LD VALUE/CRITERIA FILES
Table of Contents
National Security Good 2
National Security Bad 3
Deontology Good 5
Deontology Bad 6
Social Contracts Support Individualism and Individual Rights 8
The Social Contract Sustains Political and Economic Growth/stability 9
The Social Contract is a Rational Choice 10
The Social Contract is Totalitarian and Oppressive 12
The Social Contract is Harmful 13
Governmental Legitimacy Good 14
Governmental Legitimacy Bad 15
Utilitarianism Good 16
Utilitarianism Bad 18
Utilitarianism vs. Deontology 19
Utilitarianism Doesn’t Respect Human Rights 20
Economic Growth Good 22
Economic Growth Bad 23
Impacts: Economic Growth 24
Morality Bad 25
Morality Good 27
Freedom of Expression Good 31
Freedom of Expression Bad 33
Justice Good MPX 34
Justice is Sound Value Premise 36
Justice is Bad for Society 37
Justice is Not a Good Value for Debate 39
Quality of Life Should Be Prioritized 40
Quality of Life Not a Priority 41
Cost Benefit Analysis and Deontology 42
Answers to Cost Benefit Analysis 44
Cost Benefit Analysis and Morality 46
Cost Benefit Analysis is a Versatile Weighing Mechanism 48
NATIONAL SECURITY GOOD
NATIONAL SECURITY ONLY LIMITS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN FAVOR OF THE NATION
Hurst Hannum *, Executive Director, Procedural Aspects of International Law Institute, American Journal of International Law, 1981
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT: THE THIRTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE UN SUB-COMMISSION ON PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION OF MINORITIES, accessed 8-12-2010, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/
While some members had expressed reservations about the value of the Daes study on grounds that it was not appropriate or necessary to focus on limitations on rights or on individual duties instead of restraints on state action, the extensive final study does offer several useful observations and conclusions with respect to restrictions on the state's power to limit individual rights on the grounds, inter alia, of national security or ordre public. For example, the study makes clear that the mere procedural lawfulness of a statute restricting individual rights is not sufficient to justify that restriction, since the statute must also conform to the requirements set forth in the relevant international instruments. The study calls for the direct application of international human rights law in national tribunals and also recognizes the individual's status in international law.
NATIONAL SECURITY ENABLES THE HARM PRINCIPLE
Song Sang-ho, The Korea Herald 2010
CHILD PICKET BAN A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS’ Accessed 8-12-2010 http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/
"Children's right to freely express their views can be restricted only when the restriction is necessary not to compromise national security, public safety, public order, public health or the protection of others' rights and freedoms."
TELEOLOGY MUST BE USED TO DETERMINE JUSTIFICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY
Fleur Johns and Jacqueline Mowbray, Sydney Centre for International Law at the University of Sydney, 2010
ISLAM IS NOT ON TRIAL IN JUDGE’S BURQA RULING; COMMENT AND DEBATE, accessed 8-12-2010, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/
An analysis of whether the policy balanced national security considerations and individual rights must include discussion regarding its effectiveness.
NATIONAL SECURITY BAD
NATIONALISM DECREASES SAFETY OF MINORITIES, RESULTING IN MASS MURDER
Nenad Miscevic, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010
MATIONALISM, Accessed 8-12-2010 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/
Nationalism has long been ignored as a topic in political philosophy, written off as a relic from bygone times. It came into the focus of philosophical debate two decades ago, in the nineties, partly in consequence of rather spectacular and troubling nationalist clashes, such as those in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet republics. The surge of nationalism usually presents a morally ambivalent, and for this reason often fascinating, picture. “National awakening” and struggles for political independence are often both heroic and inhumanly cruel; the formation of a recognizably national state often responds to deep popular sentiment, but can and does sometimes bring in its wake inhuman consequences, including violent expulsion and “cleansing” of non-nationals, all the way to organized mass murder. The moral debate on nationalism reflects a deep moral tension between solidarity with oppressed national groups on the one hand and the repulsion people feel in the face of crimes perpetrated in the name of nationalism on the other. Moreover, the issue of nationalism points to the wider domain of problems, having to do with the treatment of ethnic and cultural differences within democratic polity, which are arguably among the most pressing problems of contemporary political theory.
NATIONAL SECURITY CAN UNDERMINE JUSTICE
Fleur Johns and Jacqueline Mowbray, Sydney Centre for International Law at the University of Sydney, 2010
ISLAM IS NOT ON TRIAL IN JUDGE’S BURQA RULING; COMMENT AND DEBATE
Yet the ability of judges and jurors to see witnesses' faces, and otherwise assess witness credibility, is regularly compromised in Australian courts. The identity of undercover police and other informers may be concealed while they are giving evidence, so as not to jeopardise ongoing law-enforcement operations. Vulnerable witnesses, such as children or those suffering from an intellectual disability, are able to give evidence by live video link, or even through a prior video recording. Special arrangements are also made for witnesses who are physically disabled or who, for a range of reasons including their relationship to the accused, are likely to suffer emotional trauma or distress if required to appear in court. Such measures affect the ability of defendants to test the credibility of the evidence against them, and the ability of judge and jury to assess the veracity of that evidence. But they are considered necessary to protect other interests, including national security, public safety and the integrity of our legal processes. The courts balance the accused's right to a fair trial and other public interests.
NATIONALISM UNDERMINES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
Amos N. Guiora, Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 2006
TRANSNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS IN COUNTER-TERRORISM
Effective counter-terrorism strategy must be based on sophisticated risk assessment; an equal risk approach is operationally unfeasible and ineffective. The Bush administration's post-September 11 immigration detention policy, is demonstrated at the nation's airports. At U.S. airports, all travelers are subjected to the same check with little if any differentiation, just as all immigrants are treated with little differentiation. Just as that policy does not better protect the United States, detention predicated on belonging to a particular group rather than on an individualized basis does not better serve the public. In the context of the question that this article addresses, the alien policy adopted by the administration in the aftermath of September 11 reflects an improper balance between national security and individual rights. Furthermore, as clearly articulated by the Supreme Court in previous cases, the policy is unconstitutional.
DEONTOLOGY GOOD
ECONOMICS CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT DEONTOLOGY
Irene Van Staveren, Professor of Pluralist Development Economics, 2007
Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics, p. 22-23
As is widely acknowledged among economists, an economy can function only when certain normative requirements are fulfilled. Partly, these requirements can be understood as rights, such as property rights and contractual rights. Another requirement concerns norms. These can be formal or informal norms – expressed in formal institutions, such as the welfare state, or informal institutions, such as culturally-shaped styles of human resource management in firms. Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology Rights and norms have been widely understood to influence the economic behaviour of individual agents, firms, and the state. They have been taken up in a wide variety of economic traditions, including the mainstream through new institutional economics, public choice theory, and the field of law and economics. Deontological notions such as ‘rights’, ‘dignity’, ‘equality’, ‘obligations’, and ‘norms’ appear more prominently in heterodox traditions such as political economy, (old) institutional economics, Post Keynesianism, and socio-economics, as well as in cross-cutting areas such as feminist economics and ecological economics. The common ground is a recognition that rights and norms affect economicbehaviour as constraints on choice.
DEONTOLOGY DOES NOT RELY ON UNPREDICTABLE OUTCOMES; CONSEQUENTIALISM FAILS IN REAL LIFE SCENARIOS
Charles D. Kay, professor of philosophy, 1997
Notes on DEONTOLOGY,
Kant's theory is an example of a deontological or duty-based ethics : it judges morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than goals achieved. (Roughly, a deontological theory looks at inputs rather than outcomes.) One reason for the shift away from consequences to duties is that, in spite of our best efforts, we cannot control the future. We are praised or blamed for actions within our control, and that includes our willing, not our achieving.
DEONTOLOGY BAD
DEONTOLOGY CANNOT RECONCILE MORALITY WITH OTHER CONCERNS
Irene Van Staveren, Professor of Pluralist Development Economics, 2007
Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics, p. 22-23
Deontology and economics do not seem to be compatible. Whereas economics is concerned with behaviour characterised by choices and ends, deontology is concerned with behaviour characterised by duties and limitations. While economics is about markets and allocation problems, deontology implies a rulesetting authority and distribution problems. It appears that economic behavior and moral rules are in opposition, and that little room exists for deontology in economics.
DEONTOLOGY TOO SIMPLE TO APPLY TO THE COMPLEXITIES OF HUMAN LIFE; DOES NOT HAVE ANY REAL WORLD IMPACTS
Irene Van Staveren, Professor of Pluralist Development Economics, 2007
Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics, p. 22-23
However attractive this moral theory may seem, it has several shortcomings. First, not all moral problems can be solved by rules. Human life is too complex to be reduced to a set of rights and duties (Anscombe, 1997). Indeed, as Walsh (2003, p. 285) has concluded, deontology is limited to issues of the will. It excludes vulnerabilities of human life that are outside the reach of the human will, such as scarcity of means and various contingencies to which social and economic life is so vulnerable. So morality needs to involve more than universalist reasoning and a steadfast will.2 As Putnam (2003, p. 405) has argued, it requires more than moral rules, since there are other ways values are expressed besides rules telling us what people must do.
DEONTOLOGY TOO UNIVERSAL AND BROAD, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR DECISIONS BETWEEN TWO VALUES
Irene Van Staveren, Professor of Pluralist Development Economics, 2007
Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics, p. 22-23
A further limitation is that deontological ethics has no criterion for dealing with conflicting rules. There is no higher-level rule that enables a unique rank ordering of moral rules according to their relative importance; nor does the theory allow for exceptions (Crisp & Slote, 1997). If killing is wrong and we find ourselves in a situation in which killing one person would help to save the lives of a hundred others, would we not, perhaps, reconsider the rule and look at its consequences in this particular context? What about a situation in which one needs to choose between two evils, for example lying in court and betraying a friend?
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY APPLIED
Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy
October 8, 2009 Martin Cohen BOOKS; Pg. 48 No. 1917
"It's like being in a restaurant, and the waiter asks me what I'd like. I tell him, 'The tomato soup looks good,' and he, interpreting this purely as a psychological comment about my personal taste in soup, goes back into the kitchen and gets me nothing ... The whole thing ends with me soup less and him well informed; yet this is what your theory reduces morality to. "One small example: Noel Stewart suggests that giving £ 100 to charity is better than giving 10p, in the same sense that a straight line is better for being truly straight rather than wobbly, whereas the moral worth of a gift need not have anything to do with its cash value. Or take another unusual example, this time of urinating on graves. This, we are assured, illustrates the weakness of both utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant's kind of deontology, which, by allowing such a disgraceful act, become "ridiculous". "Both theories go badly astray here because they ignore the man's character," adds Stewart, who is, after all, a schoolteacher, and expected to be concerned about such things. Elsewhere, the line between the author's own views (indeed feelings) on a matter and the philosophical arguments becomes blurred. In a discussion of the limits of Kant's categorical imperative in application to abortion, Stewart roundly condemns Kant for ignoring "the intimate and raw feelings of love and the instincts of protective care mothers have for their babies", concluding the discussion tendentiously: "This is her baby we're talking about, not just some abstract source of future categorical imperatives. "It is a book in which the reader is invited to disagree, and there is much to disagree with here.
SOCIAL CONTRACTS SUPPORT INDIVIDUALISM AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
SOCIAL CONTRACT ALLOWS FOR INDIVIDUALS TO ACHIEVE THEIR HIGHEST POTENTIAL
David M. Shapiro, 2002
SELECTED PHILOSOPHY TOPICS THAT ARISE FREQUENTLY
IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE, Accessed 8-12-2010, http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/
The Social Contract is a theory which seeks to explain this system of benefits and obligations in a society. The theory assumes that, long ago, individuals existed in an asocial context (they did not live in a society). Exponents of the Social Contract called this presocial condition the State of Nature. Because individuals did not belong to societies in the state of nature, they did not have obligations to societies and could more or less do whatever they wanted. But living without a society also meant that individuals received no benefits from a society. These individuals, as rational beings, gradually came to realize that the state of nature did not allow them to live up to their full potential because they remained divided and incapable of working together.
SOCIAL CONTRACTS ENABLE INDIVIDUAL FULFILLMENT
David M. Shapiro, 2002
SELECTED PHILOSOPHY TOPICS THAT ARISE FREQUENTLY
IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE, Accessed 8-12-2010, http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/
People were fundamentally good, and therefore that state of nature was relatively peaceful. Nonetheless, the disorder of the state of nature meant that individuals could not unite and channel their energies toward common goals, hence the need for a society. Because Locke had more faith in human nature than did Hobbes, he saw no need to control people absolutely. Locke's Social Contract granted people more freedom than Hobbes's, and sought to strike a balance between order and liberty.
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT SUPPORTS EQUAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL
Rosenfeld, Michel. Professor of Law, New York Law School. THE RELATION BETWEEN CLASSIC CONTRACT LAW AND SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY. Iowa Law review.
For those who share the liberal ideal of achieving the greatest possible autonomy for each individual compatible with both equal autonomy for all and the degree of social cooperation necessary to insure the survival of society, the conjunction of the social contract with freedom of contract seems highly desirable. Indeed, this conjunction not only permits neutrality with respect to individual visions of the good, but also strictly limits the realm of individual obligations. These results are achieved by dividing the universe of social relationships into the two separate and distinct spheres of the public and the private. The terms of the social contract govern the relationships in the public sphere and impose a limited number of obligations owed by each party to the social contract to all the other parties ot it. Freedom of contract, on the other hand, operates in an extensive private sphere in which individual obligations are limited to those arising out of particular legal contracts and extend only to the other party or parties to such contract. n4 Thus, in the private sphere, no obligation is owed to anyone unless it has been freely chosen, and, even then, it is only owed to the limited number of individuals to whom the obligor has freely chosen to make a commitment.