Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At districts last weekend one of my judges told me that Berube 97 wasn't the best dehumanization card to read. Does anyone have any dehum impact cards they wouldn't mind sharing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on my phone, but you could check the human trafficking files on open ev, there should be some there.

 

And if anyone asks why it's bad, if I remember right, b 97 was written for a debate team or something like that. Basically it's 'biased'.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm a little bit behind here, but yeah, Berube wrote that card about nanotechnology for his debate team.  

 

My B team put this in place of Berube 97 

 

 

Dehumanization outweighs all other impacts- It places individuals outside of the moral scope of others, justifying all forms of atrocity

 

Maiese 3

(Michelle Maiese, graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium, in July 2003. Found athttp://www.beyondint.../dehumanization) GH

 

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.[1]¶ We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.¶ However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant."[2]Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in one's moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values.[3]¶ Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also feel free to use this card:

 

Exclusions on the basis of otherness are the underlying ethic that makes genocide possible. Their approach makes violence and discrimination inevitable

John T. Pawlikowski, OSM, Ph.D., Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, 7/1/2003, http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=1995

In Morality After Auschwitz: The Radical Challenge of the Nazi Ethic, and in subsequent writings, Peter Haas has asked the question why the Nazis failed to recognize evil as evil and, as a consequence, why they created what appeared to many as a scientifically valid ethic. "The problem," he says, "is a moral system that is thought out and elaborated along 'scientific' lines, that is through the application of a strict logic, hardens such facts into universal givens." This results, according to Haas, in a loss of any sense of the difference between murder and killing. "Morality" becomes much more a matter of acting in a way that 'fits' the pre-established system. For Haas, the scientific system removes from human consciousness any sense of personal responsibility for human action: "I then lose sight of my own moral agency, of my own power to create not only the acts through my observation of them, but also to create the text that gives the act its moral value. I at that moment stop being a moral agent and become instead a passive actor in someone else's drama" (Haas, 2000, 116). Haas goes on to say that ultimately what went awry with what Haas terms 'the Nazi ethic' was that it pre-defined morality for people under its sway. It proclaimed not only what was right and what was wrong from a scientific perspective and therefore unquestionable, but also what actions fell into each category. "The result was," Haas insists, "that people did atrocious things because they took them to be morally mandated. The Nazi morality pre-defined what was acceptable to such an extent, and in such an authoritative, scientific way, that many people, especially intellectuals, simply fell into line. The living relationship between the human as moral agent on the one hand, and the moral act on the other was lost" (Haas, 2000, 116). He concludes by affirming the need to maintain a moral foundation for ethics today that is rooted in the dynamics of human relationship, cooperation, openness to the other and compassion for the other.  Didier Pollefeyt takes issue with Haas on several points, including whether we can speak of a 'Nazi ethic.' He prefers to present Nazism as having 'perverted' authentic morality. But he does in the end recognize the systematic nature of the Nazi approach to human acts. For him, it is better to view Nazism as espousing a 'totalitarian ethic.' But, just as Haas, Pollefeyt emphasizes that such an ethic generates 'moral sameness' by removing any personal sense of responsibility from the response framework. He agrees with Haas that the Nazi ideologues created a closed ethic in which any response that did not fit into the preconceived pattern was eliminated. Such an ethic, Pollefeyt also underlines, eliminates any sense of mercy and compassion. It removes God as a moral barometer of any sort. Instead 'God' is used to legitimate the closed and murderous social order.  For Pollefeyt Nazism became a politics without a true ethical framework. It had no room for alterity and demanded the eradication of anything that was not in conformity with 'the system.' "As such," he argues, "Nazism was an idolatrous effort that radicalized itself and eliminated everything that did not conform ... This is for us the primary lesson of the Nazi genocide, but also of other forms of racism and discrimination, such as nationalism, sexism or religious fundamentalism." (Pollefeyt, 2000, 133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always use the card that Berube cites--Montagu and Matson:

 

Dehumanization outweighs all – it’s the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse 
Montagu and Matson 83 – Esteemed Scientist and Writer; and Professor of American Studies at University of Hawaii 
[Ashley and Floyd, The dehumanization of man, 1983] 
The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine (psychiatry aside); yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its lethal effects 
are everywhere on display. It neither kills outright nor inflicts apparent physical harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already greater than that of 
any war, plague, famine, or natual calamity on record -- and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of civilized society is 
beyond calculation. For that reason, this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Hourseman of the Apocalypse. Its more 
conventional name, of course, is dehumanization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I'm a little bit behind here, but yeah, Berube wrote that card about nanotechnology for his debate team.  

 

My B team put this in place of Berube 97 

Hey, that's me!!

 

Dehumanization outweighs all other impacts- It places individuals outside of the moral scope of others, justifying all forms of atrocity

 

Maiese 3

(Michelle Maiese, graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium, in July 2003. Found athttp://www.beyondint.../dehumanization) GH

 

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.[1]¶ We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.¶ However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant."[2]Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in one's moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values.[3]¶ Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...