Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am going to nationals and LD and was wondering if anyone knew what would happen on this topic? The popular arguments and any help you can give me. I obviously know the topic pertains to the NSA scandal, but does anyone know what will be popular or where to look for anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolved: The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, read Evgeny Morozov, especially The Net Delusion.  I don't know if it will be popular, but it certainly says a lot of relevant things.

 

I imagine there will be some Bentham/Mills and Hobbes love.  Maybe some Schmitt from the policy-inclined LDers.

 

Usual classic liberal / libertarian philosophers apply on negative.  Add all the modern internet security advocates.  And there's some intersection between the two - IFF probably says something useful, for example.  Could be a good topic to get out some Orwell or Huxley on the negative.  The Policy K-inclined will probably dig out Deleuze, Foucault.

 

I'm sure Baudrillard applies somehow, but I don't know to which side.  (Quite possibly either side as a kritik of the topic itself, which is literally limited solely to actions in 'the matrix').

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure Baudrillard applies somehow, but I don't know to which side.  (Quite possibly either side as a kritik of the topic itself, which is literally limited solely to actions in 'the matrix').

someone should replace all the uses of the world 'hyperreal' in simulacrum and simulation with 'the matrix'

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baudrillard would giggle and say "hehe you believe the State exists"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baudrillard would giggle and say "hehe you believe the State exists"

Would he then go to Disneyland and try to touch all the rides until they implode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would he then go to Disneyland and try to touch all the rides until they implode?

No. The rides don't exist. Disneyland is a construct you fascist

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to nationals and LD and was wondering if anyone knew what would happen on this topic? The popular arguments and any help you can give me. I obviously know the topic pertains to the NSA scandal, but does anyone know what will be popular or where to look for anything?

 

I just went to CFLs in LD (and broke) and the topics are extremely similar. I'll go over what I saw and how I responded, cards at the bottom.

 

Most affs tended to be terrorism impacts, although I saw a cool communitarian AC (argues that security is a communal good). I basically ran a securitization k against the terror impacts (of course I made it sound like a normal link turn, though), and to the communitarian AC I just argued individualism good and privacy key to marketplace of ideas (to make it a community good). I also ran human trafficking on the aff, and it went over well. 

 

Every neg I saw was either rights or autonomy. To the autonomy NC, ask if autonomy is binary (like everything or nothing).

      If the Aff says it is binary, argue that it can never be attained because we will always be subject to social pressures.

      If the Aff says it is not binary, just outweigh with terrorism and human trafficking. 

 

My neg was basically a biopower run in a cute little panopticon way. 

 

Cards for the aff:

 

Bioterror

Mark Walker (Prof. in Philosophy at New Mexico State University), “Human Extinction and Farsighted Universal Surveillance†2008

The number of persons that a single individual can kill in half an hour has risen dramatically in recent history. It was only a few centuries ago that the best one could do in this respect was to dispatch a couple of dozen or so people in this time frame with a sword. Such numbers would depend crucially on the skill and the strength of the swordsman. For over a century now, mechanized weaponry such as machine guns has increased this number into the hundreds, chemical weaponry into the thousands, and nuclear technology into the millions. And no longer do assailants require great physical prowess or skill: these technologies leverage the power of our minds, not our bodies. As horrifying as this is, developments in technology promise to only increase this number. In a small secret lab set up for a few thousand dollars, terrorists could—even as you read this—be working on a virus with the potential to wipe out humanity. Much of the knowledge [terrorists need] is freely available online. For example, research scientists have published genetic information about the Spanish flu that killed millions of people in 1918 (Tumpey, et al. 2005).¶ One could set up a small genetic lab in one’s basement or garage for a few tens of thousands of dollars (equipment can be ordered online for your convenience) and start constructing the next pandemic virus. Looking just a little further down the road, a number of technologists have theorized that self-replicating nanobots could potentially be deployed to destroy humanity. It’s horrifying when we hear about thousands of innocents killed by a handful of terrorists, or the lone gunman’s victims in shooting rampages in high schools and universities; but it’s absolutely unthinkable that the same individuals [terrorists] might be able to, in the foreseeable future, turn this same destructive rage against all of humanity. The primary worry here, of course, is that it is difficult enough to get whole nations to work peacefully and co-operatively, how can we possibly think that we could do this for all living individuals? That is, even if we could get every government to foreswear the developing technologies that could potentially put the whole world at risk—wipe out every last single human—how will we ensure that individuals will not do so? As intimated, the problem is that there is some possibility that such weapons could be developed in secrecy by a single person or a few individuals. Detecting a small genetics lab is not like looking for evidence that Iran or North Korea is building atomic weapons: there is no large-scale infrastructure that is visible from spy satellites in orbit. The problem is more like this: how do you know that your neighbor is restoring a 1969 Ford Mustang in his garage, as he claims, rather than using the space for a genetics lab? Thankfully, the number of people bent on destroying many or all humans is fairly small, but the fact that there are some is in itself a significant worry. What are we to do about this?

 

tools of primary and secondary prevention are imperfect. While the BWC is prepared to assist those nations that have been targets of biological weapons, the medical community must be prepared to face the sequelae should the unthinkable happen.

 

Human traffickers use the internet to find victims

Maxine Major (Prof. Comp. Sci. Univ. of Idaho) “Technology and Human Trafficking†No date (cites sources from 2012) http://www2.cs.uidaho.edu/~oman/CS336/Major_HumanTrafficking.pdf

Slavery is an ages-old trade, violating basic human rights as far back as the beginnings of human history. The development of modern technologies has ushered in new ways for human trafficking to thrive as a more sophisticated form of slavery.¶ The introduction of the internet and mobile phone technology has greatly allowed traffickers “the unprecedented ability to exploit a greater number of victims and advertise their services across geographic boundaries†(Latonero, 2011, p. iv).

 

 

When they do this or use the internet in other ways, they leave a footprint which surveillance can follow

Maxine Major2 (Prof. Comp. Sci. Univ. of Idaho) “Technology and Human Trafficking†No date (cites sources from 2012) http://www2.cs.uidaho.edu/~oman/CS336/Major_HumanTrafficking.pdf

With increased use of [the] internet advertising, traffickers often leave a trail which can be followed. For example, this year two men in Florida under the nicknames “Santana†and “Pocahontas†had kidnapped four underage girls, and had posted advertisements for their services as “escorts†on various websites. After one of the victims spoke with a detective, authorities began an internet search for “Pocahontas.†His advertisements were found, which linked to an IP address listed under his real name. This led to a full-scale investigation and the eventual arrest of both men (ICE). However, most victims do not have the luxury of making contact with those who could start an investigation leading to their freedom. This is why the development of anti-trafficking technology is so important.

 

Data collection necessary to combat human trafficking

United Nations Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking “Human Trafficking Sentinel Surveillance†2010 http://www.no-trafficking.org/reports_docs/2009-2010_UNIAP_sentinel_surveillance_Poipet.pdf

Cambodia is found as a source, destination and transit country for ¶ trafficked persons. Many thousands of Cambodians move overseas, ¶ or to different regions within Cambodia, for the purpose of obtaining ¶ employment, accessing education, connecting with family members, ¶ avoiding natural disasters and others. Instead of finding what they are ¶ looking for at their destination, many Cambodians find themselves ¶ subjected to exploitation.¶ The Royal Government of Cambodia recognises that the development of ¶ effective and sustainable data collection systems is essential in order ¶ to get an accurate picture of human trafficking in Cambodia and build ¶ appropriate measures to combat it. The data collected needs to be ¶ regular and reliable. It needs to be protected to ensure confidentiality and ¶ safety of individuals. And, most importantly, it needs to be converted into ¶ information that is useful to policy and operational decision-makers, so ¶ that our efforts to combat human trafficking and exploitation bear optimal ¶ results.

 

Human trafficking is a major national security concern which we must address with data collection

Maxine Major3 (Prof. Comp. Sci. Univ. of Idaho) “Technology and Human Trafficking†No date (cites sources from 2012) http://www2.cs.uidaho.edu/~oman/CS336/Major_HumanTrafficking.pdf

As of 2006, an estimated 2.5 million people were in forced labor at any given time. (UN.GIFT). The International Organization for Migration estimates 800,000 people are trafficked across borders annually (IOM, 2012). 14,500 to 17,000 people are trafficked to the United States annually (humantrafficking.org). Current estimates favor that there are about 27 million people world-wide in slavery today (Free The Slaves) (Democracy Now) (DoSomething.org).

The trafficking takes many forms, with traffickers targeting young women and children for the sex trade, and people from impoverished communities for debt-bondage labor. Once trafficked, victims are often relocated away from their community and into another country where they do not know the language or the customs, or how to ask for help. They are denied access to internet and cell phones, and essentially disappear off the map. (Microsoft, 2011)

 

 

The data that is useful for national security wouldn’t lead to a chilling effect on expression

Daniel Solove (Prof. of Law at George Washington School of Law), “â€I’ve Got Nothing to Hide†and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy†San Diego Law Review Vol. 44 2007

In my work on conceptualizing privacy thus far, I have attempted to lay the groundwork for a pluralistic understanding of privacy. In some works, I have attempted to analyze specific privacy issues, trying to better articulate the nature of the problems. For example, in my book, The Digital Person, I argued that the collection and use of personal information in databases presents a different set of problems than government surveillance.50 Many commentators had been using the metaphor of George Orwell’s 1984 to describe the problems created by the collection and use of personal data.51 I contended that the Orwell metaphor, which focuses on the harms of surveillance (such as inhibition and social control) might be apt to describe law enforcement’s monitoring of citizens. But much of the data gathered in computer databases is not particularly sensitive, such as one’s race, birth date, gender, address, or marital status. Many people do not care about concealing the hotels they stay at, the cars they own or rent, or the kind of beverages they drink. People often do not take many steps to keep such information secret. Frequently, though not always, people’s activities would not be inhibited if others knew this information.

Human trafficking is acknowledged as a national security issue by governments and also directly funds terrorism (rework the citation before you use this)

CNN “Human trafficking ‘a national security issue,’ Obama task force told†15 March 2014

“For us at the national security staff, this is a national security issue,†said Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough. “…Human trafficking is at the nexus of organized crime, is a source for international terrorist groups, (and) is a source for funding transnational terrorist groups. It fundamentally endangers international security.â€

…

McDonough articulated the need for more intelligence regarding cases of human trafficking.¶ “Let me emphasize, when it comes to trafficking, one thing that we do know is that we… don’t know enough,†he said. “… In his statement today, the president spoke of trafficking as a form of exploitation that hides both in the dark corners of our world and in plain sight in our own towns and cities. We know in certain areas we don’t have great data on the scope of the problem.â€

 

 

Cards for the neg:

Biopower thing

People comply with expectations when they know they may be observed, trading freedom for the illusion of freedom

Glenn Greenwald, attorney & journalist who broke the NSA spying story, May 2014,  No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US Surveillance State, Kindle edition

Invoking George Orwell’s 1984 is something of a cliché, but the echoes of the world about which he warned in the NSA’s surveillance state are unmistakable: both rely on the existence of a technological system with the capacity to monitor every citizen’s actions and words. The similarity is denied by the surveillance champions— we’re not always being watched, they say—but that argument misses the point. In 1984, citizens were not necessarily monitored at all times; in fact , they had no idea whether they were ever actually being monitored. But the state had the capability to watch them at any time. It was the uncertainty and possibility of ubiquitous surveillance that served to keep everyone in line: The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live— did live, from habit that became instinct— in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. Even the NSA, with its capacity , could not read every email, listen to every telephone call, and track the actions of each individual. What makes a surveillance system effective in controlling human behavior is the knowledge that one’s words and actions are susceptible to monitoring. This principle was at the heart of British philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s eighteenth-century conception of the Panopticon, a building design he believed would allow institutions to effectively control human behavior. The building’s structure was to be used, in his words, for “any sort of establishment, in which persons of any description are to be kept under inspection.†The Panopticon’s primary architectural innovation was a large central tower from which every room— or cell, or classroom, or ward— could be monitored at any time by guards. The inhabitants, however, were not able to see into the tower and so could never know whether they were or were not being watched. Since the institution— any institution— was not capable of observing all of the people all of the time, Bentham’s solution was to create “the apparent omnipresence of the inspector†in the minds of the inhabitants . “The persons to be inspected should always feel themselves as if under inspection, at least as standing a great chance of being so.†They would thus act as if they were always being watched, even if they weren’t. The result would be compliance, obedience, and conformity with expectations. Bentham envisioned that his creation would spread far beyond prisons and mental hospitals to all societal institutions. Inculcating in the minds of citizens that they might always be monitored would, he understood, revolutionize human behavior. In the 1970s, Michel Foucault observed that the principle of Bentham’s Panopticon was one of the foundational mechanisms of the modern state. In Power, he wrote that Panopticonism is “a type of power that is applied to individuals in the form of continuous individual supervision, in the form of control, punishment, and compensation, and in the form of correction, that is, the moulding and transformation of individuals in terms of certain norms.†In Discipline and Punish, Foucault further explained that ubiquitous surveillance not only empowers authorities and compels compliance but also induces individuals to internalize their watchers. Those who believe they are watched will instinctively choose to do that which is wanted of them without even realizing that they are being controlled— the Panopticon induces “in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.†With the control internalized, the overt evidence of repression disappears because it is no longer necessary : “the external power may throw off its physical weight; it tends to be non-corporal; and, the more it approaches this limit, the more constant, profound and permanent are its effects: it is a profound victory that avoids any physical confrontation and which is always decided in advance.†Additionally, this model of control has the great advantage of simultaneously creating the illusion of freedom. The compulsion to obedience exists in the individual’s mind. Individuals choose on their own to comply, out of fear that they are being watched. That eliminates the need for all the visible hallmarks of compulsion, and thus enables control over people who falsely believe themselves to be free. For this reason, every oppressive state views mass surveillance as one of its most critical instruments of control.

 

The terrorism link turn:

Violating individual protections to prevent terror impact claims are self-fulfilling prophecies and make global violence inevitable

Lifton 3 [Robert Jay, Visiting Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Superpower Syndrome: America’s Apocalyptic Confrontation With The World, p. 115-116]

The amorphousness of the war on terrorism carries with it a paranoid edge, the suspicion that terrorists and their supporters are everywhere and must be preemptively attacked lest they emerge and attack us. Since such a war is limitless and infinite—extending from the farthest reaches of Indonesia or Afghanistan to Hamburg, Germany, or New York City, and from immediate combat to battles that continue into the unending future—it inevitably becomes associated with a degree of megalomania as well. As the planet's greatest military power replaces the complex world with its own imagined stripped-down us-versus-them version of it, our distorted national self becomes the world.  Despite the Bush administration's constant invocation of the theme of "security," the war on terrorism has created the very opposite—a sense of fear and insecurity among Americans, which is then mobilized in support of further aggressive plans in the extension of the larger "war." What results is a vicious circle that engenders what we seek to destroy: our excessive response to Islamist attacks creating ever more terrorists and, sooner or later, more terrorist attacks, which will in turn lead to an escalation of the war on terrorism, and so on. The projected "victory" becomes a form of aggressive longing, of sustained illusion, of an unending "Fourth World War" and a mythic cleansing of terrorists, of evil, of our own fear. The American military apocalyptic can then be said to partner with and act in concert with the Islamist apocalyptic.

 

Cards that summarize most negs:

 

 

People wouldn’t feel comfortable to live the way they want to if they didn’t have privacy, stifling expression and creativity

Ron Watson, Department of Political Science, Washington University., “The Ethics of Domestic Government Spying†March 2013¶

http://rewatson.wustl.edu/The%20Ethics%20of%20Domestic%20Government%20Spying.pdf

So widespread intuitions support the principle of just cause for Domestic Government Spying. Let us turn to the consequentialist case for just cause. The sophisticated consequentialist, I suggested in the introduction, would endorse a simple set of principles for DGS. But which principles would she endorse? She obviously could not endorse a principle permitting all DGS, since the con- sequences would be dire. If government agents were always at liberty to spy, people could not develop stable expectations about where, when, and by whom they are being observed without expending considerable resources on countermeasures, nor could they conceal their personal information. People's enjoyment of goods requiring even a modicum of privacy would rapidly diminish. People's autonomy would be gravely threatened, since the pressures to conform to social norms would be virtually unchecked. The liberal democratic culture of free thought, free speech, and free action would be stifled. Further, the benefits of such a permissive policy would be minimal. Some grave harms might be prevented. But permitting all spying is more likely to lead to ineffective and even harmful spying. Spying for political gain and to protect bureaucratic turfs, for example, would likely be rampant.

 

Privacy violations make it impossible to develop their own identity

DANIEL J. SOLOVE, 2002, Assistant Professor, Seton Hall Law School, DIGITAL DOSSIERS AND THE DISSIPATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PRIVACY, http://www.bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/075502.pdf

Government information-gathering can severely constrain democracy and individual self-determination. Paul Schwartz illustrates this with his theory of “constitutive privacy.â€99 According to Schwartz, privacy is essential to both individuals and communities: “[C]onstitutive privacy seeks to create boundaries about personal information to help the individual and define terms of life within the community.â€100 As a form of regulation of information flow, privacy shapes “the extent to which certain actions or expressions of identity are encouraged or discouraged.â€101 Schwartz contends that extensive government oversight over an individual’s activities can “corrupt individual decision making about the elements of one’s identity.†Further, inadequate protection of privacy threatens deliberative democracy by inhibiting people from engaging in democratic activities. This can occur unintentionally; even if government entities are not attempting to engage in social control, their activities can have collateral effects that harm democracy and self-determination.

 

Information is an extension of persons and is thus key to self-ownership—losing control of information destroys dignity

Michael McFarland, “Why We Care about Privacy†June 2012, Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/internet/privacy/why-care-about-privacy.html

Autonomy is part of the broader issue of human dignity, that is, the obligation to treat people not merely as means, to be bought and sold and used, but as valuable and worthy of respect in themselves. As the foregoing has made clear, personal information is an extension of the person. To have access to that information is to have access to the person in a particularly intimate way. When some personal information is taken and sold or distributed, especially against the person's will, whether it is a diary or personal letters, a record of buying habits, grades in school, a list of friends and associates or a psychological history, it is as if some part of the person has been alienated and turned into a commodity. In that way the person is treated merely as a thing, a means to be used for some other end.

 

Privacy is key to autonomy with regards to human relationships—we need to be able to interact with different people in different ways to be autonomous

Michael McFarland2, “Why We Care about Privacy†June 2012, Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/internet/privacy/why-care-about-privacy.html

The analysis of Rachels and Fried suggests a deeper and more fundamental issue: personal freedom. As Deborah Johnson has observed, "To recognize an individual as an autonomous being, an end in himself, entails letting that individual live his life as he chooses. Of course, there are limits to this, but one of the critical ways that an individual controls his life is by choosing with whom he will have relationships and what kind of relationships these will be.... Information mediates relationships. Thus when one cannot control who has information about one, one loses considerable autonomy."6

To lose control of personal information is to lose control of who we are and who we can be in relation to the rest of society. A normal person's social life is rich and varied, encompassing many different roles and relationships. Each requires a different persona, a different face. This does not necessarily entail deception, only that different aspects of the person are revealed in different roles. Control over personal information and how and to whom it is revealed, therefore, plays an important part in one's ability to choose and realize one's place in society.

 

Communal good impact turn (Neg)

 

The fear of retribution from surveillance destroys all types of expression, not just illegal or violent expression

John Stuart Mill, English philosopher, economist, and political thinker, 1859.

ON LIBERTY AND OTHER ESSAYS, pg. 38-39.

But it is not the minds of heretics that are deteriorated most, by the ban places on all inquiry which does not end in the orthodox conclusions. The greatest harm done is to those who are not heretics, and whose whole mental development is cramped, and their reason cowed, by fear of heresy. Who can compute what the world loses in the multitude of promising intellects combined with timid characters, who dare not follow out any bold, vigorous, independent train of thought, lest it should land them in something which would admit of being considered irreligious or immoral?

 

National security is an endless pursuit (neg)

National security can never be attained, it is merely a psychological pursuit

Smiley, Jane. “Why Human Rights are More Important than National Security†Huffington Post. 19 September 2007. Web. 8 May 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane- smiley/why-human-rights-are-more_b_73286.html>

Guess what? There is no such thing as "national security"; it's a concept that not only hasn't been defined, it can't be defined. It is a psychological state. The very phrase describes an impossibility. All boundaries in the U.S. and in every other country are porous. Planes come and go, as do ships, trains, trucks, autos, information superhighways, human relationships, and human emotions. In addition, the smaller any threat becomes, the less safe we are against it. We no longer live in the world of Mutually Assured Destruction, where our thousands of warheads aimed at the Russians protected us, psychologically, from their thousands of warheads aimed at us. Since the end of the Cold War, threats have gotten smaller and more invisible. Where is that suitcase of nuclear material? Where is that vial of anthrax? But as they have gotten less easily detected, they have also gotten more local. 9/11 is what we always think of when we think of a breach of national security, but in fact, the destruction was not national, or even city- wide, or even district wide -- although the World Trade Center was less than a mile from the New York Stock Exchange, the NYSE was only closed for six days after 9/11. The phrase "national security" cannot mean anything in a nation of almost 10 million square miles. The Bush administration and the corporatocracy knows this perfectly well. Witness how our chemical plants have not been secured from the possibility of terrorist attack -- there are too many of them, and the likelihood of any one getting attacked is too small to make it worthwhile for either the nation or the chemical industry to fortify them. The Dubai Ports deal of a couple of years ago demonstrated the same understanding on the part of the administration, that "national security" is merely rallying cry for fear.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kant <3

 

Though the round will basically boil down to weighing hindrances of freedom vs the maintenance of a system of equal freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Every neg I saw was either rights or autonomy. To the autonomy NC, ask if autonomy is binary (like everything or nothing).

Can someone explain this binary aspect of  autonomy? A quick google search doesn't bring up any results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain this binary aspect of  autonomy? A quick google search doesn't bring up any results.

Yeah sure! It's not really something that's carded, or even referenced as far as I'm aware, but it has thus far been devastating when I've used it.

Basically, if autonomy has to be super absolute, does that mean it's an everything or nothing game? Can we weigh violations of autonomy or is autonomy black and white?

 

If they answer that you can weigh autonomy violations it's easy to win on the AC with a util type autonomy thing, essentially outweigh with terrorism and/or human trafficking. It's way worse than the NSA snooping emails.

 

If they answer that you cannot weigh violations, that all are equally bad, just argue that it means the neg can't actually have solvency. Card below. Also, does that mean that your opponent does not have autonomy? Their logic requires they answer that they do not have autonomy because they live in a society with the NSA.

 

 

Autonomy can never be achieved

Marilyn French, Feminist Philosopher, BEYOND POWER, 1985, p. 541.

If freedom means the absence of constraints, then freedom does not exist. Nothing on this earth lacks constraints. Plants and creatures are bound by the rising and setting of the sun, by gravity or universal physical force. Human beings are constrained by the need to breathe air of certain quality, to eat and excrete, to drink rest, sleep, move, to feel sensations and emotions, to think. Because humans are social animals, they also experience constraints imposed by the group.

 

Allowing violence for the sake of moral purity is evil. (US Shouldn't pursue vague moral ideals)

Isaac (Jeffrey C., Professor of Political Science – Indiana-Bloomington, Director – Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, Ph.D. – Yale, Dissent Magazine, 49(2), “Ends, Means, and Politicsâ€, Spring, Proquest)

 

As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one’s intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with “good†may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of “good†that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one’s goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political

effectiveness.

 

 

And no, I didn't qual to NFLs this year, that's why I'm giving everything away hahaha let me know if you need anything specific because I have a billion cards for this topic

Edited by GrandeGrant
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem with weighing util impacts to autonomy is that a lot of (better) deontology frameworks justify an intention/foresight distinction, which you have to surmount first before you can c/a a non-deont case.

 

To contextualize: If you got up in the 1AR and read the Isaac card, in the 2NR I would probably just extend my card/analytic of choice, explain why intention matters (it's the act of practical willing so it's what determines the content of a particular maxim that you will, which determines if it conflicts with its form, which determines if it's ok or not) and why that means that even if we don't "do" anything or if there are bad foreseen consequences those a) don't link and B) even if they do, are outweighed. Isaac doesn't really warrant the claim that intentionality isn't a subject's ethical core--at least not in the sense of "provides an argument that beats back an intention/foresight approach." The clue is in the title of his piece: Kantian thought rejects (at least the constitutivist neo-Kantian schools as I understand them) the centrality of the kind of means-end thinking Isaacs seems to be analyzing in his work.

 

At that point, I think it's more strategic to just make the standard turns: You have to necessarily will a system of equal freedom, so if your digital privacy violates other persons' freedom (the turn would explain how right here), then you actually didn't have the right to that digital privacy in the first place. And since the government (ostensibly) manages/upholds the system of equal freedom, it has to hinder your "freedom" to maintain the system sometimes.

 

The larger question to raise with that kind of an autonomy NC is: From whence does it A) gain its normativity and B) its necessitation to respect autonomy?

 

For the first part, it seems that, barring some constitutivist framework, an autonomy NC wouldn't fully answer the normative question (it wouldn't explain why its reasons are binding on any specific agent). And even then, the constitutivist faces other problems (See David Enoch's "Agency, Shmagency" for this one--I don't have the link atm but if you can't find it PM me and I'll see what I can do).

 

For the second part, it's a blatant fallacy of origin unless it grounds its conception of "autonomy" in Kant's conception of it (again, this is another reason why util impacts couldn't really legitimately link given the framework). And even then, the "autonomy" problem is complicated and probably not articulated well.

 

To contextualize: The Kantian conception of autonomy isn't quite what French criticizes. French probably doesn't take out an autonomy NC because the Kantian conception is all about the means we have at our disposal and how we're free from the choice of others in setting our intentions. E.g. it wouldn't be a violation for me to buy the last carton of milk at the store when you wanted it because I just restricted the ends you could (theoretically) set, not your capacity to (practically) set those ends. Or something like that.

Edited by IxionsWheel
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering, though--how will Ks be adapted at the NFLs scene?

 

Will critical arguments turn into link turns à la GrandeGrant's security turn, or should we expect some actual Foucoal (biopower solves global warming yes much truth)/Schmitt/generic K author stuff? I'm a little hazy on the kind of justifications above the criterion/standard/whatsit that would be strategic in that instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering, though--how will Ks be adapted at the NFLs scene?

 

Will critical arguments turn into link turns à la GrandeGrant's security turn, or should we expect some actual Foucoal (biopower solves global warming yes much truth)/Schmitt/generic K author stuff? I'm a little hazy on the kind of justifications above the criterion/standard/whatsit that would be strategic in that instance.

The Focault Biopower Paniopticon schtuff is probably the most popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Focault Biopower Paniopticon schtuff is probably the most popular.

Oh joy the impact-justified standards commence.

  • 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...