Scribd
Upload
46 views4 pages

Erik Nietzsche Affv3

The document presents an affirmative case for the resolution that developing countries should adopt the principles of Dionysian ethics. It argues that 1) all ethical theories are limited by our subjective perspectives, 2) there is no objective way to verify any particular ethical standard, and 3) Dionysian ethics, which affirms all realities without distinction, avoids the flaws of other subjective ethical theories by not making arbitrary judgments between right and wrong. The case contends this satisfies the burden of consistency with truth and avoids moral paralysis better than other theories.

Uploaded by

Evan Jack
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views4 pages

Erik Nietzsche Affv3

The document presents an affirmative case for the resolution that developing countries should adopt the principles of Dionysian ethics. It argues that 1) all ethical theories are limited by our subjective perspectives, 2) there is no objective way to verify any particular ethical standard, and 3) Dionysian ethics, which affirms all realities without distinction, avoids the flaws of other subjective ethical theories by not making arbitrary judgments between right and wrong. The case contends this satisfies the burden of consistency with truth and avoids moral paralysis better than other theories.

Uploaded by

Evan Jack
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

I affirm.

Accept reasonable aff interpretations to offset the negative time skew and because
the negative is able to adapt to affirmative interpretations in their constructive,
whereas I can never adapt to exclusive interpretations presented by the negative
since I’ll have already read my case.

The value is justice is defined as “the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or
moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.”

Affirm is defined as to “state or assert positively; maintain as true” and truth is defined “a
verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.” These
two definitions necessitate any topical affirmative to evaluate ethical considerations
by referencing truth as the implicit standard. Additionally, truth is the litmus test for
any ethical theory on epistemological grounds. Since ethics are constructions of our
minds, they are also limited by the permanent constraints on our logic. This justifies
evaluating ethical theories by their consistency with objective rationality and truth
and avoidance of subjectivity.

Since the resolution is a question of ethics, we first need to delve into the meta-
ethical and limits of logic to construct an appropriate moral theory. Every
philosophical perspective is an analysis of the world from a perspective within it.
We are fundamentally and permanently constrained to our vantage point, as a being
in this universe, and that uniquely affects our capabilities to interpret it. Steinhart 1 1
explains,

“In human consciousness, a part of the world is naturally aware of the


whole world. The human mind is the eye with which the world looks at
itself. It is the self-mirroring, the self-reflection, of the world. But since
our minds are in the world, they are eyes that see themselves. We are
self-aware. In human self-consciousness, the mirror reflects itself. But
when a mirror reflects itself, it reflects its own reflection: it reflects
itself reflecting itself forever, making a series of endlessly nested self-
reflections… The series of reflections in reflections is like a series of
steps leading down into the deep underworld of the mind. Caves are labyrinths.
Plato said that the world in which we live, move, and have our being is like a cave in which we are prisoners, and
that all our experience is only shadows cast on cave-walls. For Nietzsche, the subterranean inner world is a cave
haunted by vampires and ghosts. It is haunted by superstitious fears: fear of death, of ghosts, of hell, and of God …
Nietzsche argues that there are no interpretations or maps of the world from
the outside. There are no external perspectives on the world.
Nietzsche’s perspectivism is the theory that the human mind strives for
realistic internal conceptual maps of the world. It is an example of what Putnam, the
20 century American thinker, calls internal realism.”
th

1
On Nietzsche’, Eric Steinhart, Wadsworth Philosophical Series, William Paterson University .
This limited perspective and the virtual lack of context while examining the world
poses a major obstacle in setting up an objective moral interpretation of the
universe. Steinhart 2 further assesses and describes the difficulty and ambiguity of
our limited perspective of reality:

“Some sentences have more than one interpretation. For instance,


‘Ronald loves jelly beans more than Nancy’ has two interpretations:
either it means that Ronald loves jelly beans more than Nancy loves
jelly beans, or it means that Ronald loves jelly beans more than he loves
Nancy. Without further information, there is no way to decide which
interpretation is correct. Given only the sentence as evidence, both
interpretations are equally valid. Nietzsche thinks the world is like an
ambiguous book, that it is text with multiple interpretations. Given the
world as evidence, its different interpretations are all equally valid.
Existence is ambiguous; there are infinitely many equally true
perspectives.”

This analogous situation describes the infinite amount of equally un-verifiable


moral theories. Macintyre supplements this analogy with an explicit justification of
the non-verifiability of morals:

An agent can only justify a particular judgment by referring to some


universal rule from which it may be logically derived, and can only justify that
rule in turn by deriving it from some more general rule or principle; but on this view
since every chain of reasoning must be finite, such a process of justificatory reasoning must
always terminate with the assertion of some rule or principle for which no further
reason can be given. Each individual implicitly or explicitly has to adopt his or her own first principles on the basis of such a choice.
The utterance of any universal principle is in the end an expression of the
preferences of for that will its principles have and it them by adopting them.” However, that does not mean morality in and of its self cannot exist,
therefore, I present the following burden analysisan individual will and can have only such authority as [one]

chooses to confer upon [it] .


In conclusion, any ethical theory that asserts its own verifiability via arbitrary and
subjective criteria fails the implicit standard of truth as described earlier in the
framework.

Therefore, the sole and sufficient affirmative burden is to demonstrate consistency


with Dionysian ethics since it is the only compatible ethical theory that avoids the
pitfalls of an arbitrary interpretation of ethics.

Dionysian ethics are descriptive since it has already been established that our entire
moral vocabulary is a process of reflection and identification of reality. More
importantly, prescriptive interpretations fail the implicit truth standard by making
arbitrary judgments on ethical accountability. Since Dionysian ethics are
descriptive in nature theres no concern about moral paralysis.
Steinhart 3 presents why Dionysian ethics avoid the falsity of arbitrary standards
through the absolute affirmation of all realities:

“Dionysian naturalism ‘smooth’s rough souls and lets them taste a new
desire – to lie still as a mirror, that the deep sky may mirror itself in
them.’ (BGE 295) Dionysian mirroring is the true self-interpretation of
the world; it is not a privileged perspective, but the affirmation of every
perspective. It is a perfectly accurate reflection of the world from every
angle without any distorting negativity.”

While most ethical theories look into the suffering, and use arbitrary criteria to
determine due, Dionysian ethics examines every possibility, suffering or pleasure,
and affirm every reality. Steinhart 4 furthers:

“Nietzsche’s own response to the problem of suffering is the absolute


affirmation of everything that occurs. The ultimate moral principle of
existence is affirmation: it is better to exist than not to exist. Say Yes to
every possibility, affirm every destiny. Instead of affirming some supernatural world,
Nietzsche says that we ought to affirm this world. This is religious naturalism. Nietzsche thinks that ancient Greek
religion came close to naturalism.Instead of denying our lives, our bodies, our
sexualities, our earth, we ought to affirm our lives, our bodies, our
sexualities, our earth. We ought to affirm our destinies. His name for it is amor
fati: love of fate. His name for religious naturalism plus amor fati is Dionysus. Nietzsche thinks we
ought to affirm everything that happens to us, no matter how
pleasurable or painful. We ought to affirm ‘without subtraction,
exception, or selection’ (WP 1041). Affirmation is not a feeling or an
emotional reaction. Affirmation has nothing to do with feeling.
Affirmation is a moral judgment: you affirm regardless of what you feel.
Nietzsche thinks that we ought to affirm what feels good as well as what
feels bad.

Steinhart 3 and 4 explain the solution to the meta-ethical dilemma presented at the
top of the affirmative case. The process of delineating between moral affirmation,
and moral condemnation requires subjective and arbitrary standards that have no
objective merit. As such, they fail the implicit standard for an ethical theory since we
measure these theories via truth. Hence, a moral theory that avoids the pitfalls of all
others would be one that assigns the same moral value to all actions, since it would
not arbitrarily distinguish between right and wrong. That is what Dionysian ethics
does. By morally affirming every reality we encompass all of reality and don’t
interject non-verifiable delineations between right and wrong.

Also, if ethical theories do not exist you still affirm since an action is only judged
unjust for violating an ethical constraint. Hence, if no ethical constraints existed all
actions would be considered default ethically permissible.
Additionally, my advocacy is topical since it meets the operative term of the
resolution. The fact that I don’t discuss the HIPC initiative or repudiation does not
make me non-topical, it means I’m focusing on a precursor aspect of the resolution
that comes before those terms.

Necessary but insufficient burdens are unfair by destroying reciprocal ground by


forcing me to win offense to the standard and 100% defense on the negative case.
Functionally, I am required to win both the AC and the NC. This puts me at a
structural disadvantage by skewing the ground in the negatives favors and
decreasing my capability of linking into the ballot. Fairness is an issue since it acts as
a check on skewed access to the ballot. Vote on theory if the negative runs one since
I gave them heads up in the 1AC and kicking it will render a positive time skew for
the negative exacerbating the abuse.

In conclusion, the unconditional moral affirmation of every possibility meets the


affirmative criterion by presenting a positive moral judgment of highly indebted
poor countries repudiating their debt.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy