Lesson 4: General Introduction to First Principles

“Ideas evolve over time.”

I. What are First Principles?

A. Introduction
 While the IDEA is considered the top of the argument chain, it is not
necessarily the prime basis of the argument itself. IDEAs are just derivatives
of prevailing thoughts and theories introduced by different contributors to
the overall body of knowledge. In debates, we refer to these thoughts as
FIRST PRINCIPLES.

 By themselves, FIRST PRINCIPLES are nothing special. This is because

contrary to the general thought they offer, it is still the burden of the debater
to prove WHY and HOW are they relevant in the discussion. Further, there
exist COUNTER-NARRATIVES that can effectively negate them as a whole
given sufficient proving.
B. Significance in Case Building and Argumentation
 Generally, first principles make it easier for adjudicators to trace the overall
line of thought within your speech. This happens because:

1. They act as the value that you sought to promote in the debate.
2. They serve as the bridge between your arguments and the spirit of the
motion.
3. They provide the basis of your arguments.
C. How do we use them?
 After introducing your personal split, you directly proceed into explicitly
saying the first principle that you will be using as in your discussion.
 Format:
o Personal Split
o First Principle
 Name
 What does it imply?
 How is it relevant in the discussion?
 Why is it the best fit for the given situation?

1
  Therefore, what are its implications should it/should it not
prevail?
o Arguments
II. Morality and Ethics
A. Introduction
 In many debates, there will be a dispute about whether a policy is ethically
'right' or 'just' or whether the subject matter of a policy is ethically 'wrong' or
'unjust''.
 Debaters often find arguing about whether a practice is ethically right or
wrong very difficult. For example, even though many people might find the
thought of the death penalty being abhorrent, they may find it difficult to
articulate principled reasons why it is actually wrong.
B. Types of Moral Reasoning
1. Consequentialist reasoning
 This locates morality in the consequences of an act. An act is justified
if the benefits outweigh the harms.
2. Categorical reasoning
 This locates morality in certain duties and rights. Rather than focusing
on the consequences of an action, this type of reasoning says that it is
the intrinsic quality of the act that matters.
The most common type of consequentialist reasoning is Utilitarianism,
which considers that the right thing to do is to maximize 'utility'. In this context,
'utility' means the balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering.
Therefore, utilitarians say that a policy or action is ethically justified if it maximizes
the overall level of happiness in the community. Utilitarians do not focus on the
intrinsic quality of the act, but the effect it produces. Their mantra is 'the greatest
good for the greatest number'.

C. Moral Clashes
1. Categorical vs. Consequential reasoning
 Motion: THW allow the torture of suspected terrorists
 Consequential approach
o Harming one person by torturing him would save more
lives.

2
 o Allowing torture in some circumstances would lead to
significantly less pain for more people than enforcing a
blanket ban.
 Categorical Approach
o It is always wrong to torture someone, even if it does result
in saving many lives.
 Three reasons of principle might be advanced to
justify why torture is always wrong, without
focusing on the (potential) consequences of using
torture:
 It treats humans as a means to an end and not
as an end in themselves. It treats persons as a
'thing' and thereto dehumanizes the victim
 Torture may destroy a person's autonomy.
The victim may end up changing their own
views and beliefs and possibly adopt those of
the torturer. This is sometimes done
deliberately (such as in repressive regimes
suppressing dissent) or accidentally (such as
where a person loses their reason or forms an
attachment to their torturer).
 Torture violates the legal rights (including
the right to remain silent during
interrogation) and the human dignity of the
person.
o The categorical approach is premised on the notion that
each of us has certain fundamental duties and rights that
take precedence over maximizing utility. Furthermore, the
categorical approach says that if you believe in rights at all,
you cannot simply abandon them when it is convenient: the
whole point of rights is that they cannot be traded away.
Therefore, if the right not to be tortured is to mean anything
at all, it must trump the general welfare of the community.

2. Purely Consequential

3
  Often sides do not clash about what type of moral reasoning to
employ. Instead, both sides use consequentialist reasoning. This is
probably because it is easier to point to potential consequences of an
action rather than pinpoint principled reasons why something is
wrong.
 Motion: THW allow the torture of suspected terrorists
 In addition to, or instead of, arguing that torture is categorically
wrong, Opposition teams may argue that torture is wrong because
of its consequences.
 For example:
o Torture is a slippery slope: each time torture is used it
makes it easier to use in other circumstances. After all, if
there is no principled reason why torture is wrong, even if
it is justified when 3000 lives are on the line, is it also
justified when 300 people are at risk, 30, or 3?
o Torture is an ineffective tool. People will say anything
under distress. This may lead investigators down the wrong
path and divert resources from more effective leads. It may
also mean that any information given by the victim is
tainted and so would be inadmissible in a court of law. Most
importantly, investigators may not get good information
and therefore they may not be able to prevent any attacks
from occurring. In this case, there is no certain benefit, but
certain harm.
o Torture damages the humanity of the torturers. It may cause
them emotional harm, dehumanize them or harden them so
that they may use torture more often than is necessary.
o Torture damages the reputation and moral authority of the
institution that carries it out. The police are meant to fight
crime, not commit crime. In addition, knowledge that an
institution uses torture may provide the 'enemy' with
something they can exploit for propaganda.
3. Proving Immorality
 Some of the most difficult issues to debate well are those that deal
with activities that are harmless (at least in a narrow sense), private
and consensual, but violate strong social norms. Often these issues
relate to taboos concerning death, food or sexuality.

4
  Examples of topics include THW decriminalize bestiality'; THW
allow consenting adults to engage in incest'; THS polygamy'; and
THW allow consensual cannibalism'.
 Motion: THW decriminalize bestiality
 Typical responses:
1. Bestiality is disgusting and therefore wrong.
2. Bestiality is against the natural order of things.
3. Bestiality is contrary to human dignity because it
degrades humans and challenges the idea that humans
are exceptional with a higher moral worth than animals.
Note: “It is very difficult to argue why something is
categorically immoral simply because we are repulsed or
disgusted by it. If revulsion to an idea meant it was immoral at
one point in time it would have been immoral to give minorities
the vote, to legalize homosexuality, and to eat sushi.”
 Better and Elaborate Responses:
1. It involves the sexual exploitation of a being that cannot
communicate its consent to the pain it may suffer.
2. The state does not have a mandate to impose its own
norms above the norms accepted by society.
4. Proving Morality
 If you are arguing that a “yucky” practice is moral, it is often useful
to focus on the Harm Principle: a practice is moral so long as it does
not harm others.
 In such case, consider the following for your
argumentation:
1. You need to be realistic about whether there is no harm
to others. In the incest debate, an opposition could claim
that consensual sex between family members
undermines the family unit or creates dangerous power
dynamics in families.
2. Does the harm directly affect a moral agent? In the
bestiality debate, teams will argue about whether
animals have moral standing and are therefore worthy
of our consideration. If they were, then the Harm
Principle would be infringed.

5
 3. Properly specify the scope of your argumentation.
While it is easy to suggest that it is important to preserve
one’s right to choose what they do in private, there are
countless examples where the government interferes in
this sphere.
a. Accordingly, it may be more persuasive to
suggest that there is no need for continued
criminalization of an act that only a minority of
people engage in, as the harms are quite limited.
b. It may be beneficial to note that
decriminalization would not lead to an uptake in
the practice – consider relying on the “yuck”
factor here to suggest that while it may be
palatable to a small proportion of the population,
it is highly unlikely society at large will adopt it
as common practice

III. Criminal Justice System

A. Introduction
 The CJS is the entire process of law enforcement – from the police, to the
courts and finally punishment (sometimes in prison, sometimes in another
form of punishment).
 Debates on this matter are typically hinged on two issues, namely:
1. Should a particular practice be considered ‘criminal’?
2. How should criminal behaviour be punished

B. Should a particular practice be considered ‘criminal’?

 A ‘crime’ is socially defined. As society’s morals evolve, a practice that was
once considered a crime may no longer be considered a crime.
o Example: Homosexual intercourse has been decriminalized in a
number of countries in light of increased acceptance of sexual
freedom. By contrast, practices that were once legal, such as rape in
marriage, are now considered unacceptable in most countries and
have been criminalized.
 Criminal justice debates often hinge on whether a particular activity should
be criminalized.

6
  In approaching these types of debates, it is necessary to consider these
questions:
1. Is it principally justified to criminalize this practice?

2. Does criminalization have positive or negative outcomes?

C. Is it principally justified to criminalize this practice?
 Individual freedom is limited by criminalization. A criminal penalty has
potentially significant implications for an offender, including time in prison
and the stigma of being labelled a criminal.
 Government teams (defending criminalization) need to justify this limitation
of individual freedom and the significant consequences for the offender. To
defend limitations on individual freedom, the Government teams must
outline the situations in which it is legitimate for individual freedom to be
restricted.
 Common justifications used by GOVERNMENT:
a) The Harm Principle = restrict freedom when harm is
caused to others
b) State Responsibility = restrict freedom in order to
protect people from their poor decisions that may lead
to harm.
c) Moral Justification = restrict freedom in order to stop
immorality among people
 Common justification used by OPPOSITION:
d) Contesting the Harm = the existing harm is not enough
to justify criminalization
e) Small Government Approach = individual freedom
trump the government’s interest in criminalization.
f) Contesting the Moral Justifications = capitalization on
the idea that Morality is subjective and that the
government should not impose its own moral compass.
D. Individual Criminal Responsibility
 Some debates focus on whether a particular individual/class of individuals
should be held liable for their conduct. For example, topics featuring this
issue include: ‘This house supports holding directors criminally liable for
environmental damage caused by their companies’; and ‘This house supports
prosecuting CEOs of banks that acted recklessly during the Global Financial

7
 Crisis’. These topics are distinctive because they focus on individual
responsibility rather than the criminalization of an activity.

 This type of debate hinges on whether individual criminal responsibility is

fair.
o Government teams may argue that directors are responsible for the
actions of their companies and deserve responsibility when things go
wrong.
o Opposition teams may argue that directors should not be held
criminally liable because they had no role in causing this damage and
were not directly responsible for the damage caused.
E. Does criminalization have positive or negative outcomes?
 Even if it is principally justified to hold someone criminally liable for their behavior,
criminalization may have harmful effects in practice.
 In assessing the practical outcomes of a policy, it is worth considering:

o How will criminalization shape behavior?

o Will criminalization have harmful unintended consequences?

 Example: Criminalizing Drug Use

o Supporters of this policy argue that criminalization will positively shape

behavior. Individuals will be less likely to use drugs and consequently less
likely to suffer the serious consequences of drug usage. The message sent by
criminalization will reduce the extent to which vulnerable groups (such as
youth) are attracted to using drugs.

o Opponents of criminalizing drug use argue that criminalization will not

positively shape the behavior of users. Drug addicts will continue to take
drugs. Young people will continue to seek out drugs (and may be more
attracted to them when they are illegal). Furthermore, criminalization leads
to harmful unintended consequences such as empowering the drug gangs
who rely on the black market for their profits, further increasing the risks to
users.
F. How should criminal behaviour be punished?

8
 Crimes are committed against individuals. However, the state has a responsibility
to prosecute crime, to preserve social order and deliver justice for victims.
 Criminal justice debates often hinge on how the state should respond to a particular
crime.
 Topics featuring this issue include ‘THS the death penalty’; ‘THS the chemical
castration of paedophiles’; and ‘THS mandatory prison terms for arsonists’.
 In approaching these types of debates, it is necessary to understand the four aims of
the sentencing process.
o Rehabilitation:
 Rehabilitation is targeted at reforming a criminal’s behavior, making
it easier for them to re-integrate into the community and less likely to
offend in the future.
 For example, rehabilitation may include counselling targeted at
tackling the causes of offending.
o Incapacitation/Community Protection:
 Incapacitation is aimed at reducing the risk posed by the offender to
society.
 For example, violent criminals are locked up in prison to protect the
community from the risk that they will cause further harm.
o Deterrence:
 Deterrence is aimed at preventing people from committing future
crimes, based on the consequences of committing the crime.
 For example, imposing a prison sentence for drug use may deter the
offender from committing the crime again (specific deterrence) and
also may deter others from ever committing the crime (general
deterrence).
o Punishment:
 Punishment is aimed at delivering justice for victims and preserving
community order. If crimes are not punished and victims do not feel
like justice has been served, the state has failed to recognise the harm
caused to them and risks increasing the likelihood of vigilante justice
(where people take matters into their own hands).

Note: Criminal justice debates often revolve on the intersection between these aims.
For example, punishment often conflicts with rehabilitation, as the harsher a
punishment is the less likely it is that an offender can be reintegrated into society.
The examples listed below highlight the potential conflict between these aims:

9
 o Death Penalty
 The death penalty is an extremely strong punishment and delivers
justice for victims. The death penalty is the most effective way to
protect the community from a specific offender by guaranteeing that
he or she can never enter the community and offend again. However,
the death penalty is obviously incompatible with rehabilitation, as it
denies the possibility that an offender can reform. Furthermore, it is
questionable whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, as
offenders in the heat of the moment commit many serious offences
without considering the consequences.
o Youth Diversionary Programs
 Youth diversionary programs are aimed at diverting young offenders
from the criminal justice system, by emphasizing rehabilitation above
punishment. By emphasizing rehabilitation, young offenders are less
likely to be exposed to harmful influences in juvenile detention and
less likely to self-identify as criminals. However, the emphasis on
rehabilitation may conflict with the aim of punishment, as victims are
denied justice for the offence committed against them. Moreover,
diversion programs may undermine the aim of deterrence, as the
consequences of offending are not high enough to prevent someone
from committing a crime.

In approaching these aims in a debate, it is essential to do two things:

1. Establish that the policy achieves certain aims (i.e. rehabilitation or
deterrence).
 For example, you cannot take for granted that the death penalty is an
effective deterrent and must provide reasons why this is the case
2. Establish why the aims achieved by your plan are more important than
the aims advanced by the opposing bench.
 For example, if you are defending a policy that is an effective form of
rehabilitation but is a light punishment, it is important to explain why
the state has a greater interest in reforming offenders through
rehabilitation than in acting punitively.
Furthermore, it is important to be aware of the assumptions underpinning these aims
when defending them in a debate:
 Rehabilitation

10
 o Rehabilitation is based on the assumption that people are not
inherently criminal and have the capacity to reform. However, certain
groups such as pedophiles may not be able to reform their natural
impulses, making it harder to justify rehabilitation. Therefore, teams
defending a rehabilitative approach must make it clear why reforming
a particular class of offenders is possible.
o Note, however, that teams should avoid making generalized
statements about entire classes of offenders and should rather focus
on what is the most likely outcome.
 Punishment
o Punishment is based on the notion of delivering justice to victims.
However, any punishment may be inadequate in delivering emotional
closure to victims, particularly in the context of serious offences.
o Victims often seek a punishment that is more or less severe than the
sentence that is given, based on their emotional state and capacity to
forgive. Therefore, arguably the criminal justice system should not
place victims’ interests at the centre of the sentencing process. Teams
defending harsh punishments must explain why the state has an
obligation to the victims of crime that is more important than other
interests.
 Deterrence
o Deterrence is based on the notion that offenders are rational and weigh
up the costs of offending against the benefits of doing so.
o However, many offenders act irrationally and do not carefully
consider the potential punishment before acting. Moreover, many
offenders do not expect to be caught, diluting the deterrent effect of a
harsh sentence. Therefore, it is important to explain why a harsh
sentencing regime can alter the decisions of enough people for it to be
worthwhile.

G. Transitional Justice
 Post-conflict states are states that are transitioning from a legacy of violence and
oppression towards freedom and democracy. For example, Egypt and Libya are
states that are transitioning from dictatorship (under Hosni Mubarak and Colonel
Gadaffi) to democracy.

11
 Transition justice considers the specific criminal justice challenges faced by post-
conflict states.
 Post-conflict states face unique criminal justice challenges. Should members of the
past regime face prosecution for the crimes they committed? Or would future peace
and harmony be better served through rejecting prosecutions and adopting an
approach that emphasises healing and moving on from the crimes of the past?
 Topics featuring this issue include: ‘THS a Truth and Reconciliation Commission
in Sri Lanka’; ‘THS abolishing the International Criminal Court’; and ‘THR the
narrative of President Marcos being hailed as a hero’.

 There are three approaches that post-conflict states may adopt in responding to past
atrocities:
1. Retributive Approaches
 Retributive approaches (commonly criminal trials) require
prosecutions of individuals that commit crimes and the imposition of
sentences that reflect the gravity of these crimes.
 For example, the Nuremburg trials after World War II were held to
punish members of the Nazi regime for the Holocaust.
 Benefits of trials include:
 Justice for victims through ensuring that perpetrators
are punished
 Deterrence for future perpetrators of crimes.

 Weaknesses of trials include:

 Increased conflict if the outcome of these trials is
controversial
 Limited opportunities for victims to participate in
proceedings and have their voices heard
2. Restorative Approaches
 Restorative approaches seek to ‘restore’ the order that existed before
the crime was committed. There are a wide array of restorative
approaches that may be adopted.
 Most commonly, truth and reconciliation commissions (TRCs) have
been used by countries such as South Africa, which emphasise healing
and forgiveness rather than prosecution. Individuals may be granted
amnesty in exchange for coming forward and admitting to their

12
 crimes. Victims are given the opportunity to participate in this process
and the parties work together to determine an outcome.
 Benefits of TRCs include that:
 They are more likely to identify the truth than trials
 They ensure that the voices of victims are heard in a
non-adversarial forum.

 Weaknesses of TRCs include that:

 They fail to ensure that perpetrators face significant
consequences for their crimes, undermining deterrence
 They deny victims the chance to see their perpetrators
paying for their crimes (assuming that amnesties are
granted in exchange for truth).
3. Forgetting
 This approach involves moving on from past atrocities by choosing
not to confront what occurred.
 Forgetting may be beneficial because confronting these past atrocities
may lead to more violence and instability, as old grievances resurface.
However, this approach may also be harmful, as a failure to confront
major crimes ensures that lessons are not learned, making it more
likely that these crimes will be repeated.

13