there are so many possibilities for the neg but i dont see any good ideas for aff. does anyone know of any?He's come to the right place to get un-stumped. Maybe it's just me, but I think there are a lot of great ideas for the Aff to run with. Here's a quick rundown, as well as my answer to the "moral theory" question.
The only way i see as of right now is to say that a corporation acts as an individual or in society's eyes, is an individual, but i dont see any other way
Also, just a thought, but i think it would be foolish to use any particular moral theory in your case because your opponent will attack that particular standard rather than your case...for either side, its better, probably, to just say that there is one without specifically naming it...
but yeah aff ideas?
1. The legal presumption of "corporate personhood" is morally coherent as well. Corporations are rational beings (a la Kant) and/or intentional actors, unified in their being despite comprising diverse entities (see Peter A. French). Just like humans. Therefore, we should hold them to the same standards.
2. Since corporations act through and affect individuals, their actions ought to be held to the same standards as individuals. The different organizational context of the corporation does not warrant different standards.
3. Ethical consumerism. We hold corporations to moral standards by supporting them with our money, either through purchase or investment, or by not supporting them, by shopping elsewhere or by boycotts or other social pressure.
I'm sure readers can come up with other directions for the Aff to take.
Now, to the "moral theory" question. Should we promote a specific moral theory, or leave that undefined? As jay cautions, we may end up spending valuable time defending the standards instead of arguing on case.
This is one of the toughest calls with this resolution. If you don't adopt a moral framework (consequentialism via utility or something similar; ethical egoism; deontology via Kant or Rawls; virtue ethics; etc.) you risk opening yourself to whatever standards the Neg applies. You're probably already making moral arguments implicitly in your case; by selecting a moral theory as your criterion, you make those arguments explicit for the judge.
Secondly, if you don't adopt a moral framework, you'll have a tough time with any neg case running "morality is impossible because..." You'll have to spend the time arguing for morality anyway, so why not have your morality ready-made?
Third, the word "ought" presumes there's some sort of moral reason for holding them to the same standards. That reason is based on a moral theory. What is your theory?
I hope these quick thoughts are useful. Questions? Comments? Fervent disagreements? Let the discussion commence.