Foundation Briefs Advanced Level Sept/Oct 2013 Brief
Download 0.95 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Framework Analysis Debates on this resolution will see plenty of variations on the above aff and neg arguments. It could even be possible to flip them around (e.g. protest is also a civic duty not voting is a form of protest. This means getting a grip on the resolution—its nuances, its limitations—is what will really kick-start some good thought into this topic (and hopefully some winning cases to boot. Here’s what came to mind working my way through this resolution and its material. Respect ought The use of ought indicates amoral obligation, and the resolution needs to be treated from that viewpoint. Here is what I mean there is a wealth of information out thereabout compulsory voting. Data abounds on voter turnout rates. Australia is practically a decades-long case study in the practice. But again, we stumble back to ought This debate cannot turn into war of practicality. The idea of moral obligation is that while practicality can potentially bean important consideration, it is not the primary consideration. This is about what is morally right, even if what is morally right has practical implications. There are plenty of philosophical angles to look at this through—Kant’s categorical imperative (invert the requirement to vote, see what the implications are, the social contract (Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, among others, seem applicable here, J.S. Mill’s individual liberty, etc. While the resolution certainly is not an invitation to namedrop political philosophers, understanding the political philosophy at the heart of modern democratic systems is what will create a genuine understanding of this topic. There is no actor That is to say, there is no one making voting compulsory. The resolution does not clarify who ought to value the compulsion of voting it only states what compulsory voting is in respect to (democracy. We can therefore safely assume that the resolution is talking about what we as a people should value. I’ve already mentioned some philosophical perspectives that can help guide a framework to this resolution. Just keep in mind that they should be used with knowledge of who the actor is—in this case, no one in particular. |