Basic First Principle

1. Utilitarianism; One would argue that there is no morality, only greater utility. the
underlying calculus for the 3 principle is: Pareto Efficiency
Unanimity Principle
Morality according to unanimity principle is a private sphere, because it's subjective
Unanimity principle "elaboration" consider a public policy to be decided on a "value-free
economics"
Value-free economics can be domes by measuring utility - because utility is a universal
value, while right and wrong is a subjective value
Conclusion: ALL motion can use utilitarian approach
Framework: how do we lay the groundwork for utilitarianism philosophy in a debate?
I.
II.
III.
IV.

Determine who are the potential losers (actor)?

Determine who are the potential winners? this has to be either majority in quantity or
have more diversity/multi stakeholder
We make subjective comparison of the "value" of winning and losing - and compare
the utility value using hedonic calculus
We look at long term impact with Compensation principle

Hedonic Calculus
Both Mill and Bentham subscribed to the hedonic calculus: intensity, duration, propinquity,
certainty, fecundity, purity, and extent.
(1) Intensity, the strength of the pleasure/pain.
(2) Duration.
(3) Propinquity, how soon will it come?
(4) Certainty, likelihood.
(5) Fecundity, the ability to produce more distant pleasures.
(6) Purity, the consequential amount of pain compared with the total pleasure.
(7) Extent, the number of people affected.
Compensation Principle
The incentive for compensation, why majority will have the tendency to compensate?
Answer: to silent dissent

The more minorities - that means there is a threat to the public policy
contoh - the more people dying of HIV AIDS will put negative light to pharmaceutical
companies
Its "cheaper" for them to compensate the losers, than losing their privilege as a whole
noted, that the compensation will always be relatively marginal compare to the suffering. But
at least there is a compensation. In the case that we prioritize the poor community, they will
not be able to compensate at all
we cannot say that the compensation will make the poor "happy" - because that is not fair,
they will still be the "losers"
e.g.: overall the african american community will still be the second class, but the affirmative
action is compensation form that benefited them
not to a point where it will make them stop begin the second class, but it can start the process
going there
so the work where you can gain maximum and (closer to) equal utility for all will be
achieved more under utilitarian view
THW alleviate fuel subsidy
Utilitarian Framework: 1. We determine who are the potential "losers" 2. We determine who
are the potential "winners" - this has to be either majority in quantity or have more
diversity/multi stakeholder 3. We make subjective comparison of the "value" of winning and
losing - and compare the utility value using hedonic calculus 4. We look at long term impact
with Compensation principle
1. The poor, 2. Overall society, 3. Comparison: all society is benefited from healthier budget,
healthier economy with less intervention, potential for renewable energy development, etc
We need to provide detailed comparison:
Healthier budget means: less likely to be in inflation, protect economic stability - means
everyone as a society wins (explain the value)
Healthier market mechanism means: better investment condition - means more opportunity
and job, means society will win
we have healthier economy (stability), healthier market (opportunity), and environment
(renewable energy, less consumption)
that is the win
hedonistic calculus with the segmentation of society analysis
Society consist of 4 components: (1) The poorest (beggars, people living below 1 dollar) they have less consumption, so they will be affected but not much. They will not be

marginally poorer (2) The poor: they will be most affected, they can no longer afford some
basic things that they can afford in the past (3) Middle class: they will be affected but the
intensity is not high because they simply have to reduce consumption of tertiary products and
level of their luxury; and the duration is not high because they can adapt (4) the rich are not
affected
Then you have to prove that we have more middle class than the poor
in Indonesia this is quite easy (BCG report) - Indonesia is the highest rising middle class
But how about the benefit: (1) The poorest: less affected (2) The poor: will benefit from a
more stable economy, will benefit from more opportunity, because new job will first absorb
labour, and will benefit from environmental resilience (3) The middle class and rich: will
have same benefit from economy, opportunity, etc
so overall we can prove that it will benefit the society as a whole
Framework: (1) Losers: a segment of society that is not the brink of poverty (2) Winner:
Society as a whole (3) Comparison: number of the people affected, intensity of the pain vs
benefit for all segment of society, duration of the pain (one is short term with high likelihood
of bouncing back), etc (4) Compensation Principle: Allocation of subsidy to health and
education, BLT, Renewable Energy development
how is the case structure?
1. Context: Acknowledge that this policy will have adverse effect and indicate sympathy for
that segment of society
2. Argument: (1) Role of Government is to look at Policy that is necessary and beneficial
for more people within longer time (2) Why this policy is necessary (3) why this policy is
beneficial for more people - with explanation on segmentation of society (4) why this is
better and more sustainable economic policy in the long run (5) this policy allow more
room for compensation and targeted program
1- 4 can be explained by first; 5 can be explained by second with 3 variations: on allocation
of subsidy to health and education; on consumption reduction program and an environmental
program and renewable energy
3. Elaboration of argument 1 - role of government, explain about unanimity principle and
focus on the requirement of public sphere policy while be sympathetic and acknowledge
there will be people crying over the price hike
Elaboration of argument 2 - explain the benefit to budget, economy and market and the
benefit of how it impact EVERYONE
Elaboration of argument 3 - give society's segmentation and cost and benefit analysis for
each

Elaboration argument 4 - give comparison on the period of a segment going into poverty
vs a nation in economic crisis and energy insecurity - which one has better possibility to
bounce back

2. Deontological (Kantian)
deontological in adherence to values/rule - kind of a variation of kantian moral imperatives, it
does not talk about benefit per se. the elaboration is on "right" and "wrong" and morality. but
that is the philosophy clash: on would argue that there is no morality, only greater utility.
Morality according to unanimity principle is a private sphere, because it's subjective
unanimity principle "elaboration" consider a public policy to be decided on a "value-free
economics" so that it is not biased
3. Liberalism and Harm principle
Definition: What is political liberalism?
Political Liberalism assume that any given context has "Reasonable Pluralism"
So people have different values, morality and perception on how and what something has to
be done
Policy was made under behind the veil concept
Essentially, that pluralistic values, all have "overlapping consensus"
Arguably political representation in Political Liberalism will represent that overlapping
consensus only
they put "veil of ignorance" on other values that are not overlapping
So a public policy needs to adhere to "public reason" and not bias to a particular moral or
value
common value in liberalism is: Harm Principle
The central concepts of Rawls' theory of political liberalism are: the original position;
justice as fairness; overlapping consensus for the right reasons; public reason;
rational and reasonable; counting one another as free and equal; self-standing
conceptions; political conceptions; comprehensive doctrine; a well-ordered system of
social cooperation.

A more contemporary approach stated that political liberalism has 2 main values: Equality
and No harm
those are "overlapping consensus" and values that any well-reasoned person can accept
What does that means?
That means you can only regulate something in public sphere only (AND ONLY) when it
poses threat to equality or create harm
That is the concise version - how to elaborate it? Please do read the sources in the form I sent
Apply in any motion when government is banning, regulating, criminalizing something
why do I put categorical imperative here?
Because that is the opponents of liberalism
but they can argue the same thing
Categorical imperative puts an importance of "morality" and "sense of duty"
Read article :
In that article, Jonathan Haidt explains the difference between liberal (contemporary version
of political liberalism) and conservative (contemporary version of categorical imperatives)
one of the most insightful and interesting article I ever read - explain the underlying
elaboration style and philosophic approach of both side
Now how does that apply in a debate? THW Legalize Incest
Liberalism: Equality - everyone should have equal right to express their sexual desire; Harm
Principle: Prove that there is no harm
what other approach? for the negative I mean
We have so many option
1. We can use utilitarian approach
2. Categorical Imperatives
3. Liberalism
Utilitarian approach: minimum protection (yes we limit some people's right which is
minority) but we create minimum protection against potential abuse of power dynamic within
family, which is a rampant case
Categorical Imperative: Sex and Norm in Society - and the role of public policy to represent
norm and not just practical approach. Well second approach is not a comparison, comparison
is more of the tenet of utilitarian approach. in the second approach you are saying why the act
itself is not a norm that this policy can represent, therefore it should not be legalized

Example of arguments:
If I decided to use Categorical Imperative approach, I will use the argument of the purpose of
sex
I would say that sex has 2 purpose, reproduction and in the evolution, pleasure
However, normative value determine that society has a limitation on what they can or cannot
accept as source of pleasure
For example, deriving pleasure from torturing someone, is normatively considered wrong,
That norm sets the limitation on what society can and cannot accept within a particular time
set
It is irrelevant why the norm is established, But when it offends the society so much, it
becomes the benchmark for humanity, at that given time
that is why you have different clothing (fashion) and evolving courtship
the burden of the opposition is then to prove simply why the government's policies should
always be consistent with the normative values within society.
A government is not permanent, it's 5 years
they are selected by a society at a particular given time
so they should represent the norm and value of that particular society
PS: strategy wise, I can use this potentially really well as extension case, and I need to
provide millions of sophisticated parallel example.
but yes, you can even explain it with adding 2 philosophy: Representation and Social
Contract
Gov must follow norms:
Because, government represents society
so they can represent changes in society
but the changes has to be bottom-up
not top-down
as of now, deriving pleasure from people you have taken care of morally or emotionally is
considered wrong
Why not accepting incest is norm:
there are 2 wrong norms in there:
1. Altruism in nurturing in parenthood

2. Interchangeable role of nurturing and pleasure seeking

You need to have a sophisticate elaboration on why altruism in parenthood is such a high
value in society
because it is the basic of evolution
you take care of your children with no expectation of compensation
because society has that norm (and that feeling of responsibility) which is a produce of
evolution
we have ability to pass knowledge and has better condition generationt o generation
incest violates that sense of altruism - because now you are taking something from the one
you nurture
you seek pleaseure
so this is not just a different variation of sex
this is a violation of the basic value that makes society flourish to begin with
the society flourish because of a "feeling" - wanting to have children, sense of resposnsibiity
wanting to take care of them
incest violates that basic norm in society
that is why it is deeply offensive
and government should represent that
because when you nurture, it is altruistic by nature
you do not get interest, that is the different with cooperation
that is why there is trust to parents, emotional dependence - because there is an implicit trust
that parents want what's best
We and society trust that parents and siblings and family will want to do best for you (until
proven otherwise)
we don't grant that same level of trust to anyone else
our legal system even believe family until proven otherwise
that is because of the normative value that assume within family there is an altruism
nurturing
once you take pleasure -which can be considered "benefit", you lost trust in that value
the same thing with child labour
that is why we are offended hearing parents taking money from their children

we are offended seeing parents eat, while their children are hungry. But we think it makes
sense if it's the other way around
1. Knowing the principles means that you know the options of approach to take 2. Once you
have the approach, you can start thinking what arguments to make (you have a way to think and
to research) 3. You can also start thinking the potential approach for the opposition and make a
strong case based on that 4. Finally you can structure your stance, arguments and
acknowledgment of opposition case into a good casebuilding

Liberalism: There is harm - inherently incest is a misuse of power structure that is inevitable
in family unit. essentially one can argue that sex is not "harm" if there is consent, the
problem within family is you have a prolonged relationship prior to the sex. within that
prolonged relationship, there will definitely be a power dynamic: (1) grand/parenthood: all
form of dependence - including your existence (2) uncle/aunt/etc: emotion authority
established over years (3) sibling: dominant emotional and nurture for some years
within that power dynamic, validity of a consent cannot be measured anymore
because prolonged dominance can "force" consent - there is an inability to say no, there is an
implementation of value during that prolonged years that taint the objectivity of the consent
therefore there are 2 harms in here:
(1) harm in misusing the power within the family unit (2) harm in doing sex without valid
"consent"
They are not 3 arguments that you can use them all. You have to choose, because
philosophically they are very different