TOPIC 1
First Principles: Freedoms
1. Harm Principle & the Freedom of Choice
The Harm Principle is a standard that we use in debates to measure if it is justified to restrict someone's Freedom of Choice. The standard is that every person can choose to do whatever they wish unless it brings a certain level of harms to a third party or to themselves. Once you have proven that harm has been caused to a sufficient degree, that becomes the justification to have the freedom reduced or taken away altogether.
This is the first principle to be used in any policy debate that proposes to ban or legalize certain products or services. For example, THW ban smoking, THW ban boxing, THW legalize drugs, THW legalize abortion.
There are three aspects to this first principle that you can prove or disprove (depending on which side of the debate you are on):
[1] The severity of harm of the choice (the Harm Principle)
[2] The level of happiness and satisfaction of making the choice (the Freedom of Choice)
[3] The potential alternatives to mitigate the harm or deliver the same happiness (mutual exclusivity of the harm or the choice)
[1] The severity of harm (the Harm Principle)
It is not enough to simply prove that the choice is harmful. The question is that does it bring enough harm to justify having that choice restricted? Therefore, teams must establish: (1) the extent of severity of that harm and then, (2) prove why it has fulfilled the standard of harm required to restrict the choice.
The standard of harm is the key to proving why certain choices and freedom must be limited.
Teams must decide on an objective standard of harm based on the kind of choices that are allowed and restricted under status quo. By selecting a few strategic examples from status quo, you can derive a certain standard of harm that you want to apply in the debate.
For example, you can argue that the correct standard of harm in the debate is life-threatening bodily harm by isolating examples like the government ban on suicide.
If you are proposing that the choice should be limited, decide on a standard of harm that the choice can fulfill. If you are proposing that the choice should be allowed, decide on a standard of harm that the choice fails to fulfill or prove why the choice doesn't fulfill the standard of harm that your opponent has chosen.
For example, real-life standards regarding expected harm can also be effective in the motion THW ban smoking. The government should decide the standard to be "objectively harmful choices to one's health" by isolating examples like the government ban on drugs. The standard could also be "potentially life-ending choices" by isolating examples like the mandatory rule to wear seatbelts in moving vehicles. Once the standard is decided, teams should then characterize the severity of the harm to be one that exceeds the standard by a comfortable degree.
The characterization of harm should be as overwhelming and as multilayered as possible. Every potential outcome of harm should be clearly illustrated until its worst case scenario is established.
Continuing with THW ban smoking, you should argue that every single cigarette stick contributes towards a collection of tar and nicotine in your lungs which leads to lung cancer and addiction. In the best case scenario, smoking will still cause respiratory problems and reduced breathing capacity. In the worst case scenario, it leads to an incurable and terminal disease. Not only that, it causes third party harm because of secondhand smoking.
If you are opposing the topic, you can either challenge the standard of harm by providing an alternative standard or show why the government team fails to the very standard that they have proposed. If you choose to challenge the standard of "potentially life-ending choices", argue that the standard only covers those choices where its outcome of harm is irreversible.
In the case of suicide or mandatory seatbelts, the choice will bring the irreversible outcome of death if the attempt of suicide is successful or if they get into a severe car accident. Smoking does not pass this standard as you can reverse the impacts of smoking. A person who has quit smoking for a few years will have their lungs in the same condition as if they have never smoked.
Alternatively, you can prove why your opponent has failed their own standard of harm. You can argue that how the harm that the opponent is arguing is too vague, provocative, subjective, or obscure.
For instance, the claim that smoking damages manifest in any single person may be too subjective. Some people can smoke for twenty years without contracting lung cancer while others who have never smoken can contract stage 4 lung cancer.
Thus, this does not result in an objective level of harm to every person. Additionally, if the choice to smoke passes this standard, so do other choices like eating fatty foods which may lead to obesity and fatal health conditions like a heart attack. Thus, this cannot be the right standard to limit choices.
Comments
Post a Comment