Contention 3 – Our Framing

The Tyranny of Survival a. Extensive empirical evidence indicates that placing human survival at the top of a hierarchy of impacts results in the worst impacts. Callahan, 1973 [Co-Founder and former director of The
Hastings Institute, PhD in philosophy from Harvard University, Daniel, “The Tyranny of Survival”, p 91-92]: The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it has been. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life. The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decades fueled the drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs. During World War II, native Japanese-Americans were herded, without due process of law, to detention camps. This policy was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in the general context that a threat to national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, the government of South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. The Vietnamese war has seen one of the greatest of the many absurdities tolerated in the name of survival: the destruction of villages in order to save them. But it is not only in a political setting that survival has been evoked as a final and unarguable value. The main rationale B. F. Skinner offers in Beyond Freedom and Dignity for the controlled and conditioned society is the need for survival. For Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, survival requires that we overthrow almost every known religious, ethical and political system. In genetics, the survival of the gene pool has been put forward as sufficient grounds for a forceful prohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traits from marrying and bearing children. Some have even suggested that we do the cause of survival no good by our misguided medical efforts to find means by which those suffering from such common genetically based diseases as diabetes can live a normal life, and thus procreate even more diabetics. In the field of population and environment, one can do no better than to cite Paul Ehrlich, whose works have shown a high dedication to survival, and in its holy name a willingness to

ca/soci/" \t "_blank"Sociology. Political Science. or yet again. I have tried to demonstrate that substantively ‘filled in. liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress.pdf" \t "_blank"http://www. “Cautionary Tales: The Global Culture of Prevention and The Work of Foresight”.contemplate governmentally enforced abortions and a denial of food to surviving populations of nations which have not enacted populationcontrol policies. NM." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for sake of survival. Foremost among the possible distortions of farsightedness is alarmism. Therefore.arts. unless and until it is Up to this point. Instances of this kind of manipulation of the dystopian imaginary are plentiful: .ca/kurasawa/Kurasawa%20Articles/Constellations %20Article.’ legitimacy. which challenges presumptions about the inscrutability of the future (II) and a stance of indifference toward it (III). transnational sociopolitical relations are nurturing a thriving culture and infrastructure of prevention from %20Articles/Constellations%20Article.pdf) "http://www. no rights. State and market institutions may seek to produce a culture of fear by deliberately stretching interpretations of reality beyond the limits of the plausible so as to exaggerate the prospects of impending catastrophes.yorku. (Fuyuki Karasawa. the manufacturing of unwarranted and unfounded doomsday scenarios. by intentionally promoting certain prognoses over others for instrumental purposes. For all these reasons it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival. this section proposes to specify normative criteria and participatory procedures through which citizens can determine the ‘reasonableness. Accordingly.yorku.yorku. and effectiveness of competing dystopian visions in order to arrive at a socially self-instituting future. 2004 Associate Professor of HYPERLINK HYPERLINK "http://www. Apocalyptic predictions are constructed by alarmists and game-players with no policy influence for the sole reason of advancing personal interests Kurasawa. Nonetheless. regressive dystopias can operate as Trojan horses advancing political agendas or commercial interests that would otherwise be susceptible to public scrutiny and opposition. OR THE COVIELLO EVIDENCE) b2. and Social and Political Thought at York University in Toronto. b1.’ the argument is vulnerable to misappropriation since farsightedness does not in and of itself ensure emancipatory outcomes.

the severe curtailing of American civil liberties amidst fears of a collapse of ‘homeland security’. Ignoring the moral responsibility of individual actors or undermining it's importance with consequences of intervening actors outside the agent of the plan ultimately destroys the decision-making skills of all members of society by reducing them to infinitely regressive calculi based on an infinite number of equally ludicrous options. as used here. producing or reinforcing certain crisis narratives. the less likely we will be to consider the action voluntary and the less moral responsibility we will assign to the agent. Coercion and constraint. the neoliberal dismantling of the welfare state as the only remedy for an ideologically constructed fiscal crisis. the greater the coercion or constraint. they are permitted to make choices and act according to their beliefs and values. The question of moral responsibility must be asked because it is key to any community’s efforts to achieve public goods. [End Page 343] When the autonomy of those who have the capacity for rational agency is respected. and so forth. Gauthier 2K (Candace. In the absence of overwhelming coercive factors or . Thus. As much as alarmist ideas beget a culture of fear. and rhetorical conventions. the conservative expansion of policing and incarceration due to supposedly spiraling crime waves. Finally. Alarmism constructs and codes the future in particular ways.the invasion of Iraq in the name of fighting terrorism and an imminent threat of use of ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal) Instances of coercion and constraint also may exempt agents from judgments of moral responsibility. Certainly there are degrees of coercion and constraint. PhD Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religion at the University of North Carolina. the more it eliminates or controls choice. should be understood as the imposition of some external force that compels or precludes a particular choice or a particular action itself. Some external threats are so great as to totally bypass choice. some threats reduce the voluntariness of an action by making any other choice extremely difficult for an individual to make in the face of the relevant threat. belief structures. to the extent that their actions pose no risk of harm to individuals or to the community. leading directly to action. The ballot should only be used to assess decisions for which we are morally responsible. The greater the threat imposed by some external force. while others may control choice to the extent that a particular action is virtually ensured. the reverse is no less true. and consideration of the form and degree of external force imposed can affect the extent to which one considers an action to have been less than voluntary.

military modernization. create persons "constituted by the group's shared aims. and a variety of communal influences as well as their own consideration of all of these factors. the assignment of moral responsibility operates within a pluralistic democratic society by permitting areas of life in which the individual may choose and act. free of coercion and constraint. prof – national security decision making – Naval War College.controlling constraints. “REVISITING MACKINDER AND ANGELL: THE OBSOLESCENCE OF GREAT POWER GEOPOLITICS”. Thus. CHRISTOPHER J. reward and punishment. As part of the social control provided by praise and blame. Mackinder and his . This does not mean that those beliefs and values are themselves totally chosen. and pride that contribute to the development of conscience (Gaylin and Jennings 1996. moral responsibility has no meaning. without individuals who are free to make choices based on their traditions. we would have a level of control through legal coercion that would leave little room for moral responsibility based on the voluntarily chosen actions of moral agents." and "leave little or no room for criticism of the group will" (Kuczewski 1997. pp. APRIL] Mackinder can be forgiven for failing to anticipate the titanic changes in the fundamental nature of the international system much more readily than can his successors. This tendency is an "excess" of the communitarian movement that may lead to a "tyranny of the majority. Although moral responsibility in the first sense discussed here is a neutral judgment. to seek even more social control based on a shared vision of the good life that is determined either by the majority or by the elites. recognizing both causality and moral agency. pp. 137-49). and all of the other societal influences that make individuals who they are. would jeopardize the social practice of assigning moral responsibility for individual action. the imposition of communal values. 03 [DR.. Indeed. Certainly. moral responsibility can be and is assigned with the understanding that the person who has voluntarily chosen and acted is the product of a family. but with the understanding that these choices and actions are subject to judgment and criticism by others in the community. However. Once the force of law is behind shared values and how they are to be honored in individual lives and decisions. if judgments of praise and blame are internalized. 106-8). we hold these autonomous individuals morally responsible for their choices and actions. communitarians sometimes appear to go even farther. it is the basis for praise and blame. pp. 238-54). Fettweis. Finally of the infinite number of equally ludicrous options treat the risk of great power wars and extinction via rapid and unexplained escalation as zero – global commerce." Pushing the laudable communitarian concern with shared values and the common good to this extreme would destroy the individual. Moreover. These are essential ways in which communities may effect personal change in their members toward behavior that is more in concert with communal values and ends. they create the "social emotions" of guilt. histories. For example. shame. a community. COMPARATIVE STRATEGY. VOL 22 ISSUE 2. The assignment of moral responsibility is part of an important method of social control through which the community furthers common ends and interests (Smiley 1992. in all areas of life. and conflict norms render it obsolete.

”33 Just as advances in weaponry have increased the cost of fighting. As John Keegan has argued. especially now that the casualty levels among both soldiers and civilians would be even higher. is now obsolete. revolutionary conclusion that territory is not directly related to their national wealth and prestige. where World War III is. related to territorial control. nuclear weapons remove the possibility of victory from the calculations of the would-be aggressor. a recasting of patriotic ideals.contemporaries a century ago would hardly recognize the rules by which the world is run today—most significantly. Angell’s major error was one that has been repeated over and over again in the social sciences ever since—he overestimated the “rationality” of humanity. For these states. it is hard to see how nuclear war could be considered “an extension of politics by other means”—at the very least. “somewhere between impossible and unlikely. Angell noted that the only things that could have prevented the war were “surrendering of certain dominations. Today. most significant trend of international politics: great power war. a .” where “the methods of commerce are displacing military methods—with disposable capital in lieu of firepower. Others have argued that. the shift from the industrial to the information age that seems to be gradually occurring in many advanced societies has been accompanied by a new definition of power. The rapid economic evolution that is sweeping much of the world. in Michael Mandelbaum’s words. analyst arguing that the chances of a World War III emerging in the next century are next to nil. First. Second. a socioeconomic evolution has reduced the rewards that a major war could possibly bring. and most obviously. unlike their era.32 The economic incentives for war are therefore not as clear as they once may have been.31 The intervening years have served only to strengthen major industrial powers.29 The world wars dramatically reinforced Angell’s warnings. As early as 1986 Richard Rosecrance recognized that “two worlds of international relations” were emerging. but by no means the only. at least in the last few decades. while nuclear weapons surely make war an irrational exercise. and therefore power. and clearly controversial. but he was not able to convince his contemporaries who were not ready to give up the institution of war. claim. the destructive power of modern conventional weapons make today’s great powers shy away from direct conflict. reach. Increasingly. wealth and power are more likely to derive from an increase in economic.30 For millennia. After the war. there is reason to believe that this normative calculation may have changed. because nuclear threats are not credible in the kind of disagreements that arise between modern great powers. and market penetration in lieu of garrisons and bases. Angell recognized earlier than most that the industrialization of military technology and economic interdependence assured that the costs of a European war would certainly outweigh any potential benefits. encapsulated in the “globalization” metaphor so fashionable in the media and business communities. ours is one in which the danger of major war has been removed. The idea of war was still appealing—the normativecost/benefit analysis still tilted in the favor of fighting.27 Mueller and his contemporaries cite three major arguments supporting this revolutionary. It is unlikely that a game of nuclear “chicken” would lead to the outbreak of a major war. divided over the question of the utility of territorial conquest. rather than military. and a new system of incentives which all but remove the possibility that major war could ever be a cost-efficient exercise. National wealth and prestige. civilian innovation in lieu of military–technical advancement. it seems that the most powerful states pursue prosperity rather than power.28 Their value as leverage in diplomacy has not been dramatic. and today no one is eager to repeat those experiences. are no longer directly the argument that the seem to have reached the In Edward Luttwak’s terminology. has been accompanied by an evolution in the way national wealth is accumulated. and that proved to be the more important factor.”25 Geopolitical and geostrategic analysis has not yet come to terms with what may be the central. territory was the main object of war because it was directly related to national prestige and power.26 John Mueller has been the most visible. quite unlike their less-developed neighbors. geopolitics is slowly being replaced by “geoeconomics. major war of the kind that pit the strongest states against each other. modern military technology has made major war too expensive to contemplate.

Mitchell. but today popular pressures push for peaceful resolutions to disputes between industrialized states. Contention 4 .36 The heart of this argument is the which it was once central to the concept of masculinity and honor. good and bad. Former Briefing Attorney for the Texas Supreme Court..wfu.Rational Decision Making Rational decision-making means that negative fiat should be limited to the agent of the plan and that consequences.. as revolution of ideas. great power war. treated with crisp “moral progress” that has “brought a change in attitudes about international war” among the great powers of the world. just as dueling is no longer a part of the set of options for the same classes for precision. ideologies.39 By extension. are very often forces themselves.” to borrow Francis Fukuyama’s term. .37 creating for the first time. “a major independent variable. You can’t fight a duel if the idea of doing so never occurs to you or your opponent. that a normative evolution has caused a shift in the rules that govern state interaction. This normative shift has rendered war between great powers “subrationally unthinkable. JD Baylor. The revolutionary potential of ideas should not be underestimated. As Mueller explained. . states cannot fight wars if doing so does not occur to them or to their opponent. has brought about the end of major.” removed from the set of options for policy makers.” added John Mueller. or probed with deductive panache. “an almost universal sense that the deliberate launching of a war can no longer be justified.40 Plan – The United States Federal Government should substantially increase beneficiary eligibility in the area of family-based visas by eliminating (find specific restriction.35 “ (Frank. should be intrinsic to the passing of the plan by the affirmative agent. it does not seem wise in this area to ignore phenomena that cannot be easily measured. Angell’s successors suggest that such a belief now exists in the industrial (and postindustrial) states of the world. the fact that major war was futile was not enough to bring about its end—people had to believe that it was futile. not flotsam on the tide of broader social or economic patterns . As Angell discovered. conscious possibility. is avoided not merely because it has ceased to seem ‘necessary’. and ideas are often.”34 The Dahl notes. Dueling. Beliefs. 81 HYPERLINK "http://groups.). but because it has sunk from thought as a viable.”38 At times leaders of the past were compelled by the masses to defend the national honor. and this “autonomous power of ideas. a form of violence famed and fabled for centuries.” which we ignore at our peril.third and final argument of Angell’s successors is that today such a revolution of ideas has occurred. The Bounderies of Government Fiat Debaters Research Journal .

a resolution asking for federal action limits the role of the judge to that of a federal policymaker. can be all-powerful. the negative has retained a strategic advantage of flexibility. Presumably.wfu. By its very nature. First. because of limits imposed by law and the political environment. but cannot enact a law as Congress does. However. reacting to high gas prices. The basis for this limitation on fiat can be found in an examination of the resolution. the resolution sets down the legal jurisdictional limits for considering change." In the real world the relative desirability of policy options is. The assumption that debate is a game provides an additional justification for fiat limitation. As a game of competition with the judge's decision determining the winners. with unlimited fiat the negative has the power to enact policies through several different agents. Because current governmental structures are limited by legal authority. the notion of an all-powerful agent often assumes institutional organizations and relationships that do not exist in the real world. but cannot enact national legislation. For example. An individual citizen. when responding to a Constitutional The acceptance of this assumption also suggests that debate should reflect real world limits on governmental action. in part. Certainly. Hence. Thus no one agent. In sum. any social problem will have a different set of solutions depending upon the agent that addresses the problem. much of debate argumentation reflects real world concerns. such a power has no real world counterpart.htm) The key to understanding current fiat theory is the notion that debate should reflect real world decision-making. this section has established several theoretical criteria with which the power of legislative debaters must be constrained by the jurisdictional limits of the resolution.ation. In this instance a negative arguing for adoption of a state counterplan will go beyond the jurisdictional limits of the topic. For a judge to be a state legislator. In determining the role of the judge. For example. fiat can be limited. For instance. For instance. However. this notion contests the current assumption allowing negative teams the power to fiat through different governmental levels. a federal. Thus the judge as an agent should act within real world limits upon policy enactment. the resolution limits the affirmative to the implementation of policy through one governmental level. Second. a function of ease of implementation and perhaps this consideration should be reflected in debate. the Supreme Court can interpret the constitutionality of a law. the debate process should reflect aspects of real-world decision-making. Acceptance of the above assumptions means that Rational decision-making is the highest . a characteristic of policy action at the state level is that it is non-uniform. Fiat at this level becomes very "non-real.htm"http://groups. debate should be governed by rules that ensure a fair game. Application of this analogy to debate provides a theoretical basis for limiting fiat power and authority. and a local one all at the same time goes far beyond the power of a real world legislator. can form a car pool. debaters consider actual socioeconomic issues in a discussion of their pertinent risks and benefits. if one of debate's tasks is to train debaters in decision making.

Nor is practical wisdom concerned with universals only— it must also recognize the particulars. but only the intellect which aims at an end and is practical. from the highest government officials to the most inconsequential members of society. and that a good that can be brought about by action.pedagogical standard for explaining and evaluating debates as well as the most real world and logical way to analyze complex policy as well as normal everyday decisions Strait and Wallace 08 (Paul. (#1141b 6-16). nor about things which have not an end. critical thinking. but no one deliberates about things invariable. The person who is without qualification good at deliberating is the person who is capable of aiming in accordance with calculation at the best for humanity of things attainable by action. 330bce/1941a) argues: The origin of action—its efficient. we evaluate all of the relevant advantages and disadvantages. and their personal lives. fields of study. and policy analysis. assistant coach at USC working on his PHD at USC. and that of choice is desire and reasoning with a view to an end… Intellect itself. argumentation. much of the praise it has received for educating students has focused on the real-world skills acquired in the processes of research. (#1139a32 – 37) . consider possible alternatives. This underlies our contention that practical wisdom is the final cause of debate. uses. Non-practical ends are not helpful – as Aristotle (c. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate) Since the inception of modern academic debate. and non-trivial (‘What college should I attend?’ ‘Who should I marry?’). Indeed. and is value-neutral with respect to the growing divide between the policy-focused and the critically-inclined. The ability to make good decisions (and to follow through with them) is associated with the virtue of practical wisdom: Practical wisdom… is concerned with things human and things about which it is possible to deliberate. to deliberate well. Aristotle (c. moves nothing. for we say this is above all the work of the person of practical wisdom. Apologists for policy debate often champion the increased critical thinking skills taught by the activity that are necessarily used to work through these kinds of choices. Practical wisdom is broad. since everyone who makes makes for an end. and come to some conclusion. particularly under rigid time and speech constraints. not its final cause— is choice. provides coherence and unity in a non-arbitrary way. for it is practical. in every decision. one would think that the way in which debates are framed. “ACADEMIC DEBATE AS A DECISION-MAKING GAME: INCULCATING THE VIRTUE OF PRACTICAL WISDOM”. however. and practice is concerned with particulars. trivial (‘Where should I eat dinner?’). and adjudicated should closely resemble the process of deliberation that everyone. for this rules the productive intellect as well. discussed. Working on his MA at The George Washington University. politics. Students develop these skills and apply them to jobs. Brett. 330bce/1941a) argues that this decision-making process combines desire and reasoning in the act of deliberation focused on some end. If this is truly the desired goal of policy debate. and that which is made is not an end in the unqualified sense.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful