In Defence of Moral Error Theory

Moral error theorists typically accept two claims - one conceptual and one ontological - about moral facts. The conceptual claim is that moral facts are or entail facts about categorical reasons (and correspondingly that moral claims are or entail claims about categorical reason); the ontological claim is that there are no categorical reasons-and consequently no moral facts-in reality. I accept this version of moral error theory and I try to unpack what it amounts to in section 2. In the course of doing so I consider two preliminary objections that moral error theory is (probably) false because its implications are intuitively unacceptable (what I call the Moorean objection) and that the general motivation for moral error theory is self-undermining in that it rests on a hidden appeal to norms. | Direct Link to PDF

Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong

THE CENTRAL IDEA of this book is simple: we evolved a moral instinct, a capacity that naturally grows within each child, designed to generate rapid judgments about what is morally right or wrong based on an unconscious grammar of action. Part of this machinery was designed by the blind hand of Darwinian selection millions of years before our species evolved; other parts were added or upgraded over the evolutionary history of our species, and are unique both to humans and to our moral psychology. These ideas draw on insightsfrom another instinct: language. | Direct Link to PDF (e-book)

Oxford Studies in Metaethics

The full book is available online for free:Oxford Studies in Metaethics is designed to collect, on an annual basis, some of the best new work being done in the field of metaethics. I’m very pleased to be able to present this third volume, one that has managed so successfully to fulfill the aims envisioned for the series. | Direct Link to Book

Moral Judgment

i. Moral rules are held to have an objective, prescriptive force; they are notdependent on the authority of any individual or institution.ii. Moral rules are taken to hold generally, not just locally; they not only proscribebehavior here and now, but also in other countries and at other times in history.iii. Violations of moral rules involve a victim who has been harmed, whose rightshave been violated, or who has been subject to an injustice.iv. Violations of moral rules are typically more serious than violations ofconventional rules. | Direct Link to PDF

Boredom? ADHD?

John Plotz in the New York Times: Their Noonday Demons, and Ours

These days, when we try to get a fix on our wasted time, we use labels that run from the psychological (distraction, “mind-wandering” or “top-down processing deficit”) to the medical (A.D.H.D., hypoglycemia) to the ethical (laziness, poor work habits). But perhaps “acedia” is the label we need. After all, it afflicted those whose pursuits prefigured the routines of many workers in the postindustrial economy. Acedia’s sufferers were engaged in solitary, sedentary, cerebral effort toward a clear final goal — but a goal that could be reached only by crossing an open, empty field with few signposts. The empty field is the monk’s day of spiritual contemplation in a cell besieged by the demon acedia — or your afternoon in a coffee shop with tiptop Wi-Fi.

via

Obama/Clinton?

Nobel Prize winner and former US Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, makes the case for the "natural" Obama/Clinton ticket in 2012:

Why do I say this? Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

via

The Boundaries of Justice

The overarching concern in the idea of justice is the need to have just relations with others—and even to have appropriate sentiments about others; and what motivates the search is the diagnosis of injustice in ongoing arrangements. In some cases, this might demand the need to change an existing boundary of sovereignty—a concern that motivated Hume’s staunchly anti-colonial position. (He once remarked, “Oh! How I long to see America and the East Indies revolted totally & finally.”) Or it might relate to the Humean recognition that as we expand trade and other relations with foreign countries, our sentiments as well as our reasoning have to take note of the recognition that “the boundaries of justice still grow larger,” without the necessity to place all the people involved in our conception of justice within the confines of one sovereign state.

Amartya Sen, in The National Review, "The Boundaries of Justice."

What Position Will Win the TOC?

First, I just want to give a shout-out to the Mountain Brook tournament in Birmingham. This is the second year I've been, and once again the hospitality and timeliness have been exceptional. Jeff Roberts really goes out of his way to bring good judges to the tournament and put on a good show (and the MB students do a great job keeping things running). If you live in the South and don't make it to this tournament, you're missing out!On to the substance of today's post: what position will win the TOC?

I'll try not to answer my own question (since I'm more interested in others' thoughts), but I will say this: debaters are doing themselves a strategic disservice by running away from the plausibly true positions on this topic. I describe the loss as a "strategic" one, because I'm reasonably certain that no one will be persuaded by pedagogical risks.

The debates that start off on dubious premises (thanks to ridiculous case positions) almost always become side-tracked by theoretical and procedural questions that can rarely be resolved predictably. This is especially true in elimination rounds against strong competitors—the marginal utility of a "non-stock" position is significantly diminished when assured that your opponent will either shift the debate to theory or respond with an even more "outside the box" argument. The race to the bottom of absurdity can quickly become a counterproductive exercise, or one that at best terminates in a coin-flip decision.

While I hesitate to make any predictions, I certainly hope that high-level debates will explore the contextually unique accounts of self-defense that tend to permeate this topic in real-world discussion. I believe that the most researched account of this issue can and should take center stage. Off-the-wall positions may be decisive in prelims and lesser tournaments, but the most consistently and universally successful positions are true ones.

What do you expect to see come out on top?

Three Judging Practices That Need To Stop by Adam Torson

All of these practices are tempting, but a moment’s reflection should suggest to most judges that they are inappropriate.

1. Speaker Point Games

Enough with the paradigms that promise increased speaker points for goofy behavior. You might think it’s hysterical to promise a thirty for bringing you a cookie, saying “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,” or dancing a jig, but it’s not. Judging is not about you – the debaters aren’t there for your entertainment.

If it were harmless fun nobody would care, but speaker points matter. They affect who you debate in prelims (especially later in a tournament when brackets are smaller), whether you break, and out-round seeding. On more than one occasion I have seen a speaker point game change who breaks and who doesn’t. It’s not fair, and it should stop.

2. Berating Debaters

A certain amount of irritation at poorly debated rounds is natural, but it’s stunning how often judges go way over the top. Expressing outrage at the state of debate or the obnoxiousness of some particular practice may be cathartic, but it’s hardly constructive. Getting angry and berating debaters is self-indulgent; the oral critique is not about your anger. It is reprehensible to be proud of making a debater cry.

Sometimes anger is appropriate, as when a debater is rude or patently offensive, but this is relatively rare. Yelling at someone because they made an argument you don’t like suggests a dramatic lack of perspective – the kids are learning what a good argument is, people have different views on what a good argument is, and students are coached in different ways. The RFD is not about showing off how smart you are or how much you know about debate. Get over yourself and make your comments constructive. You are not entitled to adjudicate a tournament full of mistake free rounds.

3. Calling Tons of Evidence

Everyone seems to want debaters to be clearer, but many of us engage in a practice that incentivizes exactly the opposite. The debaters’ opportunity to effectively convey the meaning of their evidence is the constructive. Figuring out what evidence means after the round and making it part of the decision calculus is blatant intervention. There are judges who routinely call virtually every argument read in the round and reconstruct their flow on that basis. Give me a break.

I suspect this is mostly motivated by ego – none of us likes to admit that we didn’t understand an argument. But – I feel like a broken record – it’s not about you. It is unfair and pedagogically unsound to vote for arguments you straight up don’t understand – even more so when you are doing things like supplying evidence comparison for the debaters. Have enough courage to admit when you don’t get something, even at the risk of teenagers thinking you’re not as smart as they otherwise would.

Voices registration now open

Register now. Invitation below.

Voices Foundation Lincoln Douglas Debate Invitational & Round Robin

October 10-13, 2014

Presentation High School – San Jose, CA

You are cordially invited to participate in the 3rd annual Voices Foundation Lincoln Douglas Debate Tournament, October 10-13, 2014. We will provide competition in Varisty and Novice Lincoln Douglas debate. The tournament will use the NSDA September/October topic for all divisions. The tournament has been designated a TOC qualifying tournament for all students reaching the quarterfinals in Varsity LD and anticipate an NDCA Diversity Multiplier of 1.4 (and over 80 competitors). 

VOICES FOUNDATION:

Since 2005 the Voices Foundation has raised funds for the financially disadvantaged members of the LD debate community, primarily through its Round Robins and other efforts by the community. This October, Presentation High School will host the inaugural Voices LD Debate Invitational. The Round Robin will occur following the tournament and will also be hosted at Presentation High School. Last year we generated more than $10,000 for the Voices Foundation through the tournament and hope to meet or exceed that amount again this year. That money will go to help a record number of aid applicants attend summer debate institutes and tournaments during the year. We hope that you can join us for this tremendous event for the entire community.

THE TOURNAMENT:

The tournament will be able to accommodate up to 100 Varsity, and 50 Novice competitors in Lincoln Douglas debate. Once we reach the cap in either event we will start a waitlist that will prioritize new school admission and then smaller school entries. There will be an initial cap of 6 entries in Varsity and 4 in Novice. Those caps will be lifted mid-September.

Both divisions will feature six preliminary rounds of debate and will clear all winning records to the elimination rounds up to a full double-octafinal. Mutual preference judging will be available to all schools whose judges have entered their paradigms at http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/.

ROUND ROBIN:

The Voices Round Robin will be open to all observers. Historically the Round Robin experiments with changes in format and forum with a focus on moving the activity forward while asking competitors to stretch the boundaries of what Lincoln Douglas debate should look like. We invite everyone in the area of all competitive levels to observe and participate in the discussions. Information about the Round Robin schedule and format is located under "Voices Round Robin" Link at the top of this page.

VOICES FORUM:

As in years past, Voices will also host an Educational Forum before the Final Round of the Round Robin designed to promote a competitor oriented discussion on the direction of the activity and the details of the topic moderated by a panel of debate educators with questions from the Round Robin and Tournament competitors.  Both the forum and the Round Robin Final Round occur after the start of the formal Tournament on Saturday with the design that all in attendance at the Tournament will be able to participate in these events. This year, Panelists for the Educational Forum will be selected by nomination at the time of registration for the Voices Tournament.  Coaches and competitors are suggested to nominate individuals they feel have a strong intellectual interest in the direction of the LD Debate.  All contestants at the Round Robin and Tournament are eligible for nomination.

LOCATION:

Presentation High School is located in south San Jose near the Willow Glen neighborhood. We ask that you park on campus during your time on campus. We also ask that students remain on campus for the duration of competition. Ample food will be available for purchase on campus that will help raise money for the Voices Foundation.  

Valley Round Robin and Throw-Down Participants Announced

Dave McGinnis, head coach at WDM Valley, announced the participants this evening.The Fourth Annual Sophomore Throw-DownDotan Applbaum – St. Louis ParkMelissa Chau – Lake HighlandRichard Cook – Strake JesuitTJ Foley – ValleyTrent Gilbert – ValleyKate Keough – HockadayPriya Kukreja – Millard NorthJonas Le Barillec – PV PeninsulaElizabeth Lively – NeedhamGabriel Manak – Bronx ScienceEvan McKinney – ValleyJoie Otting – DowlingKrupali Patel – Lake HighlandVandita Pendse – MVLANina Potischman – Hunter CollegeXavier Roberts-Gaal – Walt WhitmanSam Serber – BrentwoodKirk Wu – San MarinoKaren Xia – MVLAJason Yang – Katy TaylorNeeki Zand – BrentwoodAlex Zhao – La CanadaMatt Zinnman – Harrison The Second Annual Valley Round RobinVarun Bhave – Torrey PinesSophia Caldera – Walt WhitmanAbbey Chapman – WoodlandsRahul Gosain – ScarsdaleAnne-Marie Hwang – HockadayNalin Vattigunta – Oxbridge AcademyJared Paul – BrentwoodRuchir Rastogi – LAMPGina Scorpiniti – ValleyAdam Tomasi – Sacred HeartAnisha Vora – Annie WrightEmma Weddle – Des Moines Roosevelt 

NDCA Results Available; Top Honors to Kors, Quiroz, Prasad & Reddy

Full results from the NDCA Championships are now available at the NDCA website. 

Dukes & Bailey Cup: Ram Prasad, La Jolla HS,  (Coached by Tom Evnen, Jeff Liu, Jordan Lamothe, and Zach Parker)

Top Speaker: Annie Kors, Harvard-Westlake School (Coached by Mike Bietz, Stephen Babb, Bill Neesen & Daniel Tartakovsky)

Tournament Champion: Pranav Reddy, Harker School (Coached by Greg Achten, Ryan Fink & Nikhil Nag)

Tournament Runner-Up & Second Speaker: Christian Quiroz, Newark Science (Coached by Jonathan Alston, Elijah Smith & Chris Randall)