Permissibility and Presumption

From Circuit Debater LD
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Overview

Description

Theoretical vs Substantive Warrants

Presumption

Description

Presumption Affirms

Presumption Negates

Permissibility

Description

Permissibility is a common argument in philosophy (phil) debates. The central claim of permissibility arguments is that there is a moral 'middle ground' between an action being obligatory and prohibited. Permissibility occurs when a moral agent can choose whether or not to do an action and retain their moral status regardless of their choice. Essentially, permissibility is what you can do as opposed to what you must or cannot. Debaters often argue that permissibility either 'affirms' or 'negates.' Some affirmative arguments claim that ought statements are modal, and therefore to disprove an 'ought' you must prove a prohibition true. Alternatively, negative arguments generally revolve around the definition of the word 'ought.'

Permissibility Affirms

Permissibility Negates