This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S22-LD-NCFCA-07-AFF-Moral_Duty.docx |
File Size | 52.23 KB |
Date added | October 4, 2021 |
Category | Lincoln-Douglas (NCFCA) |
Author | Josiah Hemp |
Resolved: In the context of innovation, the proactionary principle ought to be valued above the precautionary principle.
The theme of this case is Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s famous quote that “Not to act is to act, not to speak is to speak.” (However, I strongly advise you to NOT use this quote in rounds. See footnote as to why).[1] This case argues that in the context of the resolution we have a moral duty to take action. Rhetoric and language are very important to making this argument. In some rounds, proving this case could rely on language—especially the language of “necessity” and “duty.” It is obvious that there is a strong connection between these two, but this case makes it a close connection. That language could be very important throughout the round.
However, do not think that this case is just semantics or rhetoric. When we get into the specifics of innovation that is arguably blocked by the precautionary principle (see Contention 2), there is a strong argument to be made that we do have a moral duty to take action in the context of the resolution.
In order to prove these arguments, you will most likely need to prove that the definition of the precautionary principle you provide is correct. Make sure you understand the common arguments against this definition and know how to respond to them (see the response brief at the end of this document).
[1] The full quote is “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to act is to act, not to speak is to speak.” (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/601807-silence-in-the-face-of-evil-is-itself-evil-god) He was specifically talking about resisting the Nazis, not about the context of this resolution. However, the theme that not acting can be immoral is key to this case.