At - Tyranny DA

8/19/2019 At - Tyranny DA

1/10

AT: Tyranny DA


2/10

The Top Level

There have been 150 executive orders since 2005.

That’s a double bind – either A the !overn"ent isalready tyrannical and #ascist$ "eanin! that thisDA is non%uni&ue or ' executive order e"piricallyD()’T create tyranny. *ither option obviouslydisproves the DA:

)o lin+ – their ,arrison ev says that -/LTL***3/T4* (D*67 can brin! about tyranny –our 3 is only one action$ not "ultiple (’s –

"eans 8e don’t tri!!er the lin+.)( &uali9cations – this card is #ro" a blo! calledle!aldebate.blo!spot.co" – Lindsay ,arrison is adebate coach tal+in! about her ()() on the (3. (bviously that’s '6 – she’s not even citin! realexperts$ she’s citin! so"e debater called *r8in3hi"erins+y!et real.


3/10

ial Turn

(nly tyranny can solve the ecolo!ical crunch – this

card is lon! and #antastic.Mathew ,u"phrey ;, Reader in Political Philosophy at the University ofNottingham, UK, 2007, Ecological Politics and emocratic !heory" !he#hallenge to the eli$erative %deal, p& '()'*

%n terms of the +rst of these points, that or democratic choices re-ecta narrow nderstanding of or immediate interests and not anenlightened view of or long)term welfare, the case is made $y.phls& /e claims that we are now so committed to most of the things that

case or spport the evils with which he is concerned that we are almost

paralysed 1 nearly all the constrctive actions that cold $e

taen at present&&& are so painfl to so many people in so manyways that they are indeed totally nrealistic, and neither politiciansnor citi3ens wold tolerate them 4.phls, '577" 22(6&(

Environmentally friendly policies can $e


4/10

preferred otcome is $eyond or a$ility to reach in an ncoerced manner& !his is the n)person prisoners dilemma, a well esta$lished analytical tool inthe social analysis of collectively s$optimal otcomes& 9 $rief e@ample cold$e given in terms of an nreglated +shery& !he owner of trawler can $e fllyaware that there is collective over)e@traction from the +shing gronds heses, and so the estion arises of whether he shold self)reglate his own

catch& %f he +shes to his ma@imm capacity, his gain is a catch fractionallydepleted from what it wold $e if the +sheries were flly stoced& %f the fllcatch is ', then this catch is ' ) B, where B is the di8erence $etween the fllstoc catch and the depleted stoc catch divided $y the nm$er of +shingvessels& %f the trawlerman reglates his own catch, then he loses the entireamont that he feels each $oat needs to srrender, and frthermore he hasno reason to sppose that other +shermen wold $ehave in a similar fashion,in fact he will e@pect them to $ene+t $y catching the +sh that he a$Cres& %nthe langage of game theory he wold $e a scer, and the rational corseof action is to contine taing the ma@imm catch, despite the predicta$leconclsion that this corse of action, when taen $y all +shermen maing thesame rational calclation, will lead to the collapse of the +shery& %ndividal

rationality leads to severely s$optimal otcomes& Under thesecircmstances an appeal to conscience is seless, as it merely places therecipient of the appeal in a do$le)$ind& !he open appeal is $ehave as aresponsi$le citi3en, or yo will $e condemned& Dt there is also a covertappeal in the opposite direction1 %f yo do $ehave as we as, we will secretlycondemn yo for a simpleton who can $e shamed into standing aside whilethe rest of s e@ploit the commons 4/ardin, '5A


5/10

collective action pro$lem ecological o$Cections to democracy arc valid, then

this coercion may not $e mtally agreed pon but rather

i"posed $y .phls ecological elite or ;estras 9ristotelian wise

man& Under these circmstances there seems to $e no hope at all for

a reconciliation of ecological imperatives and democraticdecision)maing" we are faced with a star choice, de"ocracy

or ecolo!ical survival &

The i"pact out8ei!hs – over8hel"in! evidenceproves the i"pendin! environ"ental crisis ris+sextinction.avid 6hear"an ;, Emerits professor of medicine at 9delaideUniversity, Gecretary of octors for the Environment 9stralia, and an%ndependent 9ssessor on the %P##1 and Hoseph ;ayne Gmith, lawyer and

philosopher with a research interest in environmentalism, 2007, !he #limate#hange #hallenge and the =ailre of emocracy, p& ()A

!his i"pendin! crisis is cased $y the accelerating damage to

the natural environ"ent on 8hich hu"ans depend #or

their survival & !his is not to deny that there are other means that may$ring catastrophe pon the earth& Hohn Iray for e@ample* arges thatdestrctive war is inevita$le as nations $ecome loced into the strggle fordiminishing resorces& %ndeed, Iray $elieves that war is cased $y the sameinstinctal $ehavior that we discss in relation to environmental destrction&Iray regards poplation increases, environmental degradation, and misse of

technology as part of the inevita$ility of war& ;ar may $e inevita$le $tit is unpredictable in ti"e and place , whereas environmental

degradation is relentless and has pro!ressively received

increasin! scienti9c evidence & /manity has a record of

doomsayers, most invaria$ly wrong, which has $roght a Csti+a$le immnity to their tterances& ;arnings were present in !he !ales of .vid and in the .ld and New !estaments of the Di$le, and in

more recent times some of the predictions from !homas Malths andfrom the #l$ of Rome in '572, together with the Jpoplation$om$> of Pal Ehrlich, have not eventated& !he freentapocalyptic predictions from the environmental movement arenpoplar and have $een vigorosly attaced& Go it mst $e ased,

8hat is di>erent about the present 8arnin!s ? 9s onee@ample, when Gir avid King, chief scientist of the UK government, statesthat Jin my view, climate change is the most severe pro$lem that we arefacing today, more serios than the threat of terrorism,>A how is this andother recent statements di8erent from previos discredited prognostications


6/10

=irstly, they are $ased on the "ost detailed and co"pellin!

science produced 8ith the sa"e scienti9c ri!or that has

seen hmans travel to the moon and create worldwide

commnication systems& Gecondly, this science em$races a

ran!e o# disciplines of ecology, epidemiology, climatology,marine and fresh water science, agricltral science, and many

more, all o# 8hich a!ree on the nature and severity o# the

proble"s & !hirdly, there is virtual unani"ity of thousands o#

scientists on the grave natre of these pro$lems& .nly a handfl of septics remain& ring the past decade many distingished scientists,

inclding nmeros No$el :areates, have warned that hmanity has

perhaps one or t8o !enerations to act to avoid !lobal

ecolo!ical catastrophe & 9s $t one e@ample of this mltidimensionalpro$lem, the %ntergovernmental Panel on #limate #hange 4%P##6 has warnedthat glo$al warming cased $y fossil fel consmption may $e accelerating&7

Let climate change is $t one of a host of interrelated

environmental pro$lems that threaten hu"anity & !he athorshave seen the veils fall from the eyes of many scientists when they e@amineall the scienti+c literatre& !hey $ecome advocates for a fndamental changein society& !he freent prod statements on economic growth $y treasrersand chancellors of the e@cheer instill in many scientists an immediate

sense of danger, for hmanity has moved one step closer to

doo" & Gcience nderpins the sccess of or technological and comforta$lesociety& ;ho are the thosands of scientists who isse the warnings wechoose to ignore %n '552 the Royal Gociety of :ondon and the U&G& National9cademy of Gciences issed a Coint statement, Poplation Irowth, Resorce#onsmption and a Gstaina$le ;orld,< pointing ot that the environmentalchanges a8ecting the planet may irreversi$ly damage the earths capacity tomaintain life and that hmanitys own e8orts to achieve satisfactory livingconditions were threatened $y environmental deterioration& Gince '552 manymore statements $y world scienti+c organi3ations have $een issed&5 !hese

s$stantiated that most environmental systems are s8ering from

critical stress and that the developed contries are the main clprits& %twas necessary to mae a transition to economies that provide increased

hman welfare and less consmption of energy and materials& %t seemsinconceiva$le that the consenss view of all these scientistscold $e wrong& !here have $een nmeros international conferences ofgovernments, indstry grops, and environmental grops to discss thepro$lems and develop strategy, yet widespread deterioration of theenvironment accelerates& ;hat is the evidence !he Iide to ;orldResorces, 2000 200'" People and Ecosystems, !he =raying ;e$ of :ife'0was a Coint report of the United Nations evelopment Program, the United


7/10

Nations Environment Program, the ;orld Dan, and the ;orld Resorces

%nstitte& !he state of the worlds agricltral, coastal forest,freshwater, and grassland ecosystems were analy3ed sing 2Ocriteria sch as food prodction, water antity, and $iodiversity& Eighteenof the criteria were decreasing, and one had increased 4+$er prodction,

$ecase of the destrction of forests6& !he report card on the remaining forcriteria was mi@ed or there was inscient data to mae a Cdgment& %n200*, !he Millennim Ecosystem 9ssessment Gynthesis Report $y ',OA0scienti+c e@perts from 5* contries was released&'' %t stated that

appro@imately @0 percent o# the ecosyste" services that

support li#e on earth Qsch as fresh water, +sheries, and the

reglation of air, water, and climateQ are bein! de!raded or

used unsustainably & 9s a reslt the Millennim Ioals agreed to $y theUN in 2000 for addressing poverty and hnger will not $e met and hmanwell)$eing will $e seriosly a8ected&


8/10

*thics ra"in!

*xtinction out8ei!hs tyranny –

1 6urvival co"es 9rst – 8e can’t have ethics orvalue to li#e 8hen 8e’re all dead. )ye B@:Nye airsF -)uclear *thics7 p!. G5%G@

%s there any end that cold Cstify a nclear war that threatensthe srvival of the species %s not all)ot nclear war Cst as self contradictory in the realworld as paci+sm is accsed of $eing Gome people arge that ?we are reiredto ndergo gross inCstice that will $rea many sols sooner thanorselves $e the athors of mass mrder&?7O Gtill others say that ?when aperson maes srvival the highest vale, he has declared that there is nothing he will not $etray& Dt for

a civili3ation to sacri+ce itself maes no sense since there are notsrvivors to give meaning to the sacri+cal sicF act& %n that case,srvival may $e worth $etrayal&? %s it possi$le to avoid the ?moralcalamity of a policy lie nilateral disarmament that forces s tochoose $etween $eing dead or red 4while increasing the chancesof $oth6?7( /ow one Cdges the isse of ends can $e a8ected $y how one poses the estions& %fone ass ?what is worth a $illion lives 4or the srvival of the species6,?it is natral to resist contemplating a positive answer& Dt sppose one ass, ?is it possi$le toimagine any threat to or civili3ation and vales that wold Cstifyraising the threat to a $illion lives from one in ten thosand to

one in a thosand for a speci+c period? !hen there are several plasi$leanswers, inclding a democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that give meaning to life $eyond mere

srvival& ;hen we prse several vales simltaneosly, we face thefact that they often con-ict and that we face diclt tradeo8s& %fwe mae one vale a$solte in priority, we are liely to get thatvale and little else& Grvival is a necessary condition for theenCoyment of other vales, $t that does not mae it scient& :ogical priority does not mae it an a$solte vale& =ew people act as thogh srvival were an a$solte

vale in their personal lives, or they wold never enter an atomo$ile& ;e can give srvivalof the species a very high priority withot giving it the paraly3ingstats of an a$solte vale& Gome degree of ris is navoida$le if

individals or societies are to avoid paralysis and enhance theality of life $eyond mere srvival& !he degree of that ris is a

Csti+a$le topic of $oth prdential and moral reasoning&


9/10

2 *xtinction is a prere&uisite to value creation –8e can’t solve tyranny 8hen 8e’re dead. Hapner0I:Hapner I Pal ;apner is associate professor and director of the Ilo$al Environmental PolicyProgram at 9merican University, %GGEN! ;inter 200OF

9ll attempts to listen to natre are, indeed, social constrctions, e@cept one& Even the mostradical postmodernist acnowledges the distinction $etweenphysical e@istence and none@istence& 9s mentioned, postmodernists assme thatthere is a physical s$stratm to the phenomenal world, even if theyarge a$ot its di8erent meanings& !his s$stratm is essential for allowingentities to spea or e@press themselves& !hat which doesnt e@ist,doesnt spea& !hat which doesnt e@ist, manifests no character& Pt di8erently, yes, the postmodernist shold rightly worry a$ot interpreting natres e@pressions& 9ndeveryone shold $e wary a$ot those who claim to spea on natres $ehalf 4inclding whenenvironmentalists and stdents of glo$al environmental politics do so6& Dt we shold not do$t the

simple)minded notion that a prereisite of e@pression is e@istence& !hat

which doesnt e@ist can never e@press itself& 9nd this in trn sggests thatpreserving the nonhman world)in all its diverse em$odiments%mst $e seen $y eco)critics as a fndamental good& Eco)critics mst $e spporters, in some fashion, ofenvironmental preservation&

c axi"iJin! all lives is the only 8ay to aKr"e&uality – internal lin+ turns your tyranny i"pact.3u""is+ey E0 Professor of Philosophy, Dates avid, Kantian #onseentialism, Ethics'00&O, p A0')2, p A0A, Cstor;e mst not o$scre the isse $y characteri3ing this type of case as the sacri+ce of individals for some

a$stract ?social entity&? %t is not a estion of some persons having to $ear the costfor some elsive ?overall social good&? %nstead, the estion is whether some persons mst$ear the inescapa$le cost for the sae of other persons& No3ic, for e@ample, arges that ?to se a personin this way does not sciently respect and tae accont of the fact that he is a separate person, that hisis the only life he has&?O0 ;hy, however, is this not eally tre of all those that we do not save throgh

or failre to act Dy emphasi3ing solely the one who mst $ear the cost if we act,one fails to sciently respect and tae accont of the many other separatepersons, each with only one life, who will $ear the cost of or inaction& %n scha sitation, what wold a conscientios Kantian agent, an agent motivated $y thenconditional vale of rational $eings, choose ;e have a dty to promote theconditions necessary for the e@istence of rational $eings, $t $oth choosing to act andchoosing not to act will cost the life of a rational $eing& Gince the $asis of Kants principle is ?rationalnatre e@ists as an end)in)itself 4IMM, p& (256, the reasona$le soltion to sch a dilemma involves

promoting, insofar as one can, the conditions necessary for rational $eings& %f % sacri+ce some forthe sae of other rational $eings, % do not se them ar$itrarily and % do not deny

the nconditional vale of rational $eings& ersons may have di!nity, annconditional and incompara$le vale? that transcends any maret vale 4IMM, p& (OA6, but, as rational$eings, persons also have a #unda"ental e&uality 8hich dictates that so"e"ust sometimes !ive 8ay #or the sa+e o# others . !he formla of the end)in)itselfths does not spport the view that we may never force another to $ear some cost in order to $ene+t

others& %f one focses on the eal vale of all rational $eings, then eal consideration dictatesthat one sacri+ce some to save many& continesF 9ccording to Kant, the o$Cective end ofmoral action is the e@istence of rational $eings& Respect for rational $eings reires that, indeciding what to do, one give appropriate practical consideration to the


10/10

nconditional vale of rational $eings and to the conditional vale of happiness& Gince agent)centered constraints reire a non)vale)$ased rationale, the most natral interpretation of thedemand that one give eal respect to all rational $eings lead to aconseentialist normative theory& ;e have seen that there is no sond Kantian reason fora$andoning this natral conseentialist interpretation& %n particlar, a conseentialist interpretation

does not reire sacri+ces which a Kantian oght to consider nreasona$le, and it does not involve

doing evil so that good may come of it& %t simply reires an ncompromisingcommitment to the eal vale and eal claims of all rational $eings and arecognition that, in the moral consideration of condct, ones own s$Cective concerns donot have overriding importance&

At - Tyranny DA

Documents

Transcript of At - Tyranny DA