_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
test-international-gsciidffe-con03a | This policy is not necessary and may be counterproductive Unless a state wishes to pull the plug on the internet entirely state censorship on the internet is never complete. Dissidents and those who are interested in getting around censorship will manage with or without help from other governments, they will use privately developed software, or proxies to get around censors and protect themselves. Having help from foreign governments to bypass censorship may even put the people this policy is trying to empower in an even worse position. The use of software that is meant to undermine censorship helps to prove that the dissident’s intent is hostile towards the government and the state’s policies – otherwise they would not need to software, and would not resort to using methods developed by foreign countries. Russia is increasingly cracking down on those who have contact or receive help from ‘foreign agents’ particularly foreign NGOs, such a policy could be as easily applied to online help as financial aid. [1] [1] Earle, Jonathan, “Hundreds of NGOs Checked for Foreign Agents, Extremism”, The Moscow Times, 19 March 2013, |
test-international-gsciidffe-con01a | The international system is based on equality and non-interference Relations between states are based upon “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] Without such rules the bigger, richer, states would be able to pray on the weaker ones. This cannot simply be put aside because one state does not like how the other state runs its own internal affairs. The United Nations has gone so far as to explicitly state “all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” [3] Circumventing censorship would clearly be another power attempting to impose its own ideas of political cultural and social development. [1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, [2] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), [3] UN General Assembly, “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/151 |
test-international-eiahwpamu-pro01b | The provision of microfinance within livelihoods is based on a positive view of social capital [1] and cohesion. The idea relies upon a perception whereby social networks within the community are able to positively organise funds and remain democratic in how they manage poverty. It fails to acknowledge negative aspects of social capital - such as how networks can act to exclude and restrict who becomes a part of the scheme. Civil society is not without internal politics, with competing interests, and can be uncooperative. [1] Social capital represents the relationships and linkages between people and/or groups, of which are formulated with rules and norms. See further readings: |
test-international-eiahwpamu-pro05b | Loans provided are embedded with conditions, which can constrain what an individual can do with the money. A microfinance loan is still a loan, it needs to be paid back, if someone is in poor health for a long period they will run into difficulty. Can saving schemes enable social protection in the long term when the amount saved is just enough to cover one sick person? We need to realistically evaluate what the loan enables, provides, and how long for. To provide real health security a much more comprehensive finance system is needed, such as insurance |
test-international-emephsate-pro01a | The admission of Turkey will help the economy of the EU develop more dynamically. Turkey has a booming economy with one of the fastest growing economies of the world [1] . Turkey has a young, skilled and vibrant workforce contributing in the fields of innovation, industry and finance. Having a young and growing population means that Turkey is in the opposite situation to the European Union, whose population is declining. As a result Turkey joining would be very complementary to the European Economy. In Turkey 26.6% of the population are under 15 [2] while in the EU only 15.44% is. [3] This is significant because the population of the European Union as a whole will be declining by 2035 [4] and because of the aging population the working population will be declining considerably before this. Aging obviously means that the EU will not be able to produce as much, but also that much more of EU resources will be devoted to caring for the elderly with a result that there is likely to be an drag on GDP per capita of -0.3% per year. [5] One way to compensate for this is to bring new countries with younger populations into the Union. [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank. Accessed on: September 3, 2012. [2] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, [3] ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, [4] Europa, ‘Population projections 2008-2060 From 2015, deaths projected to outnumber births in the EU27’, STAT/08/119, 26 August 2008, [5] Carone, Giuseppe, et al., ‘The economic impact of aging populations in the EU 25 Member States’, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, n.. 236, December 2005, p.15 |
test-international-emephsate-pro01b | Turkey may have a growing economy, but this does not make it a good candidate for EU membership. Despite its growth there is still a lot of poverty in Turkey. Its GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU. [1] When looking at Turkey, everyone thinks of Istanbul, forgetting the other ‘’invisible’’ Turkey, where there are major economic problems, such as unemployment, low wages, bad infrastructure and high immigration rates. [2] [1] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, [2] Daily News. Economy. Number of poor people increasing in Turkey. Accessed on September 3, 2012. |
test-international-emephsate-con03b | The issue of Cyprus will eventually be resolved; one small member state cannot hold the destiny of 550 million people hostage indefinitely. [1] Europe made a mistake by not forcing Cyprus to resolve its problems with Northern Cuprus and Turkey before joining the EU [2] however Europe once again has leverage as it is in negotiations to bailout the country. [3] [1] Lake, Michael, ‘Turkey: Tilting from U.S. to EU?’, Atlantic Council at 50, [2] ‘Cyprus: Six Steps towards a Settlement’, International Crisis Group, Europe Briefing No.61, 22 February 2011, [3] Kambas, Michele, ‘Cyprus hopes for deal with Troika in October’, Reuters, 5 September 2012, |
test-international-emephsate-con01b | Turkey has a booming economy. Turkey has one of the fastest growing economies of the world Turkey is therefore rapidly catching up with Europe and this will therefore become less and less of an issue; at the same time Europe will need Turkey more while Turkey will need the EU less. [1] While many Turks may wish to move to the EU to try to find work it is unclear either that they would do so, Europe’s average unemployment rate is currently higher than Turkey’s, or that Europe would let them, there would likely be transitional rules such as those imposed on Bulgaria and Romania. [2] [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank. Accessed on: September 3, 2012. [2] EURES, ‘Free Movement : Romania’, European Commission, |
test-international-emephsate-con01a | Turkey is not enough economically developed to join the EU. Turkey has many economic problems ranging from high inflation, high regional disparities, high wealth disparity, unemployment, bad infrastructure and poverty among others. The country must solely focus itself onto improving those problems, before obtaining EU-membership. Not resolving economic problems before joining the EU can lead to problems as exemplified by Greece, Portugal and Italy, countries which had their big economic problems that were overlooked upon joining the Eurozone. Turkey’s GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU [1] and as a large country with more than seventy million people it would pose an immense strain on the rest of the Union. The effect of this economic disparity is likely to lead to a massive influx of immigrants from Turkey to the rest of the EU, because they will take advantage of free movement of people in the European Union and these immigrants. This immigration is likely to have the effect of forcing down the wages of workers in the existing EU nations as the Turks will be willing to work for less. [2] [1] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, [2] Turkey is part of Europe. Fear keeps it out of the EU. The Guardian. August 6 2009. Accessed on: September 3, 2012. |
test-international-emephsate-con02b | Turkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity. [1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th. [2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide [3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU. [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Turkey’, U.S. Department of State, [2] ‘Press Freedom Index 2011-2012’, Reporters Without Borders, [3] De Montjoye, Clementine, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free SpeechDebate, 29 June 2012, |
test-international-epdlhfcefp-pro02b | Consultation, collaboration and the attempted creation of a common set of values has not worked and is not likely to work. This language is not much different from what we have heard with every attempt the EU has made to push for further political integration. The role of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as agreed upon back in 1993 during the Maastricht Treaty, was in fact presented very much along similar lines. Fifteen years later however, that united front has not been created. If anything, the EU’s political union, and certain any attempts towards a common foreign policy, have completely disintegrated when faced with the War in Iraq and the larger war on terror and more recently the Euro debt crisis on another front. |
test-international-epdlhfcefp-pro03b | The creation of a combined post of High Representative for foreign and security policy and Vice President of the Commission for External Relations marks a needless complication of decision making. It adds an expensive and largely pointless layer of European bureaucracy to a substantively weak and poorly coordinated foreign policy. This failure is made worse by the member states’ refusal to appoint a senior European politician with international credentials to the post. This suggests that the European Union is simply not ready to pursue a serious and substantive foreign policy. 1 1 Charlemagne, 'The test for Ashton and Europe', The Economist, 1st February 2011,accessed 1/8/11 |
test-international-epdlhfcefp-pro04a | The High Representative will be a catalyst and a facilitator for decision-making. The High Representative will not only act as a spokesman for EU nations when they agree on foreign policies, but will act as a catalyst around which external policy will increasingly become coordinated. By chairing meetings of EU foreign ministers, he or she will be able to shape the agenda and influence the outcomes of meetings, encouraging member states increasingly to think in terms of common foreign policy positions. They will have added authority from their ability to speak for the EU in the UN Security Council. The High Representative will also direct the EU’s new External Action Service, which brings together policy specialists from both the Council and Commission in a unique manner (ranging from the Arctic region to nuclear safety and enlargement) 1. With representatives all over the world the EU will develop a foreign service capable of creating and articulating policy positions in a manner that few national governments can match. Over time this will promote the evolution of a true EU foreign and security policy, and will contribute significantly to increased European consciousness among EU citizens and further moves to political unity. 1. European Union External Action, Policies, accessed 1/8/11 |
test-international-epdlhfcefp-con02a | The previous arrangement of having two foreign policy centers (in the Commission and in the Council) was arguably inefficient, but consolidating these into a single office-holder has created more complexity and at significantly greater expense. Creating a position of EU High Representative is not objectionable in itself. Previously the EU was in the ludicrous situation of having two foreign affairs spokesmen, one from the Council and the other from the Commission. Rivalry and duplication of efforts, staffs and resources results, and so focusing all the EU’s external affairs work around one person makes some sense. What it does not mean is that the High Representative should lead a drive for a stronger common foreign policy position. Only when member states agree (which may not be often) will he or she have a role. In fact, by weakening the foreign affairs role within the Commission, this development may actually limit the pretensions of Brussels to develop its own agenda and dictate foreign policy to the member states. |
test-international-epdlhfcefp-con03a | There have been tests on the EU's ability to create a common foreign policy that it has failed. The War in Iraq, along with previous notable failures to deal with the breakup of former Yugoslavia, has been an excellent test for the extent to which the EU can claim to have a common approach to world politics and foreign policy in particular. It has clearly pointed out a whole range of diverse and often opposed national interests, and national publics that were unwilling to make compromises along EU lines of commitment. It has also showed that the economic power of the EU is not enough to turn it into a major player on the international scene: the lack in military power and presence speaks for itself. The EU still lies very much under the umbrella of NATO and US military power and as long as this military dependency continues, the EU will not be able to have its own independent voice in world politics. 1 1. "> |
test-international-epdlhfcefp-con01a | The post of a High Representative is merely a shadow of what it should have been, and its failure shows the EU's inability to consolidate foreign policy. While seemingly groundbreaking, the current agreement on the EU reform treaty was nothing but a lame attempt to salvage a much bolder initiative: an EU Constitution. The rejection of the EU Constitution in the Dutch and French referendums, as well as the extreme difficulty in getting even its watered-down version accepted, shows the extent to which the member states of the EU are not yet ready to think and act in unison. The UK representatives successfully insisted that the language of the reform treaty clearly states that major foreign policy decisions will continue to be taken at the state level. |
test-international-ssiarcmhb-pro01a | Radical changes risk the stability of the Catholic Church. Whenever a Church makes a radical change to its doctrines and teachings it causes a huge amount of tension within the Church. An excellent example of this is the Church of England allowing women to become bishops; a huge number of people left the Church over the controversy. Since the Catholic Church's ban over contraception of all kinds is something that it has stood fast over for a great number of years, as well as something that sets it apart from most other denominations and faiths, the proposition believes that a change in this would result in a huge amount of tension within the Church. This tension would inevitably bring about a considerable risk of large parts of the Church collapsing altogether. This would be much the same as the tensions over gay priests in the Anglican church that have led to fears of a schism1. Therefore, in the interests of its own stability, the sensible course of action for the Catholic Church to take is to maintain its ban on contraception. 1 Brown, Andrew. "Jeffrey John and the global Anglican schism: a potted history." Guardian.co.uk, 8 July 2010 |
test-international-ssiarcmhb-pro05b | This is a wilful interpretation of a highly ambiguous passage. The Church's belief that barrier contraception is against God is based entirely on a single passage of the Bible where Onan is condemned for wilfully 'spilling his seed.'1Importantly, the fact that he spilled his seed alone was not even the main reason that he was condemned. It is well within the power of the Catholic Church to officially change their belief that using barrier contraception will send people to Hell and allow its use. Since the passage is ambiguous, the decision should be made based on what is best for society and the Church as a whole. The opposition believes that in their main case they have proved that the Church lifting their ban on barrier methods of contraception would be better for society and therefore they believe they have won the debate. 138:9-10, The Book of Genesis, The Bible. |
test-international-ssiarcmhb-con04a | Promotes image of Catholic Church as uncaring and stubborn. Organised religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, around the world, regardless of faith and denomination, change their official stances in an effort to keep up with a changing world. For example, the Church of England allowing women to become bishops. In doing this, these groups show that they are able to be reactive and can fit into a world that changes every day. Even the Catholic church has begun to realise that by stubbornly refusing to change its stance, the Catholic Church presents itself as unable to adapt and stuck in its ways 1. As a result, it finds that it will lose a lot of its influence and, by extension, its propensity to do good. Since its stance on contraception limits the Church's ability to do good, then it is clearly a stance that generally causes harm and, therefore, is an unjustified one. 1.Wynne-Jones 2010 |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-pro02b | It seems odd to quote the wife of an investment banker commenting about the abuse of other people’s money. What is becoming increasingly clear in critiques both from the left and the right is that we can actually afford a welfare state just fine but not at the same time as allowing a bunch of Wall Street wideboys to play fast and loose with the nation’s money. In terms of twentieth century ideologies, certainly there have been changes on both sides of the political fence – the rise of moralising neo-cons and a growing far right is nothing for Conservatives to write home about – but the idea that Capitalism now reigns supreme rather than having the guts of it corpulent excesses scattered across the capitals of Europe is simply laughable. As the high priests of Capital write themselves yet another cheque, an increasing number of people are objecting to the idea that public services should be closed so that the very rich can have their taxes reduced simply won’t wash. |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-pro03b | Remembering that those states that dashed after the illusory prize of low taxes and deregulated banking are currently only being propped up by the ratings agencies should give politicians around the world- both radical and conventional- something to think about. However, even the most casual wander around the blogosphere makes clear that the principles of market economics are a long way from being universally agreed. The intellectual recovery from the assault posed by Thatcherism and Reaganomics has taken time but is certainly taking place and it is increasingly the Right that appears intellectually bankrupt. Organisations like the New Economics Foundation are approaching old problems in new ways alongside a whole range of popular movements – environmental, youth led, immigrant led and others. The fact that modern socialism has as much to do with the industrial struggles of the seventies as it does with the Spanish Civil War in the thirties should really come as no surprise. |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-pro01a | Although there are protests as a result of the banking crisis and the resulting financial meltdown, they have no cohesive ideology There is clearly a difference between the general malaise of those protesting the result of the financial crisis and any form of coherent ideology or manifesto for government. The only people pretending that protesters in Athens or Rome – or the Occupy movement worldwide – are in some meaningful way Socialists are aging class warriors from the seventies. The Occupy movement may well count many social liberals [i] among its members, and these individuals are almost certainly unhappy about many aspects of modern Capitalism but that doesn’t make Occupy, or the Athens street protestors Socialist. [i] Occupy Wall Street Website. “Forum Post Liberalism is Not Socialism”. 12 November 2011. |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-pro01b | Socialism has frequently been defined by its opponents and as Capitalism has changed so have the political responses made to it. The fact that this iteration of socialism is different should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of Socialism. That earlier generations of Socialists would not have recognised a blog or a Twitter account doesn’t change the fact that they recognise the flaws of Capitalism and reject the widely accepted views of the last twenty years or so that if everything is left to the market then everything will come out just fine. |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-con01b | Trying to pretend that absolutely anyone who disagrees in some way with the architects of the banking bubble can be described as a Socialist is simply taking things too far. Many people are suffering as a result of austerity measures and it is interesting that in countries with left wing governments the protests support the right and vice versa. This has nothing to do with the emergence of Socialism for the 21st century – however desperately the Socialists of the 20th century may wish it. The closest even the most ardent supporters of the current protests can get is that ‘things should be different’ other than that it tends to be a round of decidedly nineteenth century solutions to nineteenth century problems |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-con02a | The idea that wealth should be more fairly and evenly distributed has never had so many supporters and the failure to do so has rarely been more keenly felt In the model of Blair and Clinton, it didn’t matter if the rich got a lot richer, as long as the poor got a bit richer. That model has now been shown not to work and the rather timid new leaders of the left are starting to return to concepts of fairness and equality rather than the rather bland concepts of ‘opportunity’ and ‘choice’. Europe is increasingly governed by unelected technocrats who seem to think that the opinions of a handful of international bankers are somehow more important than the jobs and livelihoods of millions. This may always have been the case but it tends not to show during times of plenty. Now these latent inequalities are becoming apparent and people are angry. It is perhaps one of the great ironies of history that one of the aspirations of early nineteenth century Socialists- nationalising the banks- required Capitalists to actually achieve it. |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-con05a | It is impossible to acquire the information necessary to create a coherent economy A planned economy requires that the planners have the information necessary to allocate resources in the right way. This is a virtually impossible task. The world contains trillions of different resources: my labour, iron ore, Hong Kong harbour, pine trees, satellites, car factories – etc. The number of different ways to use, combine and recombine these resources is unimaginably vast. And almost all of them are useless. For example, it would be a mistake to combine Arnold Schwarzenegger with medical equipment and have him perform brain surgery. Centralised planning cannot possibly sort through the myriad of way of arranging resources to arrive at the most efficient usage. Only a decentralised price system can achieve this via the institution of private property and associated duties and rights. [1] [1] Boudreaux, Donald J, ‘Information and Prices’. |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-con04a | Globalisation has made socialism impractical to implement Global economic forces have rendered socialism powerless. Financial speculation, and investment flows can make or break economies, and the agents who channel these monies want to see countries liberalise, privatise and de-regulate more. This is being shown by the speculative attacks on Eurozone countries where the markets are showing they can force governments to implement tough austerity or even force changes in government without an election as has happened in Greece and Italy where technocrats have taken over as Heads of Government. [1] These more flexible markets generate higher levels of growth and prosperity, and provide higher returns on investment, encouraging more. Countries which try to resist globalisation and liberal economic markets, as in ‘old Europe’, suffer stagnant growth and higher unemployment as a result. Old socialist-style economic models of tight economic regulation and central planning are unsustainable. [1] Frankel, Jeffrey, ‘Let European technocrats weave their magic’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 2011, |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-con04b | What investors want more than anything is a stable economy and skilled workforce. Ironically it is the European nations where socialist thought remains strongest (the Nordic Countries) that are consistently ranked as the most competitive economies in the world. [1] Careful state management of the economy, provision of infrastructure and investment in exceptional health and education systems through high taxation have created a dynamic and highly qualified workforce, and attracted huge investment from technologically advanced industries. [1] World Economic Forum, ‘The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012’, |
test-philosophy-pppgshbsd-con02b | Setting the crises of the last few years against decades of prolonged growth under market capitalism really shows the lie of this idea. There is no doubt that certain sectors over-reached themselves in the latter part of the last decade but to suggest that this is a collapse of the Capitalist model makes about as much sense as the idea that a handful of idealists camped outside St Pauls are the emergence of a new political movement. Both ideas are preposterous and only give credence to some of the madder parts of the Right whom would like nothing more than to be able to demonise the protesters and their demands. |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro02b | This conveniently ignores that patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) do recover. It also ignore that Alzheimer’s patients enjoy moments of lucidity that bring pleasure to both themselves and their friends and relatives. It also discounts the possibilities offered by advances in medical science. The one point in any of the processes that is irreversible is the point of death – in the event of a misdiagnosis or the creation of a new drug, it’s too late if the person is already dead. |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro02a | Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that. We now live longer than at any time in the 100,000 years or so of human evolution and longer than the other primates [i] . In many nations we have successfully increased the quantity of life without improving the quality. More to the point, too little thought has been given to the quality of our deaths. Let us consider the example of the cancer patient who opts not to put herself through the agony and uncertainty of chemotherapy. In such a circumstance, we accept that a person may accept the certainty of death with grace and reason rather than chasing after a slim probability of living longer but in pain. All proposition is arguing is that this approach can also apply to other conditions, which may not be terminal in the strict sense of the world but certainly lead to the death of that person in any meaningful sense. The application of medical science to extend a life, long after life is ‘worth living’ or would be possible to live without these interventions cannot be considered a moral good for its own sake. Many find that they are facing the prospect of living out the rest of their days in physical pain or are losing their memory. As a result, some may see ‘going out at the top of their game’ as the better, and more natural, option. [i] Caleb E Finch. Evolution of Human Lifespan and the Diseases of Aging: Roles of Infection, Inflammation, and Nutrition. Proceding of the National Academy of Sciences of the united States of America. 12 October 2009. |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro03b | Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised. [i] [i] Young, Robert, "Voluntary Euthanasia", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-pro01b | It is the mark of a civilised society that we accept the inconvenience of laws in some circumstances because we also require their protection in others. To take a trivial example we take away the choice for people to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else. Here the protection offered by a full moratorium on killing requires that we accept all of its implications. The challenge is to use medical science to make it a moot point. Proposition has therefore made a powerful argument in favour of better painkillers and more research into mentally debilitating illnesses. Many of those developments have come about as a result of the very human attributes prop is so keen to cite. Realising that they have an opportunity of future free of pain and illness, humans have found ways of delivering it. It is precisely because death can now be managed that the process of self-imposed triage prop suggests is increasingly unnecessary; a fact to be applauded, not discarded |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-con03b | This risk can be mitigated by making it clear that the elderly, disabled, and others who may feel a burden are genuinely wanted as a part of society but that the right to die is there if they feel it is too much. Any right to die being allowed is not going to be as simple as going to the doctors and getting an injection. In any system there would be checks and balances put in place. There would probably be some form of application process, checks to see if there is any coercion and that it is what the individual really wants as well as probably some form of cooling off period after which the checks would probably be redone before they finally have their chance to exercise their right to die. |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-con03a | There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved. By far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide [i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden. [i] Joiner, Thomas E. et al., ‘The Psychology and Neurobiology of Suicidal Behaviour’, Annual Review of Psychology, 10 September 2004, p.304 . |
test-philosophy-elhbrd-con02b | It is not uncommon for legislation to apply in extreme circumstances and not in more routine ones – the right to use violence in defence of the home or self being just one example. If the legislation states that this relates to certain, terminal conditions and those patients shown to be of sound mind, then that’s how the legislation works. Society gives the universal right to free education but not if you’re 46 and decide that you should have done something different at school, the right is confined. That applies here and in most universal rights. Its aim is to solve one particular legal problem, not all of them. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02b | Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1] [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007) |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro02a | Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. [1] It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals. [1] European Commission, 1997. Euthanasia of experimental animals. Luxembourg: Office for official publications |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro03b | Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective. Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, academic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible. If we ban animal research even if research advances continue we will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy the rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years. [1] Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - should be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough. [1] Ator, N. A., “Conducting Behavioural Research”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 3. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro05a | Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro05b | We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as morally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money would be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-pro04a | Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animals It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments. We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This would be a morally inconsistent and specieist stance to adopt, and as such unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals. [1] [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007) |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03b | This again highlights some of the problems with animal research. In the UK example cited, animal testing had been done, and the dose given to the human volunteers was a tiny fraction of the dose shown to be safe in primates. Animal research is an unreliable indicator of how drugs will react in the human body, and as such alternatives should be sought and improved upon. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-con01b | To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate. [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997) |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-con05a | Animals involved in animal research are mostly well treated. The vast majority of animals used in research are not subjected to suffering. Where there may be pain, they are given painkillers, and when they are euthanized it is done humanely. [1] They are looked after well, as the health of the animals is usually not only required by law and good practice, but beneficial for the experimental results. Many of these animals live better lives than they might have done had they been born into the wild. Many animals, and indeed humans, die untimely deaths that are due to reasons other than old age, animal experimentation may increase these numbers slightly but so long as the animals are treated well there should be no moral objection to animal research. If the foundation of the argument for banning animal experimentation is therefore based upon the cruel treatment and pain suffered by animals then this is a reason for regulation to make sure there is very little suffering rather than an outright ban. [1] Herzog, H., “Dealing With the Animal Research Controversy”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-con04a | Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable Developed countries, including the US and all members of the EU (since EU Directive 2010/63/EU) have created laws and professional regulations that prevent scientists from using animals for research if other, non-animal research methods would produce equally clear and detailed results. The principle described above is also enshrined in the "3Rs" doctrine, which states that researchers and their employers have a duty to identify ways to refine experiments conducted on animals, so that yield better results and cause less suffering; replace animals used in research the non-animal alternatives where possible; and reduce the number of animals used in research. Not only does the 3Rs doctrine represent a practical way to reconcile the necessity of animal research with the universal human desire not to cause suffering, it also drives scientists to increase the overall quality of the research that they conduct. Governments and academic institutions take the 3Rs doctrine very seriously. In EU countries scientists are required to show that they have considered other methods of research before being granted a license for an animal experiment. There are a huge number of ways of learning about our physiology and the pathologies which affect it, including to computer models, cell cultures, animal models, human microdosing and population studies. These methods are used to complement one another, for example animal models may well produce data that creates a computer model. Nonetheless, there is some research which cannot be done any other way. It is difficult to understand the interaction of specific sets of genes without being able to change only these genes – something possible through genetically modified animals. Finally, as noted above, given the high cost of conducting animal research relative to other methods, there is a financial incentive for institutions to adopt non-animal methods where they produce as useful and accurate results. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-con03a | Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances Undoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise. After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials. Novel compounds (as opposed to so-called "me-too" drugs, that make slight changes to an existing treatment) are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans. Research into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-con04b | The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures. Second, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments. Finally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research. |
test-philosophy-apessghwba-con02b | Firstly the vast majority of drugs released today (around 75%) are so called “me too” drugs that add little, if any genuine innovation to the existing body of pharmaceuticals in production. Rather, they represent only a slight molecular tweak on an existing drug line. Such drugs rarely save lives or even relieve much suffering upon their release, as they are only very slightly better, for only some patients, than the drugs available prior to its release. [1] None the less, the development of only technically novel compounds is used as a justification for research on animals, even when the benefit from such research is marginal at best. Secondly, even if there was a small increase in future human suffering, relative to a future where such a policy was not adopted, it would be worth it due to the saving of so much animal suffering, and the moral impermissibility of inflicting that for our own gains. All this is notwithstanding the proposition point that much of the research does not necessitate animal testing. [1] Stanford Medical Magazine. 2005. Me-too drugs: Sometimes They’re Just The Same Old, Same Old. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-pro02b | To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con01b | Choosing not to act in the situation is still a choice and does not remove the responsibility in the situation. If someone stands by and watched as another person drowns, even though they could have rescued them, then they are no better than the murderer who participates in a person’s death. The idea that active killing only relates to taking action to cause death is wrong. When one has the ability to prevent death then one is actively involved in the situation whether one chooses to accept it or not. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02a | We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con04a | We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable As soon as we agree that there are situations where killing is acceptable we have reason to fear for our own safety. By accepting killing in certain situations society as a whole becomes more open to the idea. It then becomes hard to draw the line as to where killing is acceptable and where killing is unacceptable. It is much better to outlaw all instances of killing so that we have a general moral standard to follow in all situations. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con06b | In the train example there is no one else around and it is only you that can save the five lives. With the charity example there are many other ways in which the lives can be saved; governments can save them or other people can donate money. Therefore the moral duty to act is dramatically reduced. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con06a | Utilitarianism is demanding If we choose to save the five people just because we have the power to do so then we also have to consider all the other lives that are in our power to save. It is in our power to donate all of our excess money to charity to save lives and so we must also do this. Actions like this are worthy of praise but no one would suggest that we have a duty to do them. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con05b | The same traumatic affect would also result from not pulling the lever. One must still cope with the fact that one could have saved the five lives. Post traumatic stress disorder can be brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death. |
test-philosophy-elkosmj-con02b | Given that we don’t know anything about these individuals all we have to work with are the numbers. If you take five random people and one random person then there is a greater chance that among the five people there is a life saving doctor. The only time this is not true is if the average person has a negative effect on the world. However, if this is the case we would always have to act in a way that fewest people survived which is absurd. |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-pro02b | If there is even a slight injustice, then there is a problem worth addressing. It is a fact that recent anti-terrorism legislation, in nearly all western countries, has been used for a variety of uses from international banking [1] to petty thievery. This is obviously beyond the original intentions of these measures; something that should not be taken lightly. [1] Wintour, Patrick, and Gillan, Audrey, ‘Lost in Iceland: £1billion from councils, charities and police’, 10 October 2008, , accessed 9 September 2011 |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-pro03b | The opposition does not except the importance of legalisation like the US Patriot Act, as such legislation is always used for aims it was not originally intended for example when it is being used to investigate media companies dedicated to free speech - Wikileaks [1] . The fact that western countries are already quite liberal should not be an argument for why that has to change. Should we not be moving forwards towards even more freedoms for citizens instead of backwards? [1] IBTimes Staff Reporter, ‘Wikileaks: U.S. Seeks Assange Info Through Patriot Act’, 24 August 2011, , accessed 9 September 2009 |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-pro05a | The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks. It would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen. |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-pro01b | Nothing justifies some of the security measures taken by western governments. The ancient western conventions of the accused being innocent until proven guilty and his right to a fair trial have both been undermined [1] by the recent Labour administration in the UK. And all in the name of security. The trade-off has gone too far; liberty is something that must be protected at all costs – it seems that governments the world over have forgotten that the whole point of the state is too protect citizens liberty, not destroy it. [1] BBC News, ‘A brief history of habeas corpus’, 9 March 2005, , accessed 9 September 2011 |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-pro05b | The issue would indeed by easy to solve if what the proposition spoke of was the whole story. Unfortunately, the legal measures put in place will always be open to abuse and so, as all power corrupts – and as absolute power corrupts absolutely – the more and more power we give to the authorities the more and more abuse and corruption we will witness. We have seen what happens with big, powerful governments; this is a historical rule, without exception. |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-pro04b | Granted, the measures are implemented with popular support; the opposition cannot argue against this. However, to claim that democracy has some inherent value beyond providing a stable society is naïve. Democracy is, in this example, simply the tyranny of the majority – populist measures like unjust anti-terrorism legislation holds no currency in reasoned debate. |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-con03b | If the opposition’s argument is correct then there is simply no way to win. The argument is illogical; they would have the terrorists pick us off slowly until we were all victims all because we simply let them. In short, governments have to do something instead of being completely irrational and holding the immature high ground – “letting them win” is a childish argument. |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-con02a | The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope. The proposition puts us in a dangerous place. That situation is the thin edge of a totalitarian wedge – we must take a principled stand for liberty and stop the increasing number of anti-terrorist legislation and over powerful policing powers. Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims, Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans and many other groups were persecuted in World War II, [1] something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed. [1] Hummel, Jeffrey Rogers, ‘Not Just Japanese Americans: The Untold Story of U.S. Repression During 'The Good War'’, The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1987 (Vol. 7, No. 3), , accessed 9 September 2011 |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-con05a | In the public’s eyes, the government seems to suspect everyone. Although the anti-terrorist measures are supposed to be trying to catch certain people, it is the whole of the public who have to suffer on a daily basis: an abundance of security cameras, security checks, and anti-privacy measures continually invade innocent people’s lives and yet it is supposed to be the terrorists who are being punished. The issue of justice, and whether it is actually being done, has to be fully looked at properly. These measures are not solving the problem of terrorism as it does not address the core grievances. Instead other ways such as negotiation to address grievances is necessary, as happened in Northern Ireland [1] . [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Northern Ireland’, The Guardian, 11 May 2007, , accessed 9 September 2011 |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-con04a | It impedes economic progress. Extra-security measures only impede, or halt the flow of trade [1] , make the country harder to deal with - less internationally ‘friendly’, and disrupt communities. Security states almost always have slower growth than freer states because there is extra red tape, transport networks are slowed down, for example airport check ins take much longer. The U.S. Travel Association, says on average, in the United States as a result of the airport security measures each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening. That amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines and other travel suppliers. [2] And this is even before the losses caused by unproductive hours, and deterred investment. All these things will decrease incomes and GDP growth. [1] Verrue, Robert, ‘Tighter Security Must Not Slow Down World Trade’, The European institute, Spring 2004, [2] McCartney, Scott, ‘Aiming to Balance Security and Convenience’, Wall Street Journal, 1 September 2011, , accessed 9 September 2011 |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-con04b | Admittedly, extra-security measures do halt economic growth. But then again, so do a lot of things like inertia, or lack of consumer confidence. It is, however, a matter of degree; if the trade-off is between a lessening of economic growth and lives saved, then it is not hard to decide in which direction reason is behind. When lives are saved the economy benefits as those people will remain productive workers. And having lots of security is not all negative, the security business does very well. |
test-philosophy-pphbclsbs-con02b | If the opposition is citing examples from history then there are just as many examples, if not more, of western governments resisting the corrupting effects of increased power and turning not from good into evil intentions. The fact of the matter is that most of today’s western nations have a relatively good track record. It seems the opposition is once again forgetting the real enemy – the terrorists. In most Western countries we have a fully independent and liberal judiciary, vigorously and vigilantly watching for human rights abuses and protecting civil liberties. For nearly all Western countries, a slippery slope simply does not exist. |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-pro02b | There is little or no evidence of bias in universities admissions procedures. Universities admissions departments go to great lengths to ensure fairness, not least because it is in their own self-interest to take only the best applicants, to maintain the intellectual credibility of their institution. Any overt or explicit discrimination would be illegal, and should be guarded against by using a wide range of admissions procedures and interview (where applicable) by more than one academic. Any charge of prejudice would be an argument for ‘colour-blind’ (or school-blind) admissions, in which the background of the applicant is hidden from the admissions officer, so as to prevent any possibility of discrimination, subconscious or otherwise. The presence of positive discrimination would, if anything, raise the incidence of racism and prejudice on university campuses, with lecturers and fellow students resentful of members of the university perceived to have been given a helping hand. |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-pro02a | Overcomes prejudice Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [1] [2] Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist. [1] Bertrand, M. “Racial Bias in Hiring”. Spring 2003. [2] BBC News Magazine. “Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?” August 27, 2011. |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-pro03b | Positive discrimination will increase negative perceptions of university. Far from changing attitudes about campus life among disadvantaged groups, positive discrimination is likely to be seen as patronising, belittling of the achievements of ethnic minorities and the working class, and serve to reinforce negative stereotypes15. By making the statement that disadvantaged groups are so far behind the rest that they need discrimination in their favour and quotas, universities will alienate themselves from the group they are seeking to help, and will come over as elitist. Survey evidence suggests that affirmative action is usually opposed by the target group, affirming the view that people wish to achieve things for themselves, without being given a ‘leg-up’ by the state. Moreover, positive discrimination devalues the achievements of those who would have been accepted into university even without the assistance, and these people are likely to be deterred from applying. |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-pro03a | Changes negative perceptions of university life Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist. [1] The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term. [1] Ancis, J.R. “Student perceptions of campus cultural climate by race”. Journal of Counselling and Development. Spring 2000. |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-pro04a | Increase the number of Minorities College admission processes are impersonal and favourably biased towards white, affluent students – therefore, quotas specifically for minority students need to be established. College admissions processes are as such because they heavily rely on standard tests or college admission exams. This has caused countries such as Brazil to create quotas for brown (mixed) and black students in most universities. [1] These students cannot afford the better education enjoyed by their rich, white counterparts, and therefore do not perform well in college exams and do not gain admission into university. Quotas are needed to make the admission process a little bit fairer and increase the number of minorities in university campuses. [1] Stahlberg, S.G. “Racial Inequality and Affirmative Action in Education in Brazil”. August 2010, |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-con03b | Affirmative action has never sort to be the cure for underlying social problems. The goal of positive discrimination is to level out the playing field for admission procedures; and create opportunities for disadvantaged groups. In a society in which sweeping societal reforms that benefit minorities are not forthcoming, affirmative action may be regarded as an immediate solution which counteracts the continual injustice faced by certain groups. |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-con01b | By having more students from disadvantaged backgrounds get into university and ultimately have access to top professions, and more likely to enter politics, law, or become the heads of major corporations, affirmative action will generate more role models for the poor and ethnic minorities. As a consequence, the aspirations of disadvantaged youths will change – it will become more realistic for them to see themselves in public life, and will thus have a better incentive to work hard at school. Not only is this good for their own development, but it will also help wider society by tackling social problems such as petty crime and truancy. |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-con02a | Affirmative action can create social tensions Under the policy of affirmative action, there is a real danger that social tensions become inflamed. This is because in the process of benefiting minority groups it helps to disenfranchise the majority. For example in the 2001 riots in Oldham and other cities of Northern England one of the main complaints from poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding. [1] There was a possibility that the more privileged from minority groups such as upper-class blacks will be favoured at the expense of the marginalised within majority groups such as lower-class whites. Therefore, rather correct racial bias, affirmative action may inevitably deepen it. [1] Amin, A., 2002. ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity.’ Environment and Planning, 34, pp.959-980, p.963 |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-con01a | Achievements should be earned not given There is a great possibility that beneficiaries of positive discrimination may not be regarded as good role models as their achievements may be viewed as unearned. [1] A role model is someone others can look up to and admire for the things they achieved through hard work and talent – by parachuting people into university, their ability to act as a role model is undermined. It is also patronising to assume that young people from ethnic minorities can only look up to people who have the same colour skin, or went to the same type of school – in a society that admires diversity and cosmopolitanism, we should surely accept that anyone can act as a role model. [1] The British Psychological Society. “The Hillary Clinton effect - how role models work for some people but not others”. |
test-philosophy-npppmhwup-con02b | Social tension, especial in poor areas and minority groups, does not come as a result of unfair affirmative action policies, but as a result of inadequate funds available to the communities which result in individuals struggling for limited resources. Affirmative Action creates an opportunity whereby more politicians and businesspeople rise up from humble backgrounds are given the chance to change the political and economic structure of society. By “giving back” to their community, they will be able to assist the less well-off, for example by expanding welfare systems and ensuring greater equality of opportunities, or through different hiring practices. |
test-philosophy-npegiepp-pro02b | Neo-functionalism believes in building a community Europe, but then the question is raised, what is the purpose of this new entity? There is no common outlook and getting the major powers of Europe to agree what this should be will be near impossible. Intergovernmentalists would also argue that economic determinism regarding integration is wrong. As they believe national governments have to consciously make these decisions and will not be economically driven alone, ‘Extensive cooperation is not at all ruled out: on the contrary, such cooperation will benefit all participants as long as it corresponds to and enhances mutual interests’. It will always be politics that drive integration, while the motive may be economic – to solve a crisis or even just to profit – the key decisions by all actors will be political. [1] [1] Martell, Luke, ‘Globalisation and Economic Determinism’, Paper given at Global Studies Association conference, Challenging Globalization, September 2009, www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ssfa2/globecdet.pdf , p.4 |
test-philosophy-npegiepp-pro01b | The counter theory to spill-over is the logic of diversity. Neo-functionalism is flawed as it assumes that integration in low politics (economic) will lead to integration in areas of high politics. This is not possible as issues of high politics are integral to the national interest; so integration will only be possible when national interests coincide, which is possible but unlikely. Neo-functionalism believes areas of high politics can be cultivated into integration, whereas intergovernmentalism believes that the fate of the nation-state should never be subject to the decisions of others. |
test-philosophy-npegiepp-con03a | The Empty Chair Crisis 1965 In 1965 during the Empty Chair Crisis brought integration came to a halt and shifted the institutional balance of power away from the commission to the Council of Ministers, it shows that spillover will not always occur. [1] It was caused by President de Gaulle of France being in conflict with other member states, specifically Germany and Italy. France wanted a deal on the Common Agricultural Policy but was unwilling to agree to further integration through creating majority voting in the Council of Ministers. When France took on the Presidency the normal system of mediation was lost. Bonn and Rome were unwilling to give way. [2] De Gaulle pulled his ministers out of the Council of Ministers thus reasserting the power of national governments. This showed that states would not automatically be prepared to give up their national sovereignty and might of helped lead to the abandonment of Neo-functionalism in the 1970s. [1] Moga, Teodor Lucian, ‘The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process’, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2009 pp.796-807, , p.799 [2] Ludlow, N. Piers, ‘De-commissioning the Empty Chair Crisis : the Community institutions and the crisis of 1965-6’, LSE Research Online, 2007, |
test-philosophy-npegiepp-con02b | Intergovernmentalism too has proved 'out of date'. It fails to pay enough attention to supranational institutions; its focus is too exclusively on big treaty negotiations and fails to understand to increasing importance of economic issues. Intergovernmentalism as a theory collapses in the view of actual integration taking place: the revival of integration from mid-1980s onwards. In the 1990s Intergovernmentalism was supplanted by 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism' from the scholar Andrew Moravcsik in his work 'Preferences and Power in the European Community: A liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach' (1993). [1] [1] Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies (30th Anniversary Edition) (December 1993). |
test-philosophy-eppphwlrtjs-pro01a | It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in terrorism cases, or other cases surrounding large national security issues. There are three reasons why this is the case. First, terrorist groups may threaten jury members (see Argument 2 for more detail). Second, terrorism may politicize the jury (see Argument 3 for more detail). Third, the state may be limited in what information it can provide if jurors are present. The government may be unable or unwilling to present classified information for fear of intelligence leaks; for example if it does not want to reveal intelligence methods and sources to the public. This reluctance may make it very difficult to prosecute terrorists. The implication is that the unique national security issues terrorism trials pose may make juries untenable if we ever want to convict terrorists of serious crimes.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law" |
test-philosophy-eppphwlrtjs-pro01b | First, eliminating trial by jury may make other countries less willing to cooperate with us, reducing the amount of information we have about international terrorism. For example, the United States’ decision to eliminate juries from terrorism trials resulted in other countries being more reluctant to cooperate (e.g. Germany delayed the extradition of two suspected terrorists because of that decision). Second, eliminating trial by jury gives the democratic countries less of a moral high ground in advocating that other countries – often countries from which terrorists come – adopt liberal democratic structures (something which already established liberal democracies generally regard as being in their self interest). Third, refusing to grant trial by jury to suspected terrorists may make other countries less willing to grant our own citizens fair trials when they are abroad. |
test-philosophy-eppphwlrtjs-pro05b | First, there are checks in place to help prevent biased decisions and second, the less objective nature of juries is not necessarily bad. First, in most jury systems, a judge can overturn a guilty verdict if s/he believes that the jury made a faulty decision1. Judges can also order retrials in cases of guilty verdicts, if they believe there were procedural errors. Furthermore, in most countries there is a phase of the jury selection process in which both the prosecution and defence can object to a juror; in many countries each side gets a specific number of these unconditional 'peremptory challenges.' That allows blatantly biased jurors to be excluded. Perhaps most importantly, at least with juries there are multiple people making the decision, as opposed to a sole judge: there is no reason to assume that a lone judge will be less biased, just because of his 'professional training.' But second, having a subjective body making the decision is not necessarily bad. We obviously don't want people to be swayed by unchecked prejudices, but one of the points of having a jury is that it allows all parts of the community to participate in the judicial process and provide input that disconnected and often homogenous government officials cannot. For example, the Diplock courts established in 1970s Northern Ireland eliminated juries, and along with them, jury bias. This resulted in higher conviction rates for violent offenders, but also had the negative effect of excluding the Catholic minority from the administration of justice (and judge bias remained, as evidence by the failure of the courts to eliminate the gap between Catholic and Protestant conviction rates).2 1Andrew D. Stine, P.A. "Can a Judge Overturn a Jury Vedict?" 2Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law" |
test-philosophy-eppphwlrtjs-pro04b | Trial by jury is too important to sacrifice it for the sake of efficiency. As explained in the Opposition case, trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of just democratic courts. There are other ways to free up resources: perhaps if we put fewer people in prison we could spend more time and money ensuring that the right people got there. As Judge McQuillan wrote, "dedication, hard work, planning and resources are the means for dealing effectively and rationally with calendar delays."1 1Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial" |
test-philosophy-eppphwlrtjs-pro04a | Having trial by jury for people accused of very small offences is a waste of resources. Juries are very expensive and time consuming, and courts may not be capable of using them for all trials. Indeed, in both the UK and the United States, minor or petty offences can be tried without jury (such offenses are defined differently in different places; in the US petty offences are those carrying less than 6 months prison time or a fine of $5000)1. That is because in densely populated areas, the courts are simply not capable of handling all trials with juries 2. But even beyond the limitations already in place, there may be more small-scale trials which could function without juries, and free up resources. According to British government crime advisor Louise Casey, if all of the either-or cases (cases dealing with minor offences which can be tried in either a crown or a magistrates court) were shifted entirely to the latter, Britain would save £30m in the costs of setting up juries. Such money could be used to help out victims of serious crimes, or otherwise improve the justice system 3. For example, if more time and money were freed up in the United States, the courts might not need to pressure so many defendants into plea bargaining, or pleading guilty without a trial in exchange for less harsh sentencing or the dropping of other charges (in 1996, about two thirds of American criminal case dispositions involved guilty pleas) 4. That would allow more trials to take place, and more justice to be done. 1. ) 2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial" 3.Peter Wozniak, "Trial by Jury Faces the Axe for Petty Crimes" |
test-philosophy-eppphwlrtjs-con02a | Through jury nullification, juries make the law more accountable to the people. Although juries are not technically supposed to nullify the law, or choose to acquit even if the evidence suggests that the defendant is guilty, they sometimes do. This usually happens when the jury believes the law is unjust: for example when the punishment is disproportionate to the crime1 (for example some activists encourage juries to nullify in cases of non-violent drug crimes). We believe this is good because it allows the public to check the government in a way for which rare elections and complex legislative processes do not allow. Only consider how many 'democratic' countries have upheld policies of segregation or discrimination, and it becomes clear that 'free and fair' elections can lead to outcomes that are anything but. Thus jury nullification can a) protect individuals from blatantly unjust laws, and b) provide impetus to actual legislative change. For example, some scholars believe that it was in part the frequent acquittal by juries of defendants who were probably guilty, but who would have received the death penalty if found to be so, that led to the US Supreme Court declaring mandatory capital punishment schemes unconstitutional.2 This community input is valuable in all circumstances, and there is no reason why it should be limited to certain cases. 1Doug Linder, "What Is Jury Nullification? 2Andrew Leipold, "Rethinking Jury Nullification |
test-philosophy-eppphwlrtjs-con03a | Trial by jury is a fundamental right and should never be abridged. Trial by jury is an essential check on abuse in the court system for three main reasons. First, it prevents governmental oppression by ensuring that non-state actors determine guilt 1. It is dangerous to allow the government—the same body which makes and enforces the laws—to also decide who is guilty of breaking the laws. Second, it checks against corrupt judges and prosecutors2. Judges are only human, and are susceptible to the same weaknesses, like prejudice and corruption, as the rest of us. Consequently, it is very dangerous to put the future of defendants in their hands. A representative group of jurors, approved by both sides, is far less likely to reach an unjust decision, since they are generally required to reach unanimous decisions to convict, and it is unlikely that an entire jury will be made up of biased, corrupt, or negligent people. Third, trial by jury allows for community input in the justice system (see Opp Argument 4 and response to Prop Argument 3 for more explanation). Thus trial by jury is essential to ensuring that innocent individuals are fairly treated, and is a fundamental right which ought never be denied. As Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Paul Mendelle QC said, "Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them."3 1.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial" 2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial" 3.Clive Coleman, “Debating non-jury criminal trial” |
test-philosophy-eppphwlrtjs-con04b | If the situations in which trial by jury can be limited are clearly delineated, governments cannot justify limiting it in unjustified circumstances. Saying that the government can sometimes limit trial by jury is not equivalent to giving it a pass to do so whenever it chooses. Obviously there would need to be clear criteria as to when the government could use its power to remove a jury: factors such as the level of security threat posed by the trial, the magnitude of the crime, the imminence of danger etc. would all need to be considered. Perhaps there could be an extra-governmental body to approve such decisions. It is a slippery slope fallacy to argue that allowing the removal of trial by jury in some cases will lead to the erosion of that right in general. Indeed, many countries already do limit the right to serious, as opposed to petty crimes, and the Opp has not presented any evidence that doing so has had negative results. |
test-philosophy-pppthbtcb-pro05a | Consequentialism Actions can only be justified by their outcomes, and if the outcome of an act of terror is an overall increase of justice, freedom and welfare, this action is therefore legitimate. Many people around the world suffer on a daily basis from poverty, injustices and violence. Generally, these people did not choose to suffer, nor was it a result of their actions; therefore it can be seen as a logical conclusion that it is a good thing that this suffering is diminished. However, authorities might not always agree to redistribution or an acknowledgement of rights, and more drastic measures are needed to obtain the goal. If, in this case, the use of acts of terror is needed to obtain greater goods such as justice and equality, and this would mean that on balance, more people would gain more utility, the action would be justified. In this way, terrorism can be seen as an effective weapon in a revolutionary struggle that results in progression. A very current example are the terrorist attacks in several Middle Eastern countries that have led to the Arab spring, such as the attack on the Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh. [1] [1] Sinjab, L. (2011, June 3). Yemen: President Saleh injured in attack on palace. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News: |
test-philosophy-pppthbtcb-pro01a | Legitimacy In extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause. Every individual or (minority) group has the right to express its discontent. The state, being a representation of the people, should facilitate this possibility. Even more, the state should support the rights of minorities, in order to prevent the will of the majority suppressing the rights of people with other interests. If this does not happen, the state has failed to serve its purpose and loses its legitimacy. This, in combination with the growing inequalities and injustices amongst certain groups, justifies committing acts of terror in order to defend these rights, that were denied in the first place. For instance, Umkhonto we Sizwe, a liberation organisation associated with the African National Congress in South Africa and led by Nelson Mandela, decided in 1961 to turn to violence in order to achieve liberation and the abolishment of Apartheid. The reason they gave was: “The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. (...) Refusal to resort to force has been interpreted by the government as an invitation to use armed force against the people without any fear of reprisals. The methods of Umkhonto we Sizwe mark a break with that past.” [1] [1] African National Congress. (1961, December 16). Manifesto. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from African National Congress: |
test-philosophy-pppthbtcb-pro01b | Terrorism is never justified. Peaceful and democratic means must always be used. If this cannot happen inside the state, there are international courts such as the International Criminal Court in the The Hague, which handle cases such as war crimes and oppression. Even when democratic rights are denied, non-violent protest is the only moral action. And in the most extreme cases, in which subject populations are weak and vulnerable to reprisals from the attacked state, it is especially important for groups not to resort to terror. Terrorism merely exacerbates a situation, and creates a cycle of violence and suffering. |
test-philosophy-pppthbtcb-con01b | In extreme cases, it is justified to harm others. It can be argued that the population of a nation is complicit in the crimes that their government commits, because they support the regime by paying tax. Osama bin Laden's 'Letter to America' justifies attacking civilians by stating that they are a complicit part in the American military actions abroad because they have chosen their government democratically, and pay taxes to fund their actions. [1] Secondly, attacks on authorities can get rid of dictators or repressive regimes. Thirdly, commodities such as infrastructure can be used by the government for the promotion of certain groups and to marginalize others. During South African Apartheid, townships were created where black people were forced to live, and which had very little amenities, while the areas where white people lived had much better provisions. [2] [1] Laden, O. B. (2002, November 24). Letter to America. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Observer: [2] SouthAfrica.info. (n.d.). Tackling Apartheid. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from SouthAfrica.info: |
test-philosophy-pppthbtcb-con04b | States or institutions created in concession to terror can work, if the process of creation is handled with care and is done with the interests of the whole population at heart. It is true that some terrorist organisations have no political experience, but some have, and these organisations should have a say in the political process, in corporation with representatives of other groups. Modern South Africa is a state created as a result of terrorism, yet it is not a state that would be accused of conducting a violent foreign policy or excessive internal repression, especially when compared to other parts of the continent. |
test-philosophy-pppthbtcb-con02b | Terrorism can bring attention to certain causes and bring discussion. Images of violence will make much more of an impact than those of peaceful protest. With the modern media, the power of oppressive states to hide or twist the truth has significantly diminished, as anyone with a cellphone can tell their story. Also, with people taking their faith in their own hands, acts of terror such as sabotage can be seen as clever and resourceful. |
test-philosophy-ippelhbcp-pro01a | Encourages a culture of respect for human rights Capital punishment is, in general seen as a significant human rights violation by the international community - not only most liberal democracies, but much of international civil society. Abolition will help lead to the development of a culture of human rights and the rule of law by acting as a benchmark of progress, and a symbol of a commitment to these principles. It is notable that Guinea Bissau is the only abolitionist nation in the bottom ten countries in Africa for the rule of law – according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance’s safety and rule of law category, compared to six abolitionist countries in the top ten [1] . [1] Mo Ibrahim Foundation, “Ibrahim Index of African Governance”, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013, |
test-philosophy-ippelhbcp-pro03a | Diplomatic relations European states in particular put a particular emphasis on capital punishment when determining human rights issues for foreign policy. The UK for example has a policy of promoting and lobbying for the abolition of capital punishment with foreign governments. [1] This will help generate goodwill for the nation. This could have a whole myriad of benefits - from aid and trade, to being seen as the “good guy” in any international disputes. When using capital punishment the opposite is the case; controversy has been created by the use of UN resources in drugs cases in Vietnam that could lead to executions for drug offences [2] . [1] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘HMG Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty 2010-2015’, gov.uk, October 2011, [2] “UN urged to freeze anti-drug aid to Vietnam over death penalty”, Reuters, 12 Feb 2014, |
test-philosophy-ippelhbcp-con01b | Those well trodden arguments lead to an anti death penalty position, not a pro death penalty one. Deterrence cannot be measured, mistakes are made too often and issues of punishment (if punishment, rather than rehabilitation or incapacitation is a legitimate goal of a justice system, which it is not) are different between cultures. Evidence on cost shows it is more expensive than prison in the Global North. With regards to crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court - the world’s leading authority on international criminal law - does not use capital punishment. Neither did the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. |
Subsets and Splits