I dont know what my criterion is?

Alright im new to this thing- I just started debate (my first year in highschool) this year and im having a serious problem with the criterion part. I debate this coming saturday and i just have HALF OF MY AFF case done which is no help. Anyways this is our resolved: Standards of professionalism ought to be value above free expression on social networking sites. And this is what i have so far:

"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life." Because I strongly believe in the words of Albert Einstein I affirm the Resolved that: Standards of professional behavior ought be valued above freedom of expression on social networking sites". Before I continue I would like to define a few crucial terms-
Professional Standards or Standards of Professional behavior is defined by UIL.com as universally accepted level of ethics.
Social networking site –is define by dictionary.com as a website that focuses on building online communities of people who share interests and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others, and lastly
Valued-is also define by dictionary.com as having value of a specific kind and in this case professional standards or professional ethics.
The value I will be upholding for this round will be morality which can be defined as The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.. Morality is important because it is the foundation of professional standards .Morality as is defined "standards of good or right conduct" .Professional standards is also defined by good or right conduct. My value is upheld through my criterion which is : ?

Which is being redundant. Valuing morality is like pointing a flashlight at itself. It completely misses the point. A morality is a code of valuation-- valuation of other things.

At 11/1/2009 6:30:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which is being redundant. Valuing morality is like pointing a flashlight at itself. It completely misses the point. A morality is a code of valuation-- valuation of other things.

I dont understand?

First, you want to move away from definitions that are from dictionary.com. Try Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, or use the American Heritage definitions that dictionary.com provides.

Next, never value morality. It's far too vague, and as R_R points out, circular. Pick a specific moral theory. It seems like you could pick Utilitarianism or Kant's Categorical Imperative, though I'd definitely recommend the latter. Utility has too many dehumanizing flaws for you to use, and would actually be turned by your opponent.

Do a bit of research on the CI and see if you can't come up with anything for a criterion ;).

If you value morality, then you want your value criterion to explain how we act morally in the resolution. For the aff, that might be something along the lines of saving lives.

@R_R. A value of morality means something along the lines of saying that morality is important, and so we should act in a moral manner. The value criterion should, if she does it right, clarify what is means to act morally.

At 11/1/2009 6:58:45 PM, LB628 wrote:
If you value morality, then you want your value criterion to explain how we act morally in the resolution. For the aff, that might be something along the lines of saving lives.

@R_R. A value of morality means something along the lines of saying that morality is important, and so we should act in a moral manner.

Your rephrasing is every bit as redundant as the original. To say that something is moral is to say that one should do it, or that one will achieve a given value by it. Thus, to say "You should be moral" is to say "You should do what you should do."

Your rephrasing is every bit as redundant as the original. To say that something is moral is to say that one should do it, or that one will achieve a given value by it. Thus, to say "You should be moral" is to say "You should do what you should do."

Nay, you're missing the point. A good question that can be asked to one who adheres to a particular moral theory is "why should I be moral"? Indeed, this is part of the reason that fuels my moral skepticism.

It's not redundant, because on further elaboration it could be translated to "what reason is there for acting in a morally just manner"? You are equivocating two different types of should - one refers to a rational justification while the other to moral obligations.

You seem to believe the morality is intrinsically motivating, which I would say is perturbing and wrong. Wanna give a case for it?

At 11/1/2009 9:46:49 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:

Your rephrasing is every bit as redundant as the original. To say that something is moral is to say that one should do it, or that one will achieve a given value by it. Thus, to say "You should be moral" is to say "You should do what you should do."

Nay, you're missing the point. A good question that can be asked to one who adheres to a particular moral theory is "why should I be moral"?

But it's not a good question. "Why would I" maybe, but "Should" already presumes morality.

It's not redundant, because on further elaboration it could be translated to "what reason is there for acting in a morally just manner"?

If one holds it to be a meaningful question, this would just be an infinite regress-- "Why should I care about reasons?" and so on and so forth.

You are equivocating two different types of should - one refers to a rational justification while the other to moral obligations.

A rational justification given what premise? A moral premise.

You seem to believe the morality is intrinsically motivating

No, I believe that one chooses the goal one will be motivated by , and reality dictates as a result of the goal (not intrinsically) what will be moral given that.

But it's not a good question. "Why would I" maybe, but "Should" already presumes morality.

Not every usage of should implies morality. The statement "you should go to college if you want a good career" has nothing to do with morality.

It's not redundant, because on further elaboration it could be translated to "what reason is there for acting in a morally just manner"?

If one holds it to be a meaningful question, this would just be an infinite regress-- "Why should I care about reasons?" and so on and so forth.

That's an issue for the theory of justification, which is a branch of epistemology.

You are equivocating two different types of should - one refers to a rational justification while the other to moral obligations.

A rational justification given what premise? A moral premise.

Again, not every rational justification nor motivation needs to include morality. See previous example.

You seem to believe the morality is intrinsically motivating

No, I believe that one chooses the goal one will be motivated by , and reality dictates as a result of the goal (not intrinsically) what will be moral given that.

What I mean is you believe there is a internal, necessary connection between one's belief that X ought to be done and one's motivation to do X.

At 11/1/2009 11:14:09 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:

But it's not a good question. "Why would I" maybe, but "Should" already presumes morality.

Not every usage of should implies morality. The statement "you should go to college if you want a good career" has nothing to do with morality.

Yes it does. Morality-- the code which dictates how a goal (a value) can be achieved. Given the goal "career," going to college is moral.