前几天一个George教练教过的学生发了一个音信给George教练说：“教练，您初中高中辩论课教我的，我在大学测验用了，得了A！大学教授说很好！”

收到这种消息，George教练当然很开心，小编就请求George教练分享一下局部的教材。

部分我们哲学课的课本，中文版在底下

in the circuit， we are wired to weigh debates by utilitarian arguments (i.e consequentialist arguments and impacts). but purely principled arguments can and should win you debates too! put simply， principled arguments are non-consequentialist arguments， there is no need for proving of any impact for it to be good. you don’t have to weigh them the principles up because weighing things up are a uniquely utilitarian thing to do where you weigh cost and benefit analysis.

principled arguments are arguments: the key is to show the judge that they already believe in the thing you are trying to prove (find the right rhetoric so the judge feels yes i kind of believe in it already; it is intuitive; and a moral system that did not take this into account will be a weird way to look at the world).

what is morality: irreducible & overriding normativity

Normativity: something you ought to do

*Often, we can reference to another ought (can be reduced to another norm claim). I ought to buy bubble tea for my students. I ought to do so because my students’ happiness is important. I ought to make my students happy because….

Irreducible: for ought not to murder someone because it is immoral (final, no more ought behind it)

Overriding: You cannot say “morally u should do X, but in reality, you should do Y” because nothing should override the moral ought.

Problems (utilitarianism): How to attack the Framework and Run Purely Principled Cases

Dignity: Utilitarianism does NOT respect the fact of human dignity. Best example is what Kant said: “you should never use a human being purely as a means to an end and Utilitarianism permits that!”

Standard Thought Experiment to use to prove this:

(a) Harmless Rape (John Garner): Supposed a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is unconscious, she does NOT consent to this so that’s obviously rape. Supposed the woman wakes up, she NEVER remembers this and there is NO physical harm to her. She goes on with her life as though this rape has never ever happened, and the man never ever enters her life again.

Utilitarian will say what’s wrong? The guy got pleasure; the girl got no pain. In fact the Utilitarian will say this is morally permissible or good BUT most of all will say it is wrong! In fact, it is one of the most profound moral evil, it is NOT because someone suffered but because the man used the woman purely as means to an end, he used her as a vessel to which he tried to get sexual pleasure.

Less controversial example: use the Public Prosecutor knows about this, women unaware but should prosecutor go against the man?

在辩论世界里，我们倾向于通过功利主义论点（即结果主义论点和影响）来衡量辩论。但纯粹原则性的争论也可以而且应该为你赢得辩论！简而言之，有原则的论点是非结果主义论点，不需要证明任何影响就可以证明它是好的。您不必权衡它们的原则，因为在权衡成本和收益分析的情况下，权衡事物是一件独特的功利主义事情。

有原则的论点就是论点：关键是要向裁判表明他们已经相信你要证明的事情（找到正确的措辞，让裁判觉得是的，我已经有点相信它了；这是直觉的；和道德体系没有考虑到这一点将是一种看待世界的奇怪方式）。