Philosophy Page: A Jumping Off Place
This is a very, very cursory low down on philosophy. Do not go into your next round and tell your opponent, "Don't tell me about philosophy my man, I KNOW philosophy." However, for those of you who haven't the foggiest notion of who Locke was, or are looking for any tidbits you can get, please browse through this section.
*
*
What is Philosophy?
A dictionary will cover this question. There are six definitions given by Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. I'll give you the first two..."1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, and conduct. 2. any one of the three branches, namel natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy that are accepted as composing this study." What this means is that philosophers use logic to try and figure out why we are here, why we do the things we do, and what we really should be doing.
Who the heck was Locke?
English Philosopher John Locke is probably the most quoted LD philosopher. I challenge anyone to say they've had four years of LD and never heard Locke mentioned once. When people are talking about Locke, it's usually in connection to his Second Treatise, officially called, "1690 Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay. An Essay Concerning The True Original Extent and End of Civil Government". However, it is popularily known as "Locke's Second Treatise."
So what is the Social Contract?
There are three basic social contracts, Locke's Social Contract, Jean Jaques Rousseau's Social Contract, and Thomas Hobbe's Social Contract. A social contract is a philosopher's explanation of why man enters into political society (instead of remaining in anarchy), and what man can expect from their government, and government expect from citizens. I did, at one time, write a research paper comparing the three contracts, however, I don't remember enough to give a good, brief summary of all of them here.
Well, how about Locke then?
OK, I can do him atleast. Locke describes the State of Nature (a.k.a Anarchy) as being a state of being in which each man has perfect liberty, but not perfect license. This means that even Nature has some rules. I found this to be pretty self-contradictory at first, and you might as well. If you do, think of it this way, morality does not occur, nor is it dependent on a society. (For those of you who want to support subjective morality in debate, prepare to lose alot). Thus, even in the absense of society, morality exists. And while there is no society to enforce morality, it still ought to be obeyed. Locke's first law of Nature states, and I'm paraphrasing here, that no one may do harm to themselves and their possesion, or others. His second law of Nature sates that every man may lay claim on (that is, own) what he has harvested and/or processed or created through his own industry, and what he can rightfully use. Now, obviously, in a state of total anarchy, this is not always going to happen. That's why people formed governments. They wanted these laws of Nature to be enforced for all. That is the duty of the government.
Obviously, there is more to be said about Locke, but you got the basics down atleast.
Have you ever heard of Hedonical Calculus?
Sure have. There are some I have known (not known well mind you, but have seen around) who like to use Hedonical Calculus in their cases. And they would use it in such a way that no one knew what the heck it was. This made for some very frustrating rounds, and these people may have won more rounds than they should have. After two years of fruitless searching, I accidentally came upon an explanation of hedonical calculus. After I satisified my irresistible urge to baller leap across the room, I made some notes. They are as follows:
Hedonical Calculus is a part of the Utilitarian Theory. It is a way to measure the pleasure an action or event gives a person/people. This would then show the morality of an action, according to the Utilitarians. It was developed by Jeremy Bentham, who I believe is the official originator of Utilitarianism. Bentham writes...
"To a person considered by himself, the value of pleasure or pain considered by itself, will be greater or less according to the four follwing circumstances...
1. Its intensity.
2. Its duration.
3. Its certanity or uncertainty.
4. Its propinquity or remoteness."
Back up. So what's Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a theory about how morality may be proved. What is states is that which provides the greatest good for the greates number is the most moral. Thus, that which gives the most benefit for the majority is the most moral. This is not as bad as it sounds.
How should I define Justice? As far as I know, two major definitions of Justice are floating around debate. Aristotle definest justice as, "giving each man what he is due". John Rawls defines justice as "fairness". This has always seemed a pretty "duh" definition to me, not to mention slightly vague, but yesterday I was reading one of Rawls's books, Political Liberalism, and it gives a more indepth, although longer, definition. According to Rawls, justice applies opportunity and liberties to all people fairly, when situations permit. Rawls also says, ...a political conception of justice, to be acceptable, must accprd with our considered convictions, at all levels of generality, on due refection..." thus Rawls supports a subjective morality when it comes to politics (or atleast, from what I've read that's what he seems to advocate". One added thing about Rawls and justice, he says that the government must provied, and justice provides for, basic needs sufficient to enable people to understand and fruitfully exercise their rights and liberties.
My Favorite Web Sites
Click here to find out about the cult of Kant!
Click here to read the legends of debate.
And click here to read the unofficial debate social contract!
