basic first principle

8/10/2019 Basic First Principle

1/8

Basic First Principle

1. Utilitarianism; One would argue that there is no morality, only greater utility. the

underlying calculus for the 3 principle is:Pareto Efficiency

Unanimity PrincipleMorality according to unanimity principle is a private sphere, because it's subjective

Unanimity principle "elaboration" consider a public policy to be decided on a "value-free

economics"

Value-free economics can be domes by measuring utility - because utility is a universal

value, while right and wrong is a subjective value

Conclusion: ALL motion can use utilitarian approach

Framework: how do we lay the groundwork for utilitarianism philosophy in a debate?

I. Determine who are the potential losers (actor)?

II. Determine who are the potential winners? this has to be either majority in quantity or

have more diversity/multi stakeholder

III. We make subjective comparison of the "value" of winning and losing - and compare

the utility value using hedonic calculus

IV. We look at long term impact with Compensation principle

Hedonic Calculus

Both Mill and Bentham subscribed to the hedonic calculus: intensity, duration, propinquity,

certainty, fecundity, purity, and extent.

(1) Intensity, the strength of the pleasure/pain.

(2) Duration.

(3) Propinquity, how soon will it come?

(4) Certainty, likelihood.

(5) Fecundity, the ability to produce more distant pleasures.

(6) Purity, the consequential amount of pain compared with the total pleasure.

(7) Extent, the number of people affected.

Compensation Principle

The incentive for compensation, why majority will have the tendency to compensate?

Answer: to silent dissent


2/8

The more minorities - that means there is a threat to the public policy

contoh - the more people dying of HIV AIDS will put negative light to pharmaceutical

companies

Its "cheaper" for them to compensate the losers, than losing their privilege as a whole

noted, that the compensation will always be relatively marginal compare to the suffering. But

at least there is a compensation. In the case that we prioritize the poor community, they will

not be able to compensate at all

we cannot say that the compensation will make the poor "happy" - because that is not fair,

they will still be the "losers"

e.g.: overall the african american community will still be the second class, but the affirmative

action is compensation form that benefited them

not to a point where it will make them stop begin the second class, but it can start the process

going there

so the work where you can gain maximum and (closer to) equal utility for all will be

achieved more under utilitarian view

THW alleviate fuel subsidy

Utilitarian Framework: 1. We determine who are the potential "losers" 2. We determine who

are the potential "winners" - this has to be either majority in quantity or have more

diversity/multi stakeholder 3. We make subjective comparison of the "value" of winning and

losing - and compare the utility value using hedonic calculus 4. We look at long term impact

with Compensation principle

1. The poor, 2. Overall society, 3. Comparison: all society is benefited from healthier budget,

healthier economy with less intervention, potential for renewable energy development, etc

We need to provide detailed comparison:

Healthier budget means: less likely to be in inflation, protect economic stability - means

everyone as a society wins (explain the value)

Healthier market mechanism means: better investment condition - means more opportunity

and job, means society will win

we have healthier economy (stability), healthier market (opportunity), and environment(renewable energy, less consumption)

that is the win

hedonistic calculus with the segmentation of society analysis

Society consist of 4 components: (1) The poorest (beggars, people living below 1 dollar) -

they have less consumption, so they will be affected but not much. They will not be


3/8

marginally poorer (2) The poor: they will be most affected, they can no longer afford some

basic things that they can afford in the past (3) Middle class: they will be affected but the

intensity is not high because they simply have to reduce consumption of tertiary products and

level of their luxury; and the duration is not high because they can adapt (4) the rich are not

affected

Then you have to prove that we have more middle class than the poor

in Indonesia this is quite easy (BCG report) - Indonesia is the highest rising middle class

But how about the benefit: (1) The poorest: less affected (2) The poor: will benefit from a

more stable economy, will benefit from more opportunity, because new job will first absorb

labour, and will benefit from environmental resilience (3) The middle class and rich: will

have same benefit from economy, opportunity, etc

so overall we can prove that it will benefit the society as a whole

Framework: (1) Losers: a segment of society that is not the brink of poverty (2) Winner:

Society as a whole (3) Comparison: number of the people affected, intensity of the pain vs

benefit for all segment of society, duration of the pain (one is short term with high likelihood

of bouncing back), etc (4) Compensation Principle: Allocation of subsidy to health and

education, BLT, Renewable Energy development

how is the case structure?

1. Context: Acknowledge that this policy will have adverse effect and indicate sympathy for

that segment of society

2. Argument: (1) Role of Government is to look at Policy that is necessary and beneficial

for more people within longer time (2) Why this policy is necessary (3) why this policy is

beneficial for more people - with explanation on segmentation of society (4) why this is

better and more sustainable economic policy in the long run (5) this policy allow more

room for compensation and targeted program

1- 4 can be explained by first; 5 can be explained by second with 3 variations: on allocation

of subsidy to health and education; on consumption reduction program and an environmental

program and renewable energy

3. Elaboration of argument 1 - role of government, explain about unanimity principle and

focus on the requirement of public sphere policy while be sympathetic and acknowledge

there will be people crying over the price hike

Elaboration of argument 2 - explain the benefit to budget, economy and market and the

benefit of how it impact EVERYONE

Elaboration of argument 3 - give society's segmentation and cost and benefit analysis for

each


4/8

Elaboration argument 4 - give comparison on the period of a segment going into poverty

vs a nation in economic crisis and energy insecurity - which one has better possibility to

bounce back

2. Deontological (Kantian)

deontological in adherence to values/rule - kind of a variation of kantian moral imperatives, it

does not talk about benefit per se. the elaboration is on "right" and "wrong" and morality. but

that is the philosophy clash: on would argue that there is no morality, only greater utility.

Morality according to unanimity principle is a private sphere, because it's subjective

unanimity principle "elaboration" consider a public policy to be decided on a "value-free

economics" so that it is not biased

3. Liberalism and Harm principle

Definition: What is political liberalism?

Political Liberalism assume that any given context has "Reasonable Pluralism"

So people have different values, morality and perception on how and what something has to

be done

Policy was made under behind the veil concept

Essentially, that pluralistic values, all have "overlapping consensus"

Arguably political representation in Political Liberalism will represent that overlapping

consensus only

they put "veil of ignorance" on other values that are not overlapping

So a public policy needs to adhere to "public reason" and not bias to a particular moral or

value

common value in liberalism is: Harm Principle

The central concepts of Rawls' theory of political liberalism are: the original position;

justice as fairness; overlapping consensus for the right reasons; public reason;

rational and reasonable; counting one another as free and equal; self-standing

conceptions; political conceptions; comprehensive doctrine; a well-ordered system of

social cooperation.


5/8

A more contemporary approach stated that political liberalism has 2 main values: Equality

and No harm

those are "overlapping consensus" and values that any well-reasoned person can accept

What does that means?

That means you can only regulate something in public sphere only (AND ONLY) when it

poses threat to equality or create harm

That is the concise version - how to elaborate it? Please do read the sources in the form I sent

Apply in any motion when government is banning, regulating, criminalizing something

why do I put categorical imperative here?

Because that is the opponents of liberalism

but they can argue the same thing

Categorical imperative puts an importance of "morality" and "sense of duty"

Read article :

In that article, Jonathan Haidt explains the difference between liberal (contemporary version

of political liberalism) and conservative (contemporary version of categorical imperatives)

one of the most insightful and interesting article I ever read - explain the underlying

elaboration style and philosophic approach of both side

Now how does that apply in a debate? THW Legalize Incest

Liberalism: Equality - everyone should have equal right to express their sexual desire; HarmPrinciple: Prove that there is no harm

what other approach? for the negative I mean

We have so many option

1. We can use utilitarian approach

2. Categorical Imperatives

3. Liberalism

Utilitarian approach: minimum protection (yes we limit some people's right which is

minority) but we create minimum protection against potential abuse of power dynamic withinfamily, which is a rampant case

Categorical Imperative: Sex and Norm in Society - and the role of public policy to represent

norm and not just practical approach. Well second approach is not a comparison, comparison

is more of the tenet of utilitarian approach. in the second approach you are saying why the act

itself is not a norm that this policy can represent, therefore it should not be legalized


6/8

Example of arguments:

If I decided to use Categorical Imperative approach, I will use the argument of the purpose of

sex

I would say that sex has 2 purpose, reproduction and in the evolution, pleasure

However, normative value determine that society has a limitation on what they can or cannot

accept as source of pleasure

For example, deriving pleasure from torturing someone, is normatively considered wrong,

That norm sets the limitation on what society can and cannot accept within a particular time

set

It is irrelevant why the norm is established, But when it offends the society so much, it

becomes the benchmark for humanity, at that given time

that is why you have different clothing (fashion) and evolving courtship

the burden of the opposition is then to prove simply why the government's policies should

always be consistent with the normative values within society.

A government is not permanent, it's 5 years

they are selected by a society at a particular given time

so they should represent the norm and value of that particular society

PS: strategy wise, I can use this potentially really well as extension case, and I need to

provide millions of sophisticated parallel example.

but yes, you can even explain it with adding 2 philosophy: Representation and Social

Contract

Gov must follow norms:

Because, government represents society

so they can represent changes in society

but the changes has to be bottom-up

not top-down

as of now, deriving pleasure from people you have taken care of morally or emotionally is

considered wrong

Why not accepting incest is norm:

there are 2 wrong norms in there:

1. Altruism in nurturing in parenthood


7/8

2. Interchangeable role of nurturing and pleasure seeking

You need to have a sophisticate elaboration on why altruism in parenthood is such a high

value in society

because it is the basic of evolution

you take care of your children with no expectation of compensation

because society has that norm (and that feeling of responsibility) which is a produce of

evolution

we have ability to pass knowledge and has better condition generationt o generation

incest violates that sense of altruism - because now you are taking something from the one

you nurture

you seek pleaseure

so this is not just a different variation of sex

this is a violation of the basic value that makes society flourish to begin with

the society flourish because of a "feeling" - wanting to have children, sense of resposnsibiity

wanting to take care of them

incest violates that basic norm in society

that is why it is deeply offensive

and government should represent that

because when you nurture, it is altruistic by nature

you do not get interest, that is the different with cooperation

that is why there is trust to parents, emotional dependence - because there is an implicit trust

that parents want what's best

We and society trust that parents and siblings and family will want to do best for you (until

proven otherwise)

we don't grant that same level of trust to anyone else

our legal system even believe family until proven otherwise

that is because of the normative value that assume within family there is an altruism

nurturing

once you take pleasure -which can be considered "benefit", you lost trust in that value

the same thing with child labour

that is why we are offended hearing parents taking money from their children


8/8

we are offended seeing parents eat, while their children are hungry. But we think it makes

sense if it's the other way around

1. Knowing the principles means that you know the options of approach to take 2. Once you

have the approach, you can start thinking what arguments to make (you have a way to think and

to research) 3. You can also start thinking the potential approach for the opposition and make astrong case based on that 4. Finally you can structure your stance, arguments and

acknowledgment of opposition case into a good casebuilding

Liberalism: There is harm - inherently incest is a misuse of power structure that is inevitable

in family unit. essentially one can argue that sex is not "harm" if there is consent, the

problem within family is you have a prolonged relationship prior to the sex. within that

prolonged relationship, there will definitely be a power dynamic: (1) grand/parenthood: all

form of dependence - including your existence (2) uncle/aunt/etc: emotion authority

established over years (3) sibling: dominant emotional and nurture for some years

within that power dynamic, validity of a consent cannot be measured anymore

because prolonged dominance can "force" consent - there is an inability to say no, there is an

implementation of value during that prolonged years that taint the objectivity of the consent

therefore there are 2 harms in here:

(1) harm in misusing the power within the family unit (2) harm in doing sex without valid

"consent"

They are not 3 arguments that you can use them all. You have to choose, because

philosophically they are very different

basic first principle

Documents