Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Liberty Debate


Page 1 of 9
N. Ryan

Insert title here

Important Note.......................................................................................................................................................................................2
Displaced Ethics UD- Link- The State..................................................................................................................................................3
Displaced Ethics UD- Impact- Violence................................................................................................................................................4
Displaced Ethics UD- Solvency- Generic..............................................................................................................................................5
Displaced Ethics UD- Solvency- Nuclear Weapons..............................................................................................................................6
Displaced Ethics UD- Solvency- Social Transformation.......................................................................................................................7
Displaced Ethics UD- A2: Permutation.................................................................................................................................................8

Liberty Debate

Liberty Debate

Page 2 of 9
N. Ryan

Important Note
You should read some of these cards in the 1NC, but which ones you choose should depend on the aff.
Theyre pretty specific to actual governmental action, but the permutation cards are good about

Liberty Debate

Liberty Debate

Page 3 of 9
N. Ryan

Displaced Ethics UD- Link- The State

The affirmative will say that they train us to be policymakers- this removes our individual agency and
ensures a sense of powerlessness
Joel Kovel, Professor of Social Studies at Bard College, 1984
(Against the state of Nuclear Power, p. 5-6, South End Press) RKB
Nine out of ten Britons interviewed by the magazine New Society believed there was nothing they could do about the nuclear
threat. Who among us has not felt utter helplessness in the face of the juggernaut of nuclear weaponry? Our puny individual
strength is simply not drawn on the same scale. The bomb may remind us of our powerlessness, and symbolize it. But real power is
part of a human relationship; and so our actual disempowerment is what we experience before the state apparatus that controls and
uses the bomb. This disempowerment is of course no illusion it is, in fact, a key to the history of our times. For several generations
power has slipped away from the people and toward the corporate apparatus that discharges the functions of the modern
state. The nuclear issue, however, raises disempowerment to a new, mystified level. For with the greatest weapon comes the
greatest lies. The state claims to be our representative and to dispose of the weapons on our behalf. Indeed, it professes to do
so in the interests of defending our freedom and democratic rights. Meanwhile it uses nuclear weapons in the same way
weapons have always been used: to enforce the will of the power structure. And we are not the least bit free to do anything that
influences the state in this regard (according to its terms, that is) except periodically to elect and write letters to politicians who, in
a reflex action, rubber stamp its policies. I am not disputing the fact that a representative democracy offers some hope for
changing, or at least retarding the nuclear states momentum. But whatever these possibilities are, one cannot avoid the fact that a
most basic tendency of the nuclear age is to develop the states autonomous power of action at the expense of those delegated by
the people. Like the CIA, the nuclear bureaucracy is entirely impervious and secretive. Its very presence mocks the democracy it is
supposed to defend. And our sense of powerlessness is directly related to the lack of freedom we feel in its face.

Liberty Debate

Liberty Debate

Page 4 of 9
N. Ryan

Displaced Ethics UD- Impact- Violence

The loss of our personal agency manifests in violent extermination
Zygmunt Bauman, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the Universities of Leeds and Warsaw, 1995
(A Century of Camps in Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality, p.195-198) RKB
Such conditions - conditions without which there would be no camps and no genocide, conditions which turned the unthinkable into reality - are accomplishments
of our modern civilization, and in particular of three features which underlie, simultaneously, its glory and its misery: the ability to act at a distance, the
neutralization of the moral constraints of action, and its 'gardening posture' - the pursuit of artificial, rationally designed order. That one can kill today without
ever looking the victim in the face, is a banal observation. Once sinking a knife into the body, or strangling, or shooting at close distance

have been replaced with moving dots over a computer screen - just like one does in amusement arcade games or on the screen of
portable Nintendo - the killer does not need to be pitiless; he does not have the occasion to feel pity. This is, however, the most obvious
and trivial, even if the most dramatic, aspect of'action at a distance'. The less dramatic and spectacular manifestations of our new, modern, skills of distant
action are more consequential yet - all the more so for not being so evident. They consist in creating what may be called a social and psychological, rather than a
merely physical and optical, distance between actors and the targets of their actions. Such social/psychological distance is produced and reproduced daily, and
ubiquitously, and on a massive scale, by the modern management of action, with its three different, yet complementary aspects. First, in a modern

organization every personally performed action is a mediated action, and every actor is cast in what Stanley Milgram called the
'agentic state': almost no actor ever has a chance to develop the 'authorship' attitude towards the final outcome of the operation,
since each actor is but an executor of a command and giver of another; not a writer, but a translator of someone else's intentions.
Between the idea which triggers the operation and its ultimate effect there is a long chain of performers, none of whom may be
unambiguously pinpointed as a sufficient, decisive link between the design and its product. Second, there is the horizontal,
functional division of the overall task: each actor has but a specific, self-contained job to perform and produces an object with no
written-in destination, no information on its future uses; no contribution seems to 'determine' the final outcome of the operation,
and most retain but a tenuous logical link with the ultimate effect - a link which the participants may in good con science claim to
be visible only in retrospect. Third, the 'targets' of the operation, the people who by design or by default are affected by it,
hardly ever appear to the actors as 'total human beings', objects of moral responsibility and ethical subjects themselve s. As
Michael Schluter and David Lee wittily yet aptly observed, 'in order to be seen at the higher levels you have to be broken up
into bits and most of you thrown away'. And again, about the Gleichschaltung tendency that inevitably follows such fragmentation: 'the institutions of the mega community deal more readily with the capacities in which people are all the same than
those marking each of them out as individual and unique.'1 As a result, most actors in organizations deal not with human
beings, but with facets, features, statistically represented traits; while only total human persons can be bearers of moral
significance. The global impact of all these aspects of modern organization is what I have called (borrowing the term from the vocabulary of the medieval
Church) - the moral adiaphorization of action: for all practical purposes, the moral significance of the ultimate and combined effect of individual actions is
excluded from the criteria by which individual actions are measured, and so the latter are perceived and experienced as morally neutral (more exactly, but with the
same effect, moral significance is shifted from the impact of action on its appointed targets, to motives such as loyalty to the organization, collegial
solidarity, the well-being of subordinates, or procedural discipline). The fragmentation of the objects of action is replicated by the fragmentation
of actors. The vertical and horizontal division of the global operation into partial jobs makes every actor into a role-performer. Unlike 'the person', the roleperformer is an eminently replaceable and exchangeable incumbent of a site in the complex network of tasks - there is always a certain impersonality, a distance, a
less-than-authorship relationship between the role-performer and the role performed . In none of the roles is the role-performer a whole person, as

each role's performance engages but a selection of the actor's skills and personality features, and in principle should neither engage
the remaining parts nor spill over and affect the rest of the actor's personality. This again makes the role-performance ethically
adiaphoric: only total persons, only unique persons ('unique' in the sense of being irreplaceable in the sense that the deed would
remain undone without them) can be moral subjects, bearers of moral responsibility - but modern organization derives its strength
from its uncanny capacity for splitting and fragmentation, while on the other hand providing occasions for the fragments to come
together again has never been modern organization's forte. Modern organization is the rule of nobody. It is, we may say, a contraption to float
responsibility - most conspicuously, moral responsibility. Thanks to all these inventions, often discussed under the name of 'scientific management', modern
action has been liberated from the limitations imposed by ethical sentiments. The modern way of doing things does not call for the mobilization of sentiments and
beliefs. On the contrary, the silencing and cooling off of the sentiments is its prerequisite and the paramount condition of its astounding effectiveness. Moral

impulses and constraints have not been so much extinguished, as neutralized and made irrelevant. Men and women have been
given the opportunity to commit inhuman deeds without feeling in the least inhuman themselves . It is only when (to quote Hannah
Arendt again) 'the old spontaneous bestiality gave way to an absolutely cold and systematic destruction of human bodies' , that 'the
average German whom the Nazis notwithstanding years of the most furious propaganda could not induce to kill a Jew on his own
account (not even when they made it quite clear that such a murder would go unpunished)' served 'the machine of destruction
without opposition'.2 Modernity did not make people more cruel; it only invented a way in which cruel things could be done by
non-cruel people. Under the sign of modernity, evil does not need any more evil people. Rational people, men and women well
riveted into the impersonal, adiaphorized network of modern organization, will do perfectly.

Liberty Debate

Liberty Debate

Page 5 of 9
N. Ryan

Displaced Ethics UD- Solvency- Generic

Our individual acceptance spills over into tangible effects- its only when activism relies on impulsive
mediation that every evil finds a way to exist
Judith Simmer-Brown, Professor and past Chair of Religious Studies at Naropa University, 2002
(Remedying globalization and consumerism: joining the inner and outer journeys in "perfect balance", Buddhist-Christian
Studies (Annual 2002): p31(16), jstor) RKB
When a view of perfect balance is asserted, it appears to fly in the face of social activism or engaged Buddhism. How would Mahayana
Buddhism address the inequities, the systemic violence, and the exploitation that arise from consumer culture and from the global economy? How does it respond to the "prophetic voice"
found in Christianity and in some Buddhist movements? I would assert that Mahayana Buddhism does not have a prophetic voice, but it does have a clear vision about the problems of
human existence. That clear vision leads it to put the global economy into perspective, "avoiding two extremes that in each case reduce religion to something that it can and should not be;
social activism on the one hand, and an individualistic, self-centered spirituality on the other." (35) From the outset, the Buddha exhibited awareness of social issues such as war, caste,

the root of all such evils, from his view, was a mistaken view about the nature of reality. He
remained un confused concerning his central insight, that these social issues cannot be changed without a concerted focus of
understanding of this root, the interdependent insubstantial nature of reality. In other words, the Buddhist teachings on compassion
begin with personal clear seeing, but they do not end there. The reason the compassion teachings go further, must go further, is
that in Buddhism one cannot have genuine compassion without a direct experience of the lack of inherent existence of all
phenomena, including all beings. The enormity of serious issues like globalization could be overwhelming, moving one to a sense
of urgency. If the urgency, however, is an impulsive response to the unbearable qualities of suffering, the aversion that arises
toward suffering could lead one to unskillful acts based on what could be called "idiot compassion." (36) It is called idiot
compassion for two reasons: First, it is an impulsive response based on insufficient understanding of the true nature of reality.
Second, this impulsive compassion quickly becomes ineffective, exacerbating suffering and confusion in others, and precipitating
discouragement and depression in oneself. Good intention is never enough; it risks the dangers of impulsiveness, unskillful
actions, and romanticism. Effective actions must be based upon wisdom, the clear seeing of the nature of reality. Seeing the
true nature suggests a different, more subtle, sustained, and strategic response. If one understands the lack of inherent existence of
all phenomena, all social and economic problems are fragile and subject to change. If one understands interdependence, one sees
that every personal act of dropping habitual patterns necessarily lessens the suffering of every other being, directly,
inexorably. And so waking up, even seemingly individually, is a social and political act that affects the happiness of everyone. From
abuse of power, and unethical activity. But

this perspective, the contemplative who sees clearly and acts strategically is a social activist, even if she or he never leaves the monastery. But action that is truly compassionate, based on
clear seeing, cannot take sides. Spiritually based social action must embrace both sides of an issue and refrain from identifying external enemies. Thich Nhat Hanh wrote, "Where is our
enemy? I ask myself this all the time." (37) Sometimes the journey seems ambiguous, for it is not nourished by a clear definition of justice. Justice is always a difficult word for the
Buddhist. What is justice, and how does it relate to the experience of suffering? How does a notion of justice actually contribute to the happiness of beings? (38) Often these mysterious,
frustrating discussions with Buddhists end here, with the view suggesting that the nature of the problem about which we are most concerned is not a problem at all. In order to get a
balanced perspective, however, it is important to deal with the other important aspect of the Mahayana path. This is the treatment of the relative practice aspect, the way in which we
express our skillful means in the world through compassion. If Christians are exposed to the insight (prajna, sherap) teachings of Mahayana Buddhism alone, without the compassion or
skillful means (upaya-kaushalya, thapla khepa) teachings, an eerie impression is left. Buddhism is a very practical tradition, and insight is always tied with practical action in the world. In
fact, in my lineage it is often said that if the practitioner does not manifest a natural leaning toward compassion, it is quite possible that the insight into the true nature may be only
theoretical; it is with the dawn of true compassion that the emptiness realization is completed. (39) There are two specific areas for compassionate action in American Buddhism. The first

about what one can contribute are very individual, but donate to the perfect balance. Perhaps the greatest contribution is a commitment to
area is in the realm of spiritual activism. Having identified as directly as possible the multiple causes of the global economy, one must strategically undo those causes.

meditation practice, as Eido Shimano Roshi expressed. Perhaps it is to choose some specific area of activism or education in order to undo the result of transnational corporations that hold
power over even governments of the world. Perhaps it relates to hands-on relief from suffering, or in community building on a small scale within one's own region or environment.
Whatever the choice, these efforts must be developed patiently, with a clear sense of the magnitude of the project, even while recognizing that every single act of clear seeing or

based on impatience with results, excess urgency, or romantic clinging to alternative outcomes will always be doomed to
eventual failure.
compassionate action reverses in some small way the ignorance concerning the basic nature of reality and changes in some small way the entire international phenomenon.

Liberty Debate

Liberty Debate

Page 6 of 9
N. Ryan

Displaced Ethics UD- Solvency- Nuclear Weapons

Its not about policies- the manipulation of the use of nuclear weapons in a realm outside of personal
anxiety makes us doomed to a world of constant armament
Daisaku Ikeda president of Soka Gokkai International and Buddhist philosopher, 2007
(Restoring the Human Connection: The First Step to Global Peace, accessed 2/11/10) RKB
In this form, the world of anger is a condition of always seeking to surpass, unable to countenance inferiority, disparaging others and overvaluing oneself.11 When in the world of anger,
we are always engaged in invidious comparisons with others, always seeking to excel over them. The resulting distortions prevent us from perceiving the world accurately; we fall easily
into conflict, locking horns with others at the slightest provocation. Under the sway of such anger, people can commit unimaginable acts of violence and bloodshed. Another Buddhist text
portrays one in the world of anger as 84,000 yojanas tall, the waters of the four oceans coming only up to his knees.12 A yojana was a measure of distance used in ancient India; there

the self-perception of
people in the life-state of anger expands and swells until the ocean deeps would only lap their knees. The inner distortions twisting
the heart of someone in this state prevent them from seeing things in their true aspect or making correct judgments. Everything
appears as a means or a tool to the fulfillment of egotistical desires and impulses. In inverse proportion to the scale of this inflated
arrogance, the existence of otherspeople, cultures, natureappears infinitely small and insignificant. It becomes a matter of no
concern to harm or even kill others trivialized in this way. It is this state of mind that would countenance the use of nuclear
weapons; it can equally be seen in the psychology of those who would advocate the use of such hideously cruel weapons as napalm, or, more recently, depleted uranium and cluster
bombs. People in such a state of life are blinded, not only to the horrific suffering their actions wreak but also to the value of human life itself . For the sake of human dignity,
we must never succumb to the numbing dehumanization of the rampant world of anger. When the atomic bomb was dropped on
the city of Hiroshima, not only military personnel but also many scientists were thrilled by the success of this new weapon.
However, the consciences of genuinely great scientists were filled with anguish. Einstein greeted this news with an agonized cry of woe, while Rotblat
are various explanations as to what the specific distance may be, but 84,000 yojanas represents an immeasurable enormity. This metaphor indicates how

told me he was completely overcome with hopelessness. Their feelings were no doubt intensely resonant with the sentiments that motivated Josei Toda to denounce nuclear weapons.
When Toda spoke of declawing the demonic nature of nuclear weapons, he had in mind the struggle to prevent the inner forces of anger from disrupting the ten worlds and going on an
unrestrained rampage. He was calling for the steady and painstaking work of correctly repositioning and reconfiguring the function of anger in an inner world where wisdom and harmony

it is thus vital we remember that not only our specific activities for
peace and culture but the movement for human revolution based on the daily endeavor to transform our lives from
within is a consistent and essential aspect of the historic challenge of nuclear disarmament and abolition. Unless we focus
on this inner, personal dimension, we will find ourselves overwhelmed by the structural momentum of a technological
civilization, which in a certain sense makes inevitable the birth of such demonic progeny as nuclear weapons.
prevail. This is the true meaning of declawing. For SGI members in particular

The struggle against oppression has to be rooted in our own contradictions- its key to spilling over into
the greater consciousness
Daisaku Ikeda president of Soka Gokkai International and Buddhist philosopher, 2007
(Restoring the Human Connection: The First Step to Global Peace, accessed 2/11/10) RKB
In my proposal of two years ago, I offered what I consider guidelines for humanism in action: Recognizing that all is change
within a framework of interdependence, we of course see harmony and oneness as expressions of our interconnectedness. But we
can even appreciate contradiction and conflict in the same way. Thus the struggle against evila struggle that issues from the
inner effort to master our own contradictions and conflictsshould be seen as a difficult yet unavoidable trial that we must
undergo in the effort to create a greater and deeper sense of connection.7 Underlying this statement and expressed in the repeated
reference to connection is the belief that we must never lose sight of the bonds we share as members of the same human family, a
connection that transcends cultural, ethnic and national borders. This is not to deny the reality of clashing interests and outlooks;
these need to be faced head-on if we are to avoid encouraging evil, thus inviting catastrophe. The challenge of preventing any
further proliferation of nuclear weapons is just such a trial in the quest for world peace, one that cannot be achieved if we
are defeated by a sense of helplessness. The crucial element is to ensure that any struggle against evil is rooted firmly in a
consciousness of the unity of the human family, something only gained through the mastery of our own inner
contradictions. It is this kind of reconfiguration of our thinking that will make possible a skilled and restrained approach to
the options of dialogue and pressure. The stronger our sense of connection as members of the human family, the more effectively
we can reduce to an absolute minimum any application of the hard power of pressure, while making the greatest possible use of the
soft power of dialogue. Tragically, the weighting in the case of Iraq has been exactly the reverse.

Liberty Debate

Liberty Debate

Page 7 of 9
N. Ryan

Displaced Ethics UD- Solvency- Social Transformation

Individual change can subvert collective destiny - infinitesimal steps help access mass society
Daisaku Ikeda president of Soka Gokkai International and Buddhist philosopher, 2007
(Restoring the Human Connection: The First Step to Global Peace, accessed 2/11/10) RKB
What I would emphasize is the importance of human awakening as the key to this ascent through the different orders. With each
upward movement the importance of the human being grows. This process is one of individuals and humanity reclaiming their
rightful place from a dehumanized technological-economic-scientific order. Without the qualitative elevation of individual
human beings, neither social transformation nor the creation of a more positive society is possible. While this may seem
obvious, reliance on organizations and the submersion of the individual into the group is a failing all too common in human
history. As Carl Jung (18751961) warned: Totalitarian demons are called forth, instead of the realization that all that can really
be accomplished is an infinitesimal step forward in the moral nature of the individual.22 As the genealogy of totalitarianism
demonstrates, the more gaping the absence of humanity, the more vulnerable people are to its demonic allure. Contemporary mass
society, with its high degree of scientific development and communications technologies, provides ample opportunity for the dark
activities of demagogues and their dangerous appeals. The infinitesimal steps Jung refers to are in fact utterly essential, for
without them any positive change will be fragile and easily destroyed. Jungs insight is deeply resonant with the SGIs enduring
challenge of human revolution: A great human revolution in just a single individual will help achieve a change in the destiny
of a nation and, further, will enable a change in the destiny of all humankind.23

Liberty Debate

Liberty Debate

Page 8 of 9
N. Ryan

Displaced Ethics UD- A2: Permutation

The permutation cant solve- just like asking strength to not be strong, it surrenders agency to the one
group that cannot create meaningful change- the political
Anthony Carty, Professor of Law University of Westminster, 2003
(Nietzsche and Legal Theory (Part I): Nietzsche and Socrates / Or The Spirit Of The Devil And The Law,
24 Cardozo L. Rev. 621, January) RKB
Law is precisely the force which serves to hold back the regeneration of Western society. It restrains the exercise of [*622]
power. It demonises executive authority as inevitably intending to claim for itself, from above, an authority which, in democratic
egalitarianism, can only come from each individual. Nietzsche expresses his views about restraints on the exercise of power in the
following terms: It is just as absurd to ask strength not to express itself as strength, not to be a desire to overthrow, crush,
become master, to be a thirst for enemies, resistance and triumphs, as it is to ask weakness to express itself as strength. A quantum
of force is just such a quantum of drive, will, action, in fact it is nothing but this driving, willing and acting, and only the seduction
of language ... which construes and misconstrues all actions as conditional upon an agency, a "subject", can make it appear
otherwise. n4 As for the majority who might wish to restrain the powerful, Nietzsche's contempt is withering. It is they who
invent an ethic of responsibility. They have an interest to declare that the strong are free to be weak, "and a good person is anyone
who does not rape, does not harm anyone, who does not attack, does not retaliate ... ." n5 Although he does not use the exact
words, Nietzsche says the weak do not take the law into their own hands because they are not strong enough: "as though the
weakness of the weak were itself ... an achievement... ." "This type of man needs to believe in an unbiased "subject' with
freedom of choice because he has an instinct of self-preservation and self-affirmation in which every lie is sanctioned." n6 This
is a profound and very focused dismissal of the very foundations of the rule of law and of basic rights. Instead, for Nietzsche, if one is to speak at all of a social ideal - and he does not
present himself so optimistically - the "rest of society" may eventually be inspired or rejuvenated out of its Christian or socialist-liberal resentment, by the ethos of a class of selfovercoming Overmen. One could attempt to bridle such a political society with a legal constitution. However, it is probably the case that the operation and implementation of such a legal
order would be virtually self-regulatory, a debate or dialogue within a ruling elite. n7 The legal order would have no permanent or unconditional character. Nietzsche speaks of the

The strong are as naturally

inclined to strive to be apart as the weak are to strive to be together, when the former unite, this takes place only with a
view to an aggressive collective action and collective satisfaction of their will to power, with much resistance from their
individual consciences ... the instinct of the born "masters' (I mean here the solitary predatory-species of man) is basically irritated
and unsettled by organization. Behind every oligarchy... the lust for tyranny always lurks.... n8
distinction [*623] between the masters and the slaves as asymmetrical, for the former do not naturally see themselves as a group:

The state can only attempt to manifest its actions in bigger units of power that create illusions of
resisting while asserting more control- only individual response solves
Anthony Carty, Professor of Law University of Westminster, 2003
(Nietzsche and Legal Theory (Part I): Nietzsche and Socrates / Or The Spirit Of The Devil And The Law,
24 Cardozo L. Rev. 621, January) RKB
States of legality can never be anything but exceptional states, since they are partial restrictions of the true will of life, which is
bent upon power, and are subordinate to its ultimate goal as a single means: namely, as a means of creating bigger units of power. A
system of law conceived as sovereign and general, not as a means for use in the fight between units of power but as a means against fighting in general, rather like Dumuhring's
communistic slogan that every will should regard every other will as its equal, this would be a principle hostile to life, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of fatigue and a

The free will of an association of

individuals does not have the power to create political society. There is, for Nietzsche, no such thing as free will, at least in the sense that the notions of
"ego," "subject" and "identity" are illusory escapes from his tragic vision of the chaos of a material reality. We are all subject to blind forces which our
consciousness gives only the illusion of resisting. Indeed for Nietzsche, conscious [*627] choice, which is usually regarded as
the foundation of morality, n24 is instead another mark of the life-denying decadence, for which moral philosophers and
theologians are responsible. In what is undoubtedly nostalgia for a lost aristocratic past, Nietzsche accords preference for those who act, apparently
spontaneously, on the basis of instincts unconsciously acquired through long habitual practice (i.e., breeding). Socrates is very much Nietzsche's
secret path of nothingness. n23 Nietzsche can only reject a liberal view of political society resting on consent or contract.

target here:

Whereas in the case of all productive people instinct is precisely the creative-affirmative force and consciousness makes critical and warning gestures, in the case of

resistance to contractarian
liberalism can be understood as a pessimistic metaphysics. What are missing from the liberal contract are the facts of birth and death, not simply as single
Socrates, by contrast, instinct becomes the critic and consciousness the creator - a true monstrosity per defectum... . n25 So, Nietzsche's

events in each individual's life, but as permanent forces or drives, the unconscious pressure of which determine everyone's actions. This perspective correctly predicts that Nietzsche will
employ a genealogical method to allow him to de-mythologize every effort made to assure autonomy in the contractarian foundation of law. Both

constitutional and
international legal order are illusory. They reflect a temporary, perhaps only apparent halt in the dynamic of the material forces,
whether psychological or physical, which underlie personal or group-acquired status. States receive legal recognition only as long
as those same material forces do not once again regain momentum. n26

Liberty Debate

Liberty Debate

Page 9 of 9
N. Ryan

Liberty Debate