Monday, February 06, 2006

Logical progression

I want to win my next disputatio.*

In order to win my next disputatio, I must convince the judges that Christians are not morally obligated to pay or advocate for a just wage.

In order to argue that the just wage is unnecessary, I must learn to think like someone who believes the just wage is unnecessary.

Someone who believes the just wage is unnecessary is likely to be a political conservative.

The best way for me to learn to think like a political conservative is to watch smart political debate.

The best way for me to watch smart political debate is to watch West Wing.

So, I'm working on my disputatio.

*Ok, the competitive part of me wants to win the disputatio. The rest of me actually kind of wants to lose the disputatio, because I really pretty strongly disagree with my assigned position. I do, however, care about looking good in class and thinking soundly, so for now, it's time to think like a conservative libertarian.


Ryan said...

Oh dear Lord - good luck on that one. That was my disputatio for that class, same position. That was a dark time in my life. I don not envy you. Research well. Argue better. Utilze bribery most of all.


Being Shielded said...

I've been watching "Manor House" from PBS on DVD -- the servants take the opposing position in regards to fair benefits, specifically time off, and the master kept yours. Perhaps you might look into the reasoning of that period (1905-1914). If I had time, I would (so shoot me, I like history), with or without the disputatio (the thought of which is just plain scary!)

Good luck!

Baruch Grazer said...

An argument from Intelligent Design:

1) We observe people working at sub-minimum wage;
2) Proving or disproving naturalistic or social causes will be a lot of trouble and may not be accomplished soon enough to suit our impatience;
3) Therefore, let's assume that God designed things that way.

So: People working at sub-minimum-wage levels were "intelligently designed" as a servant class to the professional class.

Now go take the day off.

Beth said...

I'm not entirely sure I can make those words leave my mouth, even for this. We've come up with a different nuance for it that I think will serve us well.

micah said...

In order to win this disputatio you will have to cheat. Not in the "bribe the judges with brownies" sense, but in the sense of out-debating them. Your argument goes like this:

If "fair" means "in proportion to the value of the work done" and if "obligated" means that Christians can do no other, then if Christians can pay more than that (as the parable of the laborers in the vineyard suggests), they must not, by definition be obligated to pay a fair wage.

Though if worse comes to terrible, you can just argue from Christian freedom, and/or the idea that privation is a spiritual good, and that therefore Christians ought not to pay a fair wage. Good luck.

Scog Blog said...


I can relate to that.

I have to take part in a debate about women in the Anglican Episcopate. I have to be against the motion that women should be Bishops - this is alien! Everything I read against women in the Episcopate is hogwash!

If I lose I will be glad!!