Class summary

Weighing and Impacting

07.06.21
What happened:
1. Who (which people/groups) should we prioritise?
2. Which effects should we prioritise?
3. Which arguments take logical precedence over others?
Weighing and impacting

With any relatively balanced motion with two roughly equal teams at the end of the debate there will be
arguments that are true on both sides. The question is then why is what we proven more important to show
that on balance our side of the debate is correct. To do so you need to show the impact and the importance of
every true argument.
There are lots of ways to do this - I want to highlight a few that you should be able to deploy in lots of debates.

Before any other - look for shared points of weighing. ‘We both agree that X is the most important’. That is BY
FAR the most useful, as there is consensus. Find points of agreement over what matters the most, and use
that to build.

There are broadly three ways of weighing

1. Who (which people/groups) should we prioritise?

2. Which effects should we prioritise?
3. Which arguments take logical precedence over others?
Who/which groups?

Lots of debates involve trade-offs. Some individuals gain, other individuals lose. While we can discuss the depth
of the impact (to extent to which either group is harmed), it is often more useful to weigh by proving logically
that for the purpose of the debate one group should matter more than another.

NB: To claim one group matters more than another does not imply that the other group does not matter at all.
This is intuitive. I may claim that a states primary obligation is to its own citizens, that does not mean that it
would be justified to commit genocide for the benefit of your own citizens.

1) Special obligations
Just because one group can be helped more that does not mean it should be our priority. We can have special
obligations to a group, or people by virtue of our position. That does not deny equal value of all, but rejects our
equal obligation to all.

To some degree this is intuitive. We probably have greater duties to our own children than to another. My
employer may not be worth more than someone else's employer, yet I probably have a duty to him (to work)
beyond I do to work for someone else.

So some ways to make it:

- Reciprocity: Those in our state. They sacrifice for us, they give up tax revenue, are willing to fight and die in wars
for our safety. We owe them an obligation above and beyond to anyone else. They have given us something, we
have a reciprocal duty to prioritise them. (Others outside may have also provided us something - but it will tend
to be shallower, so duties to our own neighbours is a practical, even if imperfect, approximation of our obligation.

- Legitimacy of states: A state demands we fight for them. It makes such a subject of their power. It makes us
follow their laws. If that is to be different than an armed gang, or a militia that conscripts child soldiers it is only
because it has a duty to provide to us more than it provides to others

- Consent: I’ve accepted a duty by having a child and deciding to keep it. I’ve accepted a duty by becoming a
parent. Or accepted a duty by accepting a certain position or a job.

2) Vulnerability

While everyone may be of equal concern, some should be prioritised over others on the grounds of ‘vulnerability’.
What does this actually mean? It means that they are less able to absorb the costs than another group, and thus
struggle more. Really we mean that the DEPTH OF THE IMPACT will be greater to them.

Using an income analogy - going from making $10,000 a year to $1,000 is much worse for your life than someone
income falling from $500,000 to $300,000 even though the absolute effect is greater.
Remember several things about this - vulnerability is multifaceted. An ethnic minority can be rich, male. Are they
more vulnerable than someone who is in poor health?

And if you can help 1,000 poor people, is that less important than helping 1 very poor person? This wouldn’t be a
reasonable government at all - as the costs for the larger group are real and deep.
Which effects should we prioritise?
The effects that we prioritise works on the assumption that there is a consensus on a group that matters. The
question then HOW MUCH DOES THIS ARGUMENT affect them. This is what most people consider weighing.

1) A huge impact, or many people affected

2) What matters more to people

3) Risk-reward
You may be correct, they may be correct - but lets compare the outcomes of both sets of the world. Lets look at
the risk and look at the reward.

4) Their impact in the real world is marginal/not a tipping point

5) Certainty vs uncertainty

6) Concentrated harms vs diffuse benefits

7) Long/Short term

8) Inherence
This is one of the ONLY way of helping a group. While you can get the other side's impacts in lots of different
ways, with lots of different policies. In practice, its probably close to this is the most effective way of helping,
while the other side can have many better ways to get their outcomes.

9) Reversibility
The harms of one side can be reversed, while the harms of the other cannot be.

10) Probability