How to not be terrible at principles

1. PRINCIPLES

Those elusive, mysterious creatures

2. Non-consequentialism in debates

• Everyone is awful at it. EVERYONE
• “Our principle is that we wanna do whatever
is best for more people” is not a principle
– Education is something we like =/= it is a right

3. Where do principles come from?

4. Find your principle

• Based on unchangeable ‘morals’ of society
– Fairness, freedom, rights…. IDENTIFY IT
• Create a black secessionist
state in the USA
• Using human shields in
asymmetrical wars
• Making CEOs legally liable
for things their company
does
• Allowing people to undergo
cosmetic plastic surgery
• THBT desecration of
religious sites is a legitimate
tactic of warfare
Reparations
Just war
Responsibility (fairness)
Choice
Human dignity

5. Common principles

Reparations
Create a black secessionist state in the USA
THW pay reparations to women
Responsibility
THW allow individuals to sue individual Facebook
executives for the misuse of their data by
Cambridge Analytica
THBT Minority parents should encourage their
children to aspire to the "model minority" image
instead of combatting existing stereotypes attached
to the community
In secular states, THBT self-identified supporters of
the LGBT movement have a moral duty to abstain
from marriage until gay marriage is legalised
THW allow companies to include a clause in their
employment contracts for women where that
woman legally agrees not to get pregnant
Just war
THBT causing deliberate harms to enemy civilians is
a legitimate tactic for the weaker side to employ in
asymmetrical warfare
THBT the USA should declare cyber war against
Russia
THBT desecration of religious sites is a
legitimate tactic of warfare
Bodily autonomy
THW ban cosmetic plastic surgery
THW legalise the sale of human organs
Democracy
THBT former human rights activists under dictatorial
regimes should not seek elected office (e.g. MP)
after the transition to democracy
This house believes that the US should issue guest
worker visas, under which minimum wage laws
would not apply
Liberties vs. security (or human dignity)
THW allow the use of torture
THW prioritise intelligence gathering over the right
to privacy / motion supporting increased
surveillance
Pillars of justice (retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation,
reparations/victims’ justice)
THW allow judges to significantly exceed normal
sentencing guidelines in areas of high crime
This house believes that criminal justice systems
should never incorporate retribution as an aim in
determining criminal punishments
THW allow prisoners to volunteer for drug trials in
exchange for lighter sentences

6. So, how do I make it into an argument?

1. Right that you are
defending
2. Analogy / intuition
pump
When do we enshrine
this right in society?
3. Explain how it is the
same / why it happens
in both
4. Why is this principle /
argument important?
GOV: THBT football clubs should be held
responsible for the actions of their fans
I. Responsibility
It is their responsibility, so it is fair to hold
them responsible.
When do we hold people responsible?
1. Were the cause of harm – selling cheap
alcohol causes brawls
2. Failed in their job – clubs have a job to
keep people in their premises safe, which
includes safe from abuse
3. Were benefitting from it – Glasgow
Rangers benefit from rivalry with Celtics
Justice should happen regardless of outcomes
– we put people in jail not just because it
“stops crime” but also because it is fair

7. THBT the world’s poor would be justified in pursuing complete Marxist revolution

YES, JUSTIFIED
• Rich’s capital is acquired unjustly
therefore the poor should take it
back – Principle he’s defending
• We do this for theft and
negligence – analogy, why it is the
same
– It is theft because it was acquired
through colonialism and slavery,
– It is negligence because we
created laws that inadvertedly
denied the poor the ability to
climb the social ladder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys0Sgicnjz4#t=05m27s
• Principled argument not reliant
on practice, it is important
because compensation to the
poor is insufficient, in principle
they need the wealth back –
make the principle explicit, why
we care about it

8. This house believes that the US should issue guest worker visas, under which minimum wage laws would not apply.

VIOLATES DEMOCRACY AND
THEREFORE ILLEGITIMATE – Principle
he’s defending
• Main divide in USA election was
whether USA economy should be
open (Clinton) or closed (Trump) –
closed won.
• This is not a utilitarian metric - if it
were, then the USA government
should take 100% taxation and send
money to feed starving people, but it
does not – analogy, why it happens
– In a democracy public are sovereign
and can decide what to do because
no “absolute truth”
– So if you choose to prioritise own
values over capacity to have greater
GDP then it is illegitimate to force
them to do otherwise
https://youtu.be/01S6OUfDYOM?t=38m32s
• Note how he makes the nonutilitarian metric explicit through the
argument

9. So, how do I argue against a principle?

2 ways:
1. Argue directly with the logic of the principle,
how “yes this is a principle, but in these
circumstances it DOES NOT APPLY”
2. Rights in conflict – weigh it!

10. THW ban all procedures to alter one’s racial appearance

ARGUE WITH LOGIC
NO, NOT JUSTIFIED
• We only limit people’s choices for
the sake of “community benefit”
under some circumstances and
this is not it. – why this doesn’t
apply to the principle
THW ban all procedures
to alter one’s racial
appearance
• When your personal choice limits
other people’s choices – analogy,
why it is not the same
– Not ok to yell FIRE because then I
stop people from escaping
– Me changing my appearance may
influence people, but it does not
limit people’s choices – can still
choose whatever they want
• We are respecting people’s
choice, in this situation we are
not justified in limiting choice –
principle why it is important
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZmwpvTerxM#t=09m04
s

11. When do we limit them?

– When it is useful
– When it is beneficial to the protection of the state
– NEVER, they are inalienable
– But most commonly…
• Consent
• JS Mill’s Harm Principle
– Freedom until it causes harm
– How direct the causation?
– What about communitarian harms
• Under *right specific* circumstances

12. Rights in conflict

• Often you end up having to
do analysis on why X right is
more important than Y right
– Preferencing LIFE by
hierarchy
• LIFE
• BODILY AUTONOMY
• THE REST
– Preferencing utility – which
may NOT be life
– Preferencing one principle
over another!
THW legalise the sale of human organs
–
–
–
Prop argues bodily autonomy and
maximizing choice
Opp argues (on principle level) inability to
consent and uniqueness of human organs
as an extension of yourself and therefore
not for sale
WEIGHING: there are always going to be
people who can and cannot consent, and
people who agree that organs are
somehow magic and special and people
who see it as just equivalent to selling hair
– the important thing is that the state is
not allowed to make that decision for you
- same as abortion, some people might be
pro-life and others pro-choice but the
state shouldn’t unilaterally decide for you,
but rather allow people to make a choice.
When you do that, you can also
implement measures to try and ensure
consent, and respect people’s choice to
enshrine organs as special or to use their
bodily autonomy and sell them, which is
WHY we value choice over all.

13. Let’s try!

• This house believes that criminal justice
systems should never incorporate retribution
as an aim in determining criminal
punishments
• THW allow companies to include a clause in
their employment contracts for women where
that woman legally agrees not to get pregnant

14. THW allow judges to significantly exceed normal sentencing guidelines in areas of high crime - GOV

1.
Right that you are defending:
Coherent with principle of justice, specifically retribution or “punishment that fits
the crime’
2.
Analogy / intuition pump
A crime against a minority for them being a minority is classed as a hate
crime and punished harsher than the same crime without that incentive 1) partly
because it HURTS that minority more, and 2) because it affects the wider
community – it is a crime against the WHOLE identity group, not just one person
3.
Explain how it is the same / why it happens in both
1) When you commit a crime in a high-crime community, it hurts people there more as
they are poorer and also more vulnerable to everyday crime 2) it is also a crime against the
whole community, as harm propagates in a broken windows’ style
4.
Why is this principle / argument important?
The justice system does not just seek to ‘maximise outcome’, else we would just lock
everyone up in jail forever, we also seek to do things in a way that is fair – that is why we
have trials, and punishment that fits crime is fairness.

15. Some final notes on principles

• Deploying them in debates
– You still need practicalities or you won’t win
– Useful to ‘edge’ over opening, but won’t take the
debate probably
• Rhetoric in debates! Principles are rhetorical,
and it is incredibly useful to make the judge
‘feel’ them

16. woo congrats!

hopefully you are no longer terrible at
principles