4. Morality has Inherent Social Subjectivity. Given that morality cannot be 100% consistent, there is an element of cultural subjectivity. Returning to my source 7, cultures vary on how they respond to teasing – some see that it is necessary for a person to remain humble, others see that one should stand up for oneself. One reason that there is this variance is due to how some cultures are individualistic (value the individual) and others are collectivist (the good of the group comes first); therefore, in this different settings what is the “right and wrong behavior” (drawing upon my opponent’s definition of morality) does actually change to certain extent. Given this, socialization is the best way to learn the moral acts for one’s life as it teaches what your society values through interaction. Having addressed the framework issues I shall now rebuild my own case. 1. Laws of Physics a) Newton’s Third. By rejecting this principle as applying to life, my opponent rejects the idea of cause-and-effect chains. However, we need to see that for every action there is a reaction, it causes something to happen. Equate this to “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” when the beacons of Gondor are lit – the lighting of one beacon triggers a chain in which others are lit; however, each beacon represents a choice as each outpost must decide to respond to the call and pass along the message. Just as that, in life each action causes another, though we do have choices in what we ought to do. Given that this is an inherent aspect of life, see that this analogy stands. b) Conservation of Energy. Here my opponent simply attacks this by calling the TCD a negative action; yet, he fails to acknowledge the potential positive effects. If you actually evaluate the TCD it involves placing whipped cream on someone’s hands (making it very easily accessible) and tickling their nose (which produces laughter) the worst possible effect would be that by tickling the nose, a person may smack their face – however, this simply places the whipped cream even closer to one’s face. Clearly the TCD is actually a positive act, unlike my opponent supposes. - as a third attack on this my opponent brings up again the idea that societal norms are relative and morality is consistent; again see my attacks above as to how a consistent morality is impossible to achieve. 2. Socially Preferred Reaction a) asserting oneself My opponent claims this only proves justification not obligation; however, this will be something I address below when I start in on his framework. b) strengthens friendships The greatest tragedy of this point, is that my opponent completely rejects the valuable knowledge base that is My Little Pony – a television series designed to instruct on the key elements of friendship (which makes it a great authority for this point). Rather, my opponent attacks this with a severe hyperbole, equating pranking to chopping off your son’s hand. Given that this act physically and essentially irreversibly (as far as my knowledge goes, unless we’re actually living in the star wars universe) impairs the son. Moving on to my opponent’s case. Observations 1. Obligation vs. Justification. My opponent’s own definition of obligation is “an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment”. The reason Tricia has an obligation to be socialized and obtain “knowing-how knowledge” is because she wants to participate in society, she demonstrates this through being excited about the sleepover. Here obligation can be related to that of Harry Potter in the latter half of the Harry Potter Series. After discovering the prophecy, Harry feels he is being forced to kill He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (HWMNBN) because of what the prophecy says, yet the obligation exists there because of his own desires having witnessed the devastation that HWMNBN causes. Harry isn’t actually forced to kill him; however, his desires to end the suffering of the wizarding world and the unique connection he shares with HWMNBN all create contribute to Harry creating his own obligation. In the same way, Tricia’s desire to fit in with society gives her an obligation to learn how to abide by societal rules 2. All Obligations Require an Origin. See my earlier refutation as to how there is no consistent, equally accessible source of morality and thus societal subjectivity exists as each society, while agreeing on general principles of morality, dictates what is right within itself (i.e. whether tis right to be humble and place the group first or value individuality). 3. Addressed earlier in framework clash. Value/Criterion I have already heavily attacked the value and thus will only address the criterion. The use of Kant’s Categorical Imperative can be highly abusive if you fall to consider context when evaluating an action. For example if we were debating “Does Billy have a moral obligation to hit Sally’s arm?” we could evaluate this without any context and saying under the CI that we can’t allow him to because if everyone was allowed to hit Sally whenever they wanted, Sally would probably die (a slight exaggeration, but that is to prove the point); however, if in this context, Sally is holding a gun and by hitting her arm Billy would be able to knock down the gun and save say 10 lives, then we see that the action we are evaluating is if one can hit another’s arm to stop them from shooting 10 people. Essentially, we must evaluate context when assessing the morality of an action. Therefore, for this debate it is essential to keep in mind that the use of TCD is in response to a royal shampooing. Contentions 1. Claims this immoral because it takes away one’s free will; however, Tricia is doing this to restore her own free will after having been violated by the royal shampoo – context. Plus it gives the “victims” free whipped cream. 2. Since the act is fueled by emotion it isn’t just. See that as everything is a reaction to a cause it will have an element of emotional bias and by this logic no act could be seen as moral. 3. States that TCD leads to a negative world, refuses to acknowledge its positive benefits and how it actually balances out the universe by stabilizing Tricia’s relationship with her friends and allowing her to assert herself. Thank you to Neg for all of the Star Wars jokes and I look forward to round 3!