Tournament: Hendrickson | Round: 2 | Opponent: Luke Humphrey | Judge: Rainier Ababao
The resolution is a question of morality because it is asking if democracies ought to implement compulsory voting. Ought implies a moral obligation, thus the resolution questions whether making voting compulsory is a moral action or not.
Thus, I value morality.
And, morality has to be based in practical reason. Kant
Immanuel Kant, A Critique of Practical Reason, 2nd Edition, 1787
and#34;It is a...
...accordance with it.and#34;
The implication is that practical reason is the only metaethic that allows for freedom because other moral theories are based in the empirical world where all actions are determined by past causes. Being able to act from our own will is a prerequisite to morality because if we are not agents, we are not actually following morality, but just executing a series of predetermined steps. So, practical reason will exclude all other ethical theories based in empirics.
This takes out democracy as that is something that only exists in the empirical world and our knowledge of that is based on empirical actions and documents.
This takes out util because pain and pleasure are empirical facts based on past events and thus, cannot explain the existence of freedom.
This takes out the social contract because individuals join it based on what their experiences are in the past which cannot explain morality.
And, deont solves better for the state of nature, because no one can hurt anyone else’s liberties under deontology, whereas under the social contract, people still have to give up some liberties.
And, asking why we should act on practical reason concedes the authority of reasons.
David Velleman ‘06. Self To Self. 2006. Cambridge University Press. Professor of Philosophy at New York University. Ph.D from Princeton
and#34;As we have seen...
...act for reasons.and#34;
And, if practical reason is false, then we look to the empirical world, which leads to determinism. This is in the Kant card. Determinism negates because if everything is predetermined, then it makes no sense to make statements about how democracies ought to be, because they will only be how they are predetermined to be.
And, we must act on universally valid reasons. Rodl
Sebastian Rodl, Two Forms of Practical Knowledge and their Unity
and#34;We said a...
...of its generality.and#34;
And, it is not a universizable maxim to violate someone else’s will because if I devalue their will, then I value mine over theirs, but there is no reason for that, since we both have equal capacity as rational beings. This generates a contradiction and the action cannot be universalized.
So, my standard is respecting people as ends in themselves.
I contend that making voting compulsory doesn’t respect people as ends in themselves.
a. Requiring people to vote only fulfills the government’s will to have everyone vote on laws. Even if people want to vote, they are not voting out of their free will, they are voting because it is the government’s will for them to do so. Therefore, the government is using them as a means to an end, that end being universal voting.
b. There are obviously people who don’t want voting to be compulsory otherwise there wouldn’t be a debate about it. If the government makes voting compulsory, then they will be going against the will of these people and disrespecting their status as ends in themselves.