_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-pro02b | It is only fair that the US should have some say on domestic drug policy considering the extent of their military assistance. The offers of assistance are optional and the conditions of compliance are known by both parties. The US gave $6,495 million in military assistance to the Columbian government between 1998 and 2008 to counter the narcotics trade and the rebels who were reliant on the business1. Since this funding comes from the USA’s federal budget, the US should be able to dictate how the money is spent. 1) Acevedo,B. ‘Ten Years of Plan Colombia: An Analytical Assessment’, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, September 2008 |
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-pro03b | The judicial system is not capable of handling narcotics cases fairly. Corruption and civil war have left Guinea-Bissau’s judicial system broken. Military leader General Antonio Indaj, who has alleged links to the drugs trade, has vetted all political and judicial appointments1. Considering that Guinea-Bissau has no prison, it is unlikely that those in the drug trade will be properly prosecuted. The US’ judicial system is seen as far more impartial and is, therefore, a more logical choice. 1) Reitano,T. & Shaw,M. ‘Arrest of Guinea-Bissau’s Drug Lords Just the First Step in the Battle Against Trafficking’, Institute for Security Studies, 12 August 2013 |
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-pro04b | There is a stronger focus on alternative development in drugs policy compared to the beginning of the drug war. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), historically influenced by US drug policy, has taken an increasingly alternative development-orientated stance. The UNODC has committed itself to effective alternative incomes, gender mainstreaming and community participation which demonstrates a global shift towards beneficial development1. 1) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ‘Making a difference through Alternative Development’ data accessed 30 January 2014 |
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-pro04a | War on the poor The war on drugs has turned in to a war on the poorest in society. Through heavy handed techniques of enforcement and militarisation, the American war on drugs has failed to identify to key motivating factor for many of those involved in the trade; poverty1. Guinea-Bissau is the 5th poorest nation in the world, and other primary exports such as cashew nuts are starting to fail1. Due to lucrative profits, many of the poorer in society turn to the drug trade. US policy does not put enough of a focus on alternative development projects which can provide a livelihood through licit means. Instead they are treated as criminals and, in turn, are pushed further away from reconciliation. 1) Falco,M. ‘Foreign Drugs, Foreign Wars’, Daedalus, 121:2, 2007, pg4 2) The Guardian, ‘Guinea-Bissau’s dwindling cashew nut exports leave farmers facing hardship’, 23 August 2012 |
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-con03b | Corruption is still present in many states which have joined the US drug war. The war on drugs has done little, and perhaps exacerbated, Columbia’s corruption despite US assistance. In 2011, Columbian ex-government ministers were jailed and prosecuted for corruption and co-operation with paramilitaries.1Judicial reforms have also met with varied success. The Merida Initiative in Mexico, designed at removing the corruption of the cartels, has failed to address corruption in the judicial system which is still rampant. 2 1) Bogota,S. ‘Closer and closer to the top’, The Economist, 29 July 2011 2) Corcoran,P. ‘Mexico Judicial Reforms Go Easy On Corrupt Judges’, In Sight Crime, 16 February 2012 |
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-con02a | US will provide equipment Guinea-Bissau should join the US drug war as they do not have the means to fight the war themselves. The local law enforcement is underfunded and ill-equipped to deal with the international threat. Guinea Bissau has one ship which patrols 350km of coastline, their officers have little in the way of land transport, petrol, phones or hand cuffs1. The limited reach of the law has allowed the cartels and gangs to prosper which, in turn, further damages law and order in Guinea Bissau. US military assistance will therefore help restore law and order to Guinea Bissau. 1) Parkinson,C. ‘LatAm Drug Traffickers Set Up in Guinea-Bissau, Expand in Africa’, In Sight Crime, 29 August 2013 2) Acevedo,B. ‘Ten Years of Plan Colombia: An Analytical Assessment’, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, September 2008Shirk,D. ‘The Drug War in Mexico’, Council of Foreign Relations, March 2011 |
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-con03a | Deal with Corruption Guinea-Bissau’s institutions have become too corrupt to deal with the drug problem and require support. The police, army and judiciary have all been implicated in the drug trade. The involvement of state officials in drug trafficking means that criminals are not prosecuted against. When two soldiers and a civilian were apprehended with 635kg (worth £25.4 million in 2013), they were detained and then immediately released with Colonel Arsenio Blade claiming ‘They were on the road hitching a ride’1. Judges are often bribed or sent death threats when faced with sentencing those involved in the drug trade. The USA has provided restructuring assistance to institutions which have reduced corruption, such as in the Mexico Merida Initiative, and could do the same with Guinea Bissau. 1) Vulliamy,E. ‘How a tiny West African country became the world’s first narco state’, The Guardian, 9 March 2008 2) Corcoran,P. ‘Mexico Judicial Reforms Go Easy On Corrupt Judges’, In Sight Crime, 16 February 2012 |
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-con01a | Prevent drugs from reaching Western markets By joining the war on drugs, Guinea-Bissau will be in a better position to thwart the transportation of cheap cocaine and heroin to Europe and North America. Guinea-Bissau’s position makes it ideal for the cocaine trade, where drugs can be unloaded from Latin America and then distributed more easily to the West1. Around 18 tons of cocaine (worth $1.25 billion) passes through West Africa annually, most of it travelling through the state2. US assistance and interdiction operations would help prevent illicit drugs from reaching the profitable Western markets. 1) Smoltczyk,A. ‘Africa’s Cocaine Hub: Guinea-Bissau a “Drug Trafficker’s Dream”, Spiegel, 8 March 2013 2) Hoffman,M. ‘Guinea-Bissau and the South Atlantic Cocaine Trade’, Centre for American Progress, 22 August 2013 |
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-con04b | Considering that many of the military leaders have an invested interest in the drug trade, it is unlikely that Guinea-Bissau will seek help on these grounds. Antonio Indaj, the army’s Chief of Staff, was accused in 2013 of acting as a middle man in transactions between the South American cartels and the Western markets1. Not only has he been involved in drugs transactions, but Indaj has also been accessed of supplying weaponry to the FARC. This makes it unlikely that these leaders would want US assistance which would disrupt their profits and possibly leave them open to prosecution. 1) Hoffman,M. ‘Guinea-Bissau and the South Atlantic Cocaine Trade’, Centre for American Progress, 22 August 2013 |
training-international-alcphbgbsnl-con02b | US assistance does not guarantee success against illicit drug organisations. Despite the militarisation of the drug war in the Reagan-era, armed gangs are still prominent throughout the drug world. In Columbia, the left wing FARC still remains despite decades of war against the Columbian and USA governments1. The FARC, who use drugs for much of its income, still control large territories in the South Eastern territories. The effectiveness of military aid is consequently uncertain. 1) Acosta,N. ‘Colombia’s FARC rebels end holiday ceasefire’, Reuters, 15 January 2014 2) Vulliamy,E. ‘How a tiny West African country became the world’s first narco state’, The Guardian, 9 March 2008 |
training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-pro02b | Modern society discriminates itself against the principles of individuals choosing self-determination and parental rights when it comes to the opposite case. There are high double standards when for example a couple chooses that their child should be deaf, just as they are. This was the case with Tomato Lichy and his partner Paula, who wanted IVF in order to produce a child that was deaf- just as they are. The “embryo bill in 2008 (UK)” passed with a clause that exactly prohibits such actions as the deaf couple in limits of their right to self-determination and parenting requested. Clause 14/4/9 states that, "Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, a serious illness or any other serious medical condition must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality." (1) Specifically this means that in cases of embryos the law makes parents choose the healthy embryo over the embryo of their decision. It is unjust to appeal towards the rights of self-determination and parental rights if they are not applicable to all parents and if the distinction is made based on arbitrary definitions of valuable physical characteristics. 1 Dominic Lawson, Of course a deaf couple wants a deaf child, 03/11/2008, , accessed 05/23/2011 |
training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-pro02a | Parents have a right to acquire and act upon medical information This argument comes from the idea, that a body is the property of its owner, as well as a fertilized egg is the property of the couple that created it whom also have parental rights a) Self-determination Some proponents of genetic screening might go as far to create the distinction between an embryo and a child: considering an embryo not to be a living being, but rather just a mass of cells, makes it possible to avoid entirely considering the "screening" process as a selection process between living human beings. Rather, it could be interpreted merely as a selection between different organizations of cells that have differing potential to become healthy "life". b) Parental rights Currently we allow couples to choose not to have children due to their own genetic deformations. We allow them to tie their tubes, get sterilized due to their own decision not to have children with genetic defects or children at all. Experts suggest, that due to the sanctity of parental rights, the principle decision making should be in the hands of the parents, also regarding the power over the future of their DNA. With this, the society respects the principal decision making right of the individual to control their family and the destiny of their offspring (1). Mainly making it a next step in deciding what their course of action regarding children will be. 1 Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998, , accessed 05/23/2011 |
training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-pro01b | The genetic test does not prevent or cure anything. It merely asserts whether someone is a carrier of a genetic disorder. The testing would be paid for by couples to see if they are both carriers of this disorder. The decision then a couple can make based on the screenings is then to: a) not have children together The idea of these tests preventing people from marrying is mental. In our liberal society surely it is love that counts in a relationship, not how well your genes fit together to make the perfect child. b) choose in vitro fertilization In order to make them prevent the disease, so that the defected genes (in some cases) can be manipulated. c) abort the present fetus We pressurize and take away choices of the parents, by giving them the knowledge, regarding their children. A professor of Law at Harvard University, Paul Freund also takes up the position that an unborn child has the right to random genes. Freund states, 'The mystery of individual’s personality, resting on the chance combination of ancestral traits, is the basis of our sense of mutual compassion and at the same time, of accountability." Professor Freund suggests that the ethical approach to advances in genetic technology allows the random assortment of genes to take effect, thereby protecting the sanctity of the human individual (1). Further on with the advances in medicine genetic conditions and disorders no longer present such a burden on the children and enable them to live a good lifestyle and have high survival rates. 1. Renee C. Esfandiary, The Changing World of Genetics and Abortion: Why the Women's Movement Should Advocate for Limitations on the Right to Choose in the Area of Genetic Technology William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, published 1998, , accessed 05/23/2011 |
training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-pro03a | Liberal societies have a duty to minimise avoidable suffering that might affect their members Some of the genetic diseases tested include great suffering for the individual, one of them is the Tay Sachs syndrome. Where nerve cells become fatty from reoccurring infections.(1) This is a disease, where even with the best of care; a child dies at the age of 4. Another is also Down Syndrome, where half of the sufferers have heart defects, increased risks of types of leukemia and high risks of dementia. Physical and mental limitations are also a feature of such a defect which causes many children to die early. (2). So it is the duty of any society to prevent such sufferings for both child and parents at any cost or method. A similar view is shared among the Jewish community, who has problems with a high prevalence of Tay Sachs syndrome. They believe that due to the psychological and physical repercussions of the birth of a child with the genetic disorder it is better to screen and choose a healthy embryo (or abort the present pregnancy). (3) So because such diseases cause great distress for the involved parties and we could prevent it, it is morally right for society to engage in genetic screening. 1. National institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, , accessed 05/24/2011 2.Medline Plus 10/18/2010, , accessed 05/24/2011 3. Daniel Eisenberg, A Jewish perspective on issues related to screening Tay-Sachs disease, , accessed 05/24/2011 |
training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con01b | Genetic screening allows for parents to give their children the possibility of living a life without a debilitating genetic condition. Surely those who live with these conditions would not want to have other endure their pain, when there is an option not to. By having these genes that cause such pain, and short life expectancy eventually removed from the gene pool we are also increasing the strength of the human race. Genetic screening is only to be used to prevent and let families know about genetic defects. It is not discrimination to want humans to not bear genetic defects that debilitate their life, or end it premature through pain and suffering. |
training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con02a | A screening culture may lead to the value of human life becoming distorted Genetic engineering treats embryos like commodities: “if the product isn’t sufficiently equipped, doesn’t produce the desired results – we will not launch it”. Even if we weren't considering embryos to be "human life", it is inappropriate to treat them as commodities with an "option to purchase". This cheapens at least the potential life-forms these embryos can become. Views of doctors and also future parents regarding the value of their unborn children’s lives are changing. In a survey taken in New England (USA), there was a substantial majority in favor of genetic screening for a wide range of disorders. About 11 per cent of the couples have also admitted to wanting to abort a child that was genetically predisposed to obesity. A condition with which it is possible to live a good lifestyle (1). With allowing more and more genetic screening and abortions / manipulations based on genes we are making life more of a commodity. 1.Jim Leffel, Genetic Technology, Engeneering Life: Human Rights in a Postmodern Age, , accessed 05/23/2011 |
training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con01a | Genetic screening may lead the marginalisation of those living with genetic disorders Seen from a philosophical point is that if a child is not brought into the world, it has not benefited of the community and in that sense you can never harm a person by bring it into existence, unless the person's life is so dreadful that nonexistence is preferable. That life with a disability or chronic illness is predictably worse than non-existence is not plausible for most of the defects for which we test, even Down syndrome, which is the most tested for and common reason for abortion, Where in fact a happy disposition is actually a characteristic trait. Hence, bringing a child into existence cannot count as harming it. (1) 1. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, , accessed 05/24/2011 |
training-philosophy-olrfhwapgs-con04b | Side proposition are not suggesting that natural selection would not still occur, but that seriously debilitating genetic diseases would no longer lead to the death of many infants, or the poor quality of life. In 1973, we did not have the technology to prevent malaria which we have now. With the technology we have today we can manage and treat many more illnesses than previously thought possible. |
training-philosophy-epwhbtcbstjw-pro02b | Reality is a lot murkier than theory. How are we to determine a state’s intent? Sometimes good intentions are bound up with bad; public justifications for war may not always represent the real reasons. And who is determine if a peace is just or a wrong has been committed? The nation initiating the war will use its own values to justify its intentions, and these values may be at odds with those of the other party to the conflict. Furthermore, it is altogether possible to fight a war for selfish motives and nevertheless protect civilians and reduce suffering in so doing. |
training-philosophy-epwhbtcbstjw-pro03b | Many nations wage war without official declaration (e.g. the USA’s involvement in Vietnam) and act unilaterally instead. Such unilateralism does not necessarily lead to an inevitable circumvention of the Geneva Conventions, it merely avoids the bureaucracy necessary to draw authoritative approval. Moreover, who is to decide which entities can and cannot issue calls to arms? Legitimate authorities have sanctioned some of the most horrific wars in history. |
training-philosophy-epwhbtcbstjw-pro05a | Proportionality The goal of the war should be proportional to the offense, and the benefits proportional to the costs. For example, when an attacker violates a nation’s border, a proportionate response might extend to restoring the border, not sacking the attackers’ capital. A war must prevent more suffering than it causes. The Coalition that formed under the aegis of the United Nations to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait fought a proportional conflict to the extent that they did not march on Baghdad after they had pushed the Iraqi Army out of the occupied territory. |
training-philosophy-epwhbtcbstjw-pro01b | Just cause is an elastic concept. Who determines what is “aggression”? Could violating a disputed border region (e.g. Ethopia-Eritrea, Pakistan-India) or imposing economic sanctions (e.g on North Korea) be aggression? And if a state is unable to defend itself, can another state intervene militarily on its behalf? These borderline cases make invoking this criterion very problematic. |
training-philosophy-epwhbtcbstjw-pro05b | We have seen that a proportional response frequently doesn’t work. Suicide bombers continue to blow up victims in the Middle East despite the response. Why should a nation tolerate continued aggression for the sake of proportionality? And if a nation knows it is likely to be attacked, why should it wait to disarm the aggressor? Is not pre-emptive action justified to prevent the loss of innocent life? Finally, what of deterrence: a vigorous response to an aggressive act may not be strictly proportionate, but by making all potential aggressors think twice about future actions, it can be justified as saving more suffering in the long run. |
training-philosophy-epwhbtcbstjw-pro03a | Legitimate Authority The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority. This prevents inappropriate, terrorist-style chaos, and ensures that other rules of war will be observed. For example, when states declare war, they generally follow specific legislative procedures; a guaranteed respect for such procedures is likely to ensure that the nation will respect international humanitarian law, formally codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and updated in the Additional Protocols of 1977. |
training-philosophy-epwhbtcbstjw-pro04a | Last Resort War must be a last resort. The state is justified in using armed force only after it has tried all non-violent alternatives. Sometimes peaceful measures – diplomacy, economic sanctions, international pressure, or condemnation from other nations – simply do not work, but they must at least be tried in order to give every chance for a peaceful resolution to a crisis. |
training-philosophy-epwhbtcbstjw-con03b | The traditional just war framework may be difficult to apply to the contemporary war on terror, but whilst war remains, we must possess the just war framework as a strategic tool to both prevent and regulate its occurrence. Whilst they may involve the alteration of certain criteria, as has happened throughout its history, it does not suggest it has lost all use. The Bush administration’s attempts to circumvent the jus in bello principles of non-combatant immunity were stalled, albeit belatedly, by widespread public disapproval, proving the basis for just war thinking is not in vain idealism but moral intuition. Therefore the just war doctrine is not only necessary but to an extent, innate. |
training-philosophy-epwhbtcbstjw-con01b | War is a necessary element in international affairs when there is no scope for diplomacy and conditions dictate that force is necessary to prevent or stop suffering. Few would argue that the United States was acting unjustly in entering the 2nd World War, or that more generally the defeat of the Nazis was an unjust act on the behalf of the Allies. Furthermore, just war theory has little to say on the overall existence of war, but merely seeks to regulate war as a permanent feature of international society. War, as an institution and a human activity, has existed for as long as there have been political communities. The resort to force is therefore not one made due merely to a belief in its legitimacy but a belief in its utility. Just war theory acts therefore as a series of moral criteria to regulate the resort to warfare in order to prevent, rather than exacerbate, war for war’s sake. It recognizes the ‘war is hell’ mentality and is, if anything, born from it, encouraging a resort to force only in cases where diplomacy is unable to function and war is strictly necessary. Even then, jus in bello principles apply to regulate the conflict itself, ensuring that a just war does not descend into the use of illegitimate means and methods of warfare. It does not purport to comment on the matter of the existence of warfare, merely recognises its occurrence and seeks to regulate both its regularity and bloodshed. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-pro02b | Some forms of elite manipulation will be much worse under direct democracy. Media barons, for example, influence politics primarily by influencing public opinion. Whereas elected politicians can sometimes resist public opinion, this is not possible if the public make political decisions directly. Under direct democracy, owners of newspapers and other media outlets would be much more powerful because their power over the public mind could be translated directly into political decisions. This influence would even be outsized when individuals opinions are sought, as in the wiki constitution model, as people’s opinions are shaped by the media many will simply follow the lead set by the members of the elite who are setting the agenda through their media networks. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-pro02a | Representative Democracy Enables Rule by Elites Representative democracy is less legitimate because it empowers unelected elites. Representative democracy is systematically biased against ordinary people, particularly poor people. Unelected elites like wealthy businessmen, trade union leaders, civil servants, party officials and media proprietors are able to bypass the democratic process and exert direct pressure on elected politicians. This happens because decisions are made behind closed doors by individual politicians who can be easily bullied or bought out. This allows elites to effectively wield public power even when they are not elected themselves. If decisions were made more directly by the people there would be less scope for elites to manipulate the process by simply appealing to a politician’s self-interest. Elite influence is a systematic problem because it is self-reinforcing: elites lobby for laws to preserve their own power and disempower the public. A good example of this is Rupert Murdoch’s behind-the-scenes lobbying for the repeal of regulations preventing him from dominating the media market. [1] Considering that at any past time in the human history the conditions of equality in labour division, education and technological tools were not as favourable as nowadays in terms of allowing citizen political involvement, a more participatory political decision-making must be now taken into account. [2] A clear example is the Iceland's "wiki constitution" (2011). [3] Then, although the classic criticism against direct democracy formulas based on the premise that size creates problrms –referring to the difficulties to shape participatory citizen deliberation in our enormous current nation-states– may still be true, cultural, social and technological conditions for participation have become much more favourable. [1] Toynbee, P. (8 July 2011). “The game has changed. The emperor has lost his clothes”, The Guardian. [2] Resnick, P. (1997). Twenty-first Century Democracy. Montreal & Kingston; London; Buffalo: McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 84 [3] Siddique, H. (9 June 2011). “Mob rule: Iceland crowdsources its next constitution”, The Guardian. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-pro03b | The problem of domination by elites and assertive minorities will be exacerbated because they are the only people who will be able or willing to make the time to play politics. Participatory democracy demands much more involvement than representative democracy – indeed that’s the whole point. Every single issue is the subject of its own debate, campaign and even referendum, and most voters will lose track. It’s a simple question of motivation: people with extreme views will tend to be strongly driven to impose their beliefs, whilst people whose special interests are at stake will be prepared to go out and fight for them. Ordinary working people or people without strong political views will not have the time or the inclination to put in the high level of involvement participatory democracy requires. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-pro05a | Participatory Democracy Produces Better Decisions Participatory democracy will lead to better decisions because laws will only be passed if they can be justified to the people. Professional politicians are disproportionately drawn from the privileged classes and are often ignorant of the effects their policies will have on ordinary people – as are the civil servants who advise them. Moreover, professional politicians are susceptible to corruption, lobbying or bullying by powerful vested interests seeking to direct government policy away from the general interest represented by the vast majority of the individual citizens, who generally lack such a determinant influence over the decision-making. Participatory democracy will therefore make sure that the legislation that is passed will help the people as much as possible; for example they will limit unecessary bureaucracy and make sure that policies are fair. Thus for example Switzerland has passed with 68% of the vote in a referendum a proposal that prevents big payouts for managers known as ‘golden handshakes’ and ‘golden parachutes’ and shareholders will have a veto over saleries. [1] [1] Willsher, K., and Inman, P. (3 March 2013) “Voters in Swiss referendum backs curbs on executives’ pay and bonuses” The Guardian. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-pro01a | Participatory Democracy Preserves our Natural Liberty Representative democracy is oppressive because it takes more power away from the people than is strictly necessary. Whilst a completely direct democracy is impractical, we should nevertheless recognise that there is no reason not to have as much direct democracy as possible. In the words of Herbert Marcuse, “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves”. [1] The key point is that merely holding an election every four years does not fundamentally alter our state of subservience: at election time, we are given a choice of three or four manifesto programmes on an all-or-nothing basis, manifestos which may never be honoured. The only power over our government we as citizens have is the power to punish politicians retrospectively, by voting them out after years of obeying them. It is quite possible to create an authoritarian system that has regular representative elections, even with several competitive candidates and yet still not be giving power to the people, as is shown by Iran. [2] This is wrong. The presumption should always be that the people keep as much power over their own lives and hand as little to their masters as possible because they never get to consent to the powers that rule them. Given that we are born under governments which exist whether we like it or not, it as an offense to our natural liberty and equality that those governments should hold any more power over us than is absolutely necessary. Besides, when the interests of the state are not the interests of the people, we have the government of the few over the rest. [3] [1] Marcuse, H. (1991). One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press [2] Gedmin, J. (1 March 2013) “Not All Elections Are Worthy of the Name” Foreign Policy. [3] Pocock, J.G.A. (1975). The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-pro05b | Professional politicians know that they will be held accountable if they pass policies that are ineffective or damaging. This gives them a big incentive to carefully research all the options before making an important decision, and they have the time and the resources to do so (making decisions is their only job). Ordinary citizens do not have a big incentive to get a policy right unless they can directly see how it affects them, and even if they had the inclination to make an informed decision, they will lack the time and resources. Participatory democracy is therefore much more likely to lead to a muddle of contradictory legislation as different groups focus on different legislation without an overarching vision that advances the nation’s interests. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-pro04b | This point only stands if participatory democracy actually involves more participation. In reality, when taking the example of referendums, for most voters all that changes under a participatory system is that they get to vote more regularly – which given how turned off voting many people are this may simply lead to them ignoring all the new votes. In any referéndum all the electors have to do is decide to vote yes or no. There’s hardly any intellectual stimulation at all. This binary choice is much more basic than choosing which political party to vote for, and encourages even sloppier thinking – just look at the misleading claims the “No to AV” campaign spread in the 2011 UK referendum on electoral reform. [1] Then, participatory democracy is not the be all and end all, we should not ask only for more participation but we must move towards a more deliberative democracy, where the public debate and consequent consensus is an important issue to pass new political decisions. [2] [1] Newman, C. (25 February 2011) “FactCheck: the AV campaign gets dirty” 4 news. [2] Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-pro03a | Participatory forms of Democracy Can Restore Trust in Politics Representative systems struggle to sustain popular trust, which is bad for democracy. Public trust in politics always tends to be dented by three specific features of representative systems. Firstly, the perception of elite influence over the political process is a largely unavoidable feature of electoral democracy because such elites are easily placed to manipulate politics, even if they do not actually do so. Secondly, the spotlight in representative democracy is on individual politicians (rather than on policies) and consequently exposing scandals and smearing the characters of politicians is an essential part of the political game: media coverage of politicians is largely hostile (particularly problematic if it diverts discussion from the merits and demerits of particular policies). A third feature of the system is that, since public opinion has no direct power, unpopular decisions don’t have to be properly justified. Governments often defy public opinion when they think a policy will pay off in the long run, and often they don’t really bother explaining why they are doing so (a good example of this is Gordon Brown’s signing of the Lisbon treaty in 2007). These three factors all tend to undermine trust in politics in representative systems. Trust is essential for democracy because without it people will not bother following politics or voting, leaving the door open for elites and aggressive minorities to wield undue influence. A clear example of this phenomenon is in the United States, where Christian fundamentalists – despite being a minority – wield enormous power. The reason for this is that turnout in American elections is very low, whilst fundamentalist Christians are politically very active and organised, allowing them huge influence. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-pro04a | Participation Is Good In Itself Giving people more responsibility for making political decisions is itself a good thing. Participating in political decision-making allows citizens to achieve a higher state of intellectual and moral maturity, letting them lead better and wiser lives. Since the difficult business of government forces them to learn how to make tough choices and compromise they will quickly abandon their simplistic prejudices and assumptions. Representative democracy is the opposite: it treats the public as if they are incapable of making important choices themselves, and thus denies most citizens a chance to meaningfully participate. Representative democracy often implies a mercantile vision of the political performance, where the politicians play the role of the sellers and the voters act as a simple buyers of political options. [1] This means that the vast majority of voters remain ignorant at best, and apathetic at worst. This leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by deceitful politicians and political commentators. Furthermore, since many government decisions involve major moral dilemmas, citizens who participate in such decision-making will develop a more nuanced moral understanding and more thoughtful personal conduct. Thus, all democratic participation is beneficial. Participatory forms of democracy allows people to participate more than they otherwise would. Evidence for the impact of democratic participation is that radical and intolerant views are frequently expressed in young democracies but fade away as participation in democratic politics implants in the people respect for due process and different points of view. A good example of this is that intolerant far-right parties are much more successful in the young democracies of Eastern Europe than the old democracies of Western Europe. [2] [1] Macpherson, C.B. (1977). The Life and BTimes of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press). [2] The Economist (12 November 2009) “Right on down”, |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-con03b | The more experience of participatory democracy the people have, the better they will get at it. In particular, common wisdom will learn from past mistakes. Whilst the Californian example cited is true, it is also true that in 2000, just six years after the “Three Strikes” law was introduced, the 1978 tax amendment was partially repealed in response to money shortages. [1] [1] State of California (7 November 2000) “Proposition 39 School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes Accountability Requirements.” Smart Voter. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-con01b | Under participatory democracy people can participate as much or as little as they like. They are not obliged to vote in every referendum or attend every public meeting, but they have the right to. If they only care about a few political issues, they can just vote on those and ignore everything else. That way they get to have their say on just the issues they care about without becoming part-time citizen-politicians. Moreover, that would be more effective than simply voting for a politician once every five years because it would allow them to specifically vote on the issues they cared about rather than having to support an all-or-nothing manifesto that they will probably only partially agree with. |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-con04a | Representative Democracy Prevents Domination by Special Interests Governments often have to pass decisions which anger small, well-organised special interest groups – like teachers unions – but are in the long-term interest of the country. Under representative democracy, the government can simply make the decisions it has to, and resist the political pressure these groups put on them. But under more direct forms of participatory democracy, the special interest groups can organise their members to campaign and vote against proposals which are good for the country but against their private interests. The reason why they are likely to be successful is that most voters won’t have the technical knowledge to recognise the importance of the proposal (curbing unaffordable public sector pensions, for example), they may be uninterested if they do not see how it directly affects them, and will probably be exhausted and bored of referendums if they are held very regularly – an effect observed in Switzerland called “election fatigue”. [1] As a result, turnout amongst regular voters is likely to be low, but the unions or interest groups will be well organised and will be active in campaigning and voting, since they know that they are fighting for their interests. The effect of this will be to enable organised interest groups to dictate policy on issues where they have a major conflict of interest. An example of this is a Californian initiative in 1990 to raise billions of dollars on the bond markets to invest in railways. The initiative was passed after a campaign funded by railway companies. [2] [1] Buhlmann, M. et al. (2006) “National Elections in Switzerland: an Introduction” Swiss Political Science Review, 12(4) 1-12 [2] The Economist (17 December 2009) “The tyranny of the majority” |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-con01a | Representative Democracy Lets People Get On with their Lives People should be free to get on with their private lives, but they can’t do that if they’re expected to also be their own government. The reason why we delegate powers to politicians is that we want to have a say in government and still be free to get on with our lives. The business of government is tremendously complex and most people just don’t care about having total control over the details of policy – they just want the power to kick out governments that are no good. Think about it: how many people actually have time, on top of all the other things they have to do, to attend weekly meetings and committees, research technical policy details to decide which policy they will support and then go out and vote on a dozen issues every week? You’ll notice that all the ancient direct democracies – like ancient Athens – were societies in which there were more slaves than citizens. It is only because the slaves did all the work that the citizens were free to spend their time playing politics. The key point is, under the status quo, people who deeply care about politics can get involved in politics – they can join a party, write to politicians, canvass for issues etc – and the people who don’t care about politics that much but still have an opinion are free to vote and then get on with their lives. But under a more direct democracy people have to choose between devoting half of their lives to politics or losing all possible influence over the curse of the decision-making. It’s not right that ordinary citizens should be forced to choose between having any say in politics and having a private life. This makes the difference between the "liberty of the ancients" and the "liberty of the moderns". [1] [1] Constant, B. (1816). The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns. See online at: |
training-philosophy-pphsipd-con04b | This point assumes that there will be no organisations capable of campaigning against special interests, and this is plainly false. Political parties, taxpayer’s organisations and even rival special interest groups already run counter campaigns against perceived special interest lobbying. Furthermore, special interest groups are naturally disadvantaged in the battle for public opinion because it is very easy to paint them as selfish or greedy. A good example of this is the hostility with which the public usually greets strikes and industrial action. [1] In addition, governments in liberal democracies might pay special attention to particular issues precisely because of the existence of powerful lobbies. In such case, they would be under-representing other groups or individual citizens becoming, then, the cause of the domination of the public decision-making by special interests. [1] Smithson M. (21 June 2011) “ComRes finds little support for public sector strikes”, PoliticalBetting.com. |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-pro02b | A medical procedure is not a product that should be excluded from those who cannot afford it. Either it is beneficial enough to be subsidized by the state and therefore available to all, or it is the start of a slippery slope towards designer babies and therefore should not be available to anyone. Furthermore, the investment and expertise required to develop such technology are resources that should be utilized for causes that are far more important, under-funded and under-developed than gender selection. To allow the private sector to provide such a gender selection service would not only encourage further investment in a unnecessary technology but tempt medical professionals away from their government-funded research with the promise of more money. |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-pro03b | Freedom of choice is an important principle generally, but it should not be granted at the expense of unconditional love for one’s children. The pre-selection of gender ‘is a threat to the core value of parenthood that is usually expressed by the commitment to unconditional love’, according to a Georgetown professor 1. Children should not be loved because of who they are, not because they are exactly what we wanted of them. As Harvard professor Michael Sandel notes, ‘consider the father who wants a boy in hope of having as a son the athlete he had never been. Suppose the son isn’t interested in sports…what sorts of expectations will burden a child who has designed with certain purposes in mind?’ 1. For that reason, parents should not be permitted freedom of choice in this regard, but encouraged to love their child equally, regardless of gender. 1. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post: |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-pro01a | Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the "one-child" policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for example the paying of dowries may change, and women will achieve higher status. |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-pro01b | This argument veils the likely result of the policy: reinforcement of already unhealthy cultural practices. Selective abortion has meant that gender imbalance in China and India is already very, very high – 914 girls for every 1,000 boys in India – demonstrating the likely result of such policies in some countries 1. ‘Parents choose to abort female foetuses not because they do not want or love their daughters, but because they feel they must have sons’ (usually for social reasons) 1. Even in western countries some minority groups' gender preferences may result in serious imbalances in some communities. These imbalances are socially harmful because in time many young men will be unable to find a partner; in China this is already linked to a rise in sexual violence, kidnapping and forced marriage, and prostitution. 1. The Economist. (2011, April 7). Add sugar and spice. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Economist: |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-pro03a | Parents should have freedom of choice People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2. 1. U.N. General Assembly. (1948, December 10). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from United Nations: > 2. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post: |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-pro04a | Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3. 1. Macnair, D. T. (2010, August). Fragile X Syndrome. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC Health: 2. Doe, J. (2000, December 18). Immune System Disorders. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Time: 3. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute: |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-con01b | It is for the individuals to decide whether this treatment is worth the expense. The anecdotal evidence from parents who have gone through the process suggests that pre-selecting the sex of their children was not a ‘frivolous purpose’. Asked whether her three boys had not been enough, Sharla Allen replied ‘They are. They’re totally everything I could ever want…but why not have two daughters that will be just as wonderful as they are?’ 1. No-one is harmed in this process, the parents know the risks beforehand and it should be their prerogative to have the treatment. 1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health: |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-con02a | Children should not be designed to specifications Children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the ‘owner’. ‘It runs the risk of turning procreation and parenting into an extension of the consumer society’ argues Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel 1. If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. That is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of ‘perfection’ – damning those that don’t look a certain way. Furthermore, since of course there’s no justification for allowing such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever-larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a "gay gene" is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal would condone? We really should be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what you are given – otherwise, people be more and more likely to reject their own child when they don’t get exactly what they want… 1. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post: |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-con03a | The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender. 1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News: |
training-philosophy-lsgsgfhbpsb-con01a | Pre-selection of gender uses expensive medical care for frivolous purposes The treatment required for the pre-selection of gender was initially designed for the prevention of disease. Many of the patients now using the revolutionary new treatment are perfectly capable of conceiving healthy children naturally. Dr. Mark Hughes, a director the Genesis Genetics institute, says that 70% of patients wouldn't have needed IVF in the first place, meaning 'healthy, fertile couples are choosing this higher risk, expensive, sometimes painful process when they could conceive otherwise' 1. 1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health: |
training-philosophy-epwhbuabaha-con03a | The bombing was immoral and illegal The use of the Atomic bomb raised immediate moral questions as to its use. Albert Einstein argued “The American decision [to use the bomb] may have been a fatal error, for men accustom themselves to thinking a weapon which has been used once can be used again... [on the other hand] Our renunciation of this weapon as too terrible to use would have carried great weight” [1] So far Einstein has been proved wrong and the precedent thus set has not been followed. That the bombs are ‘to terrible to use’ does seem to have sunk in. The use of the bombs was also illegal as it would have breached the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, signed by the US. Of Hague IV The Laws and Customs of War on Land it probably breached articles 23, forbidding the use of weapons that cause ‘unnecessary suffering’, and article 25 forbidding the attack of undefended towns. It would certainly by its indiscriminate nature have breached article 27 “In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” [2] as well as the attendant declaration forbidding attack from aircraft! Clearly such sections forbidding attack from aircraft, or balloons in the 1899 version make the Hague convention seem antiquated but the laws of war in general remain even now as they were codified in 1907. [3] The International Court of Justice has referred back to these precedents “In the view of the vast majority of states as well as the writers there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons. The Court shares that view.” [4] That humanitarian law included the Hague conventions. The court reconfirmed the view that “States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets” [5] It is noteworthy that dissensions from a position of banning the use of nuclear weapons entirely focus on the possible use with minimal civilian casualties. [6] Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did not attempt to minimize civilian casualties the implication is that their use was illegal based upon the Hague conventions that were already in force. [1] Albert Einstein, quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.25. [2] Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 [3] Malcom H. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, 1997), p.807. [4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 85-6. [5] ibid. para. 78. [6] ibid. para. 91. |
training-philosophy-ppphwrbtcw-pro02b | The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people. Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust. If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor. |
training-philosophy-ppphwrbtcw-pro01a | Removing Tax Cuts Would Reduce the Deficit Maintaining Bush tax cuts would cost the government $680 billion in revenue over the next ten years according to Paul Krugman. Given the downgrade in the U.S. credit rating by some credit agencies, it seems prudent to choose to roll back at least some of these cuts in order to please those agencies and convince them that the U.S. is taking serious action to tackle its debt. If this is the case, then they are likely to upgrade or maintain the U.S. credit rating. This is beneficial for the U.S. as it means that in the future it has smaller repayments to make on its current debt and can more readily take on debt in the future. Further, given that the rich spend a smaller percentage of their money than the poor on consumption, an increase in taxes for the rich will firstly not cause a significant downturn in consumption and secondly, if spent responsibly by the government, will lead to further growth in the future which might cause the government to be able to recoup the money that it spends through higher tax revenue from a growing economy in the future. [1] [1] Krugman, Paul “Now That’s Rich.” New York Times. 22/08/2010 |
training-philosophy-ppphwrbtcw-pro03a | Removing Tax Cuts for the Rich Promotes Equality. The removal of tax cuts for the rich will help create greater equality in the U.S. Firstly it can do this by direct means, taxing the rich to a greater extent than is currently done would mean, obviously that the rich have less money and are thus more equal to the poor in income. However, further to this, money gained from such tax cuts that is not being reserved for deficit reduction can be redistributed to the poor in order to allow them to progress further in society. Income inequality within the U.S. is significantly worse than in most other Western liberal democracies. It often leads to problems of the poor feeling disenfranchised within a society where they feel that the rich have all the influence. Poverty can lead to crime, motivated either by want and pure physical need, or by a distorted sense of entitlement fostered by consumer culture. A lack of parity in an economic system may be interpreted as justifying participation in crimes with an economic component, such as drug dealing, fraud or involvement with organised crime. [1] [1] Garofalo, Pat, “Stephen Moore Calls for raising taxes on the poor in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich.” Think Progress. 08/07/2010. |
training-philosophy-ppphwrbtcw-con03b | There are a number of social ties that the rich have to the U.S.A. with many of them having inherited wealth or having families in the U.S. Moving to another country is inconvenient as it leads to the removal of all of these social ties, further the actual cost of moving is often enough to prevent them from doing so. Further, many rich Americans have an attachment to America itself, either as a land where their parents prospered or as a land where they managed to earn their own wealth. As such, there are emotional ties to the country. Many have political influence in the U.S. which they would be unable to take advantage of should they leave the country. [1] Finally, it should be noted that states which routinely impose extremely low rates of personal income tax, or which refrain from taxing the bonuses paid to businesses’ senior managers obtain the majority of their state funding from natural resources revenues. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest and most active oil extractors and exporters in the world. It can make up for shortfalls in personal tax revenues by controlling the price and supply of the oil that it drills. [1] Confessore, Nicholas, “Taxes Not Seen as Making Rich Flee New York,” New York Times, 18/03/2009 |
training-philosophy-ppphwrbtcw-con03a | Expiring the Tax Cuts Would Cause Investor Movement Abroad As mentioned in the previous arguments, the expiration of Bush tax cuts would firstly cause investors and people in the upper brackets to resort to tax avoidance methods, such as placing money in foreign accounts and using legal lacunae to reduce their tax liability. However in a world where the upper management of most businesses can be handled from other countries, it is prudent for those facing higher taxes in the U.S. to move away to avoid them. Most countries in the U.A.E, for example, have incredibly low tax rates for the entire population. The reason that many American taxpayers in upper brackets have not moved away to take advantage of this is because the tax cuts and the Republican government have kept them satisfied enough that there is no reason to go through the inconvenience of moving. The removal of the tax cuts could easily provide this impetus owing to the fact that they might result in further higher taxes for the rich down the line. As such, tax increases of this nature could cause the rich to leave the country and cease paying tax altogether. [1] [1] Bruner, John, “Where America’s Money is Moving,” Forbes, 14/06/2010 |
training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro02a | Having children is emotionally draining for parents The level of emotional involvement in bringing the child up is immense. Parents pour all their souls into children, who, in turn, often leave them disenchanted and exhausted. Parents also have to share their child’s problems, fears and traumas, so that the amount of grief that parents take on themselves doubles (or even triples, depending on how troublesome the child is). Not only that, but those who have offspring also become more vulnerable. They worry about their kids from the moment they are born until the day they themselves die. Parents’ to-worry-about list is endless: from child’s nutrition to summer camps, from accidents to social acceptance, from choosing a school to moving out. Having raised children, parents become emotional wrecks. All parents agree that it is emotionally draining and stressful, in 1975, advice columnist Ann Landers asked her readers, “If you had it to do over again, would you have children?” seventy percent of respondents said “no.”* *Goldberg, 2003, |
training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro06a | Not having children promotes gender equality Social and economic inequalities between men and women stem primarily from the fact that women are the child bearers, and mothers overwhelmingly spend more time on childrearing tasks than do their male spouses. Not surprisingly then, many employers still discriminate against women when recruiting to work. They view females as those responsible for parenting and thus not reliable, devoted or loyal as employees. Even when there is little or no discrimination in recruitment women often hit a ‘glass ceiling’ due to breaking their careers in order to have children, in the UK a recent report by the Chartered Management Institute found it would take until 2109 to close the pay gap.* On a social level, not having children will mean more gender equality as there will be no ground for justifying an unequal labour division. *Goodley, 2011, |
training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro03b | Any money spent on children is well used. Is there a better way to invest money than to use them to support future generations? The more we spend on children’s health care, the more productive our society will be; the more we spend on their education, the wiser our society will be; the more we spend on their cultural awareness, the more conscious of art our society will be. There is no better use of money than spending them on our kids. |
training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro01b | Having children is one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences in life. When people become parents obviously they experience a major change in their lives. However, change doesn’t mean a change for worse. Raising children is not easy, but it brings about a feeling of fulfillment. For many people, having children is the main purpose in their lives. Kids enable parents to rediscover the world around them. Additionally, parents feel empowered as they can shape another human being to a previously inexperienced extent. Relationships with kids seem to be the deepest, most enduring ones. These are the very reasons why people become so upset when they cannot have children. The development of treatments such as in vitro fertilization proves how much we want to have babies. There is also substantial evidence supporting the claim that having children has a constructive rather than destructive influence on parents. Dr. Luis Angeles from the University of Glasgow in the UK has just published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, claiming that the research he has conducted suggests that having children improves married peoples' life satisfaction, making them happier.* A recent Newsweek Poll also found that children add to general levels of parents’ happiness. Fifty percent of surveyed Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase their happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness.** The evidence that having children has a devastating effect is mixed at best and in many cases outright wrong. *Bayaz, 2009, **Newsweek, 2008, |
training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro04b | There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right. |
training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-pro03a | Having children is extraordinarily expensive For majority of people children are the biggest expenditure they ever undertake. The United States Department of Agriculture reported in 2008 that the average annual expenses associated with raising a child can be as high as $22,960.* If we assume that a child will live with their parents until the age of 18 and add average cost of sending a child for 4 years to college, we arrive at the conclusion that bringing up a child in a developed country costs around $500,000. This money can be far better spent, for instance, on enhancing the standard of education or health care, subsidising economic initiative in developing countries, investing in green technologies, etc. *Boy Scouts of America, 2011, |
training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-con03b | There is no causal link between having children and being supported later in life. After children leave home they become fully independent individuals. They haven’t chosen to be born and so they shouldn’t be burdened by the parents. If kids do look after their parents it should be out of choice as it is not their duty to do so. It is government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, so that the elderly can spend their last years in fair conditions with the possibility to live in decent old people’s homes if necessary. |
training-philosophy-lsfhwnhc-con01b | People are free to choose whether or not to have children. Human beings are granted freedom of choice. The decision to have offspring is, like many others, only a matter of personal choice and there is no duty here that we can talk about. The only real responsibilities towards society that people have are those imposed on them by law. (Paying taxes or protecting a country being prime examples of these). Because society has not chosen to create a law forcing everybody to have children, we see that choosing not to bear offspring is accepted by society. |
training-philosophy-iilepphbf-pro03b | The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain is far from clear-cut. [1] [1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011. |
training-philosophy-iilepphbf-pro01b | Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'universal drive to survive'. |
training-philosophy-iilepphbf-pro03a | Universal benefits of human rights All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there. [1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852. [2] [1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997 [2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill & Macmillan 1995 |
training-philosophy-iilepphbf-con01b | Fundamental human rights were 'new' to all cultures once, but this does not mean that they have not always been an underlying fact. Arguments surrounding different cultural perceptions of rights and 'cultural relativism' are almost universally used by the powerful interests in certain cultures to justify their abuse of the human rights of those with less power in their cultures, for example leaders of authoritarian regimes who protect their own power at the expense of the freedom of their people and justify it on the basis of 'Asian values'. The recognition of fundamental human rights will always require change in a culture or locality that did not previously recognise them, but this does not mean that they are not universal on the basis of needs and desires that do exist in all cultures. |
training-philosophy-iilepphbf-con03a | Danger of dogma Having a fixed set of fundamental human rights makes it harder to adapt to changing circumstances. As we have already seen conceptions of human rights vary by culture and time, and should be properly seen as a product of those specific factors, not as universal fundamentals. What was seen as a 'fundamental right' in the 18th Century may not be appropriate for the 21st, and what is seen as a right in the 21st Century may be actively harmful to recognise as a right in the 24th. For example it could be argued that the right to keep and bear arms was more useful in the America of the 18th Century, when there was no police force and hunting for food was more important, than in the 21st Century, where it could be argued that gun ownership results in higher gun crime rates for America than for other industrialized nations. [1] Enshrining rights as 'fundamental' makes it much harder to remove or modify them as circumstances change and they become less useful. [1] Gumbel, Andrew “The Big Question: Can America ever be weaned off its love affair with guns?”,The Independent, Wednesday, 4 October 2006. |
training-philosophy-iilepphbf-con01a | Relative perceptions of human rights If fundamental human rights really existed, then they would be equally and identically recognised in all cultures, localities and times. This clearly is not and never has been the case. Firstly there are differing conceptions of what fundamental rights are originating from different cultures and traditions, which often contradict each other. For example the former Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia Lee Kuang Yew [1] and Mahathir bin Mohamad have both cited 'Asian values' which differ from Western conceptions of human rights by having a greater focus on community stability, order and loyalty at the expense of personal freedoms. [2] Even within similar historical traditions conceptions of 'fundamental' human rights differ. The 'right to keep and bear arms' is considered fundamental under the constitution of the USA [3] but is not found in either the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights [4] or the European Union's European Convention on Human Rights. [5] Therefore no fundamental human rights exist, as if they did they would be recognised in all cultures, but they are not. This furthermore makes their application across different cultures highly difficult, and such culturally-relative conceptions of human rights may be used as excuses by more powerful cultures to control less powerful ones in the name of protecting 'fundamental' rights. [1] McCarthy, Terry. “In Defence of Asian Values: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew”. TIME Magazine U.S., 16/03/1998. [2] bin Mohamad, Mahathir. “Agenda for a New Asia”. Address at Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Fall Gala Dinner 28/10/2000. [3] United States, Constitution of the United States, May 1787. [4] United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948. [5] Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1 June 2010. |
training-philosophy-iilepphbf-con02b | It is possible to establish a hierarchy of rights whereby only the most important are the 'fundamental' human rights. The fulfilment of the needs we all cannot live without, such as food, shelter and security of person, should be given the greatest priority, as they are all equally necessary for life, and need not be balanced against each other as they are all equally necessary. |
training-philosophy-oppelhsdp-pro02b | There are many reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty. For one thing, many criminals may actually find the prospect of the death penalty less daunting (and thus, less effective as a deterrent) than spending the rest of their lives suffering in jail. Death by execution is generally fairly quick, while a lifetime in prison can be seen as a much more intensive punishment. Moreover, even if criminals preferred life in prison to the death penalty, it's not clear that a harsher punishment would effectively deter murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat of the moment, with little consideration for their legal repercussions1. Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate and certain. This is not the case with the death penalty cases, which often involve prolonged appeals and sometimes end in acquittals2. Finally, the empirical evidence regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty is at best mixed. Many of the studies that purport to show the deterrence effect are flawed, because the impact of capital punishment cannot be disentangled from other factors such as broader social trends, economic factors and demographic changes in a region2. Other studies have even suggested a correlation between the death penalty and higher crime rates. States such as Texas and Oklahoma, which have very high execution rates, also have higher crime rates than most states that do not have the death penalty2. 1 Amnesty International. "Abolish the Death Penalty." Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. |
training-philosophy-oppelhsdp-pro01b | Many victims' families oppose the death penalty1. While some might take comfort in knowing the guilty party has been executed, others might prefer to know that the person is suffering in jail, or might not feel comfortable knowing that the state killed another human being on behalf of the victim. Furthermore, Stanford University psychiatrist David Spiegel believes 'witnessing executions not only fails to provide closure but often causes symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is not far removed from experience it'2. Even if it was the case that capital punishment helped the victims' families, sentencing is simply not about what the victims' families want. Punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed, and not the alleged preferences of victims' families. 1 Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation. Accessed June 9, 2011. 2 Rahka, Naseem. "Capital Punishment: Muhammad and the 'Closure' Myth." November 1, 2009. Accessed June 29, 2011. |
training-philosophy-oppelhsdp-pro04b | There is no fairness or consistency in an eye-for-an-eye attitude towards justice. Justice should remain above the petty retributive justice that marks street or community warfare, whereby the murder of one family member justifies a revenge attack against the murderers' family. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other areas of the law. As New York University Law Professor Anthony Amsterdam notes, 'we don't burn arsonists' houses'1. Capital punishment 'attempts to vindicate one murder by committing a second murder. And the second murder is more reprehensible because it is officially sanctioned and done with great ceremony in the name of us all'1. The Christian logic of an eye for an eye is undermined not merely by the Pope himself, who advocated 'clemency, or pardon, for those condemned to death', but scripture itself, which preaches mercy just as vigorously as it does retribution1. 1 Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011. |
training-philosophy-oppelhsdp-pro04a | The death penalty should apply as punishment for first-degree murder; an eye for an eye. The worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but there are none that are more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and fair manner, with the death penalty. As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and satisfying enough to feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible punishment'1.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that those violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value and importance placed upon the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail in this duty. 1 Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011. |
training-philosophy-oppelhsdp-con04b | The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent or unique to capital punishment. If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely to present themselves just as often in cases where the punishment is life in prison. It is equally problematic for people to die or spend decades in jails for crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest that the judicial process may need some reform, not that the death penalty should be abolished. Implementation errors that result in discrimination can and should be corrected. Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in most death penalty cases1. A study funded by the National Institute of Justice in the US found that differences in sentencing for white and non-white victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes were factored into the study1. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the race, of the accused accounted for some of the purported racial disparities that were found. Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such cases, meaning that they are comfortable sentencing someone to death should the fact indicate their guilt2. Thus, it is unlikely that many jurors will abstain from a guilty verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death penalty. 1 Muhlhausen, David. "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives," August 28,2007. Accessed June 5, 2011. 2 Haney, Craig. "Juries and the Death Penalty." Crime and Delinquency. Vol 26 no 4. October 1980. |
training-philosophy-oppelhsdp-con02b | Justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than other punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and proportionate punishments should be independent of financial considerations. Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it is today. Shortening the appeals process or changing the method of execution could reduce its costs1. 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. |
training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro02a | Women have a right to choose Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet. |
training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-pro04a | There can be medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus. Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child.1 1 PRO-Life Information |
training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con03b | Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they: a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation. |
training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con03a | Legalizing abortion defies the principle of life affirmation Every life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves. |
training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con01a | Most abortions are performed out of convenience Most abortions are performed entirely voluntarily by women that have the means to raise a child, but simply don't want to. While emergency abortions or abortions under trying circumstances such as rape are held out as reasons to continue to have abortions, they are infrequent and serve more to provide cover for voluntarily "life-style" abortions. This is wrong. For example: In 2004, only 7% of women in the US cited health risk as the reason for abortion. Most had social reasons, i.e. were not ready, did not want a baby, a baby would interfere with their career etc.1 1 L.B Finner et al |
training-philosophy-tgppelhbwrc-con04b | Are we really talking about a 'life?' At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own 'existence,' really commensurable with the killing of a 'person?' There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly 'human' life is. A foetus is not a life until it fulfils certain criteria. Before 24 weeks, a foetus does not feel pain, is not conscious of itself or its surroundings. Until a fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be called a life, any more than the acorn can be called a tree. |
training-philosophy-pppghwblro-pro02b | Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations. Without compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] . [i] "Libertarianism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
training-philosophy-pppghwblro-pro03b | The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else. It is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives. In those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them. The fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies. |
training-philosophy-pppghwblro-pro01b | It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies. The Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it. Benjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” [i] The point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that. [i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, |
training-philosophy-pppghwblro-pro03a | There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score One of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties. As a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether. Indeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become. |
training-philosophy-pppghwblro-con01b | Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm. The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution. Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on. [i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, pp.15-16 |
training-philosophy-pppghwblro-con02a | Libertarianism is really a coalition of the unwilling; the fringes of the left and right, happy to criticize but without a single policy on which they can agree The alliance supporting libertarianism is an interesting one, consisting mostly of right-wing pragmatists who don’t want to pay taxes and left wing idealist who think that everyone would be kind and helpful in a free society. What both groups simply ignore is that there are many issues, such as the redistribution of income or prohibition of drugs, where there is a settled will of society that supports the status quo. Even the very presence of, for example, wide-spread drug use would be an offence to very large numbers of people and unfairly impinge upon their lives which is why so few people actually vote for libertarian parties once they find out the realities. |
training-philosophy-pppghwblro-con03a | Libertarianism only works – even in theory – if you start off with a level pl It is entirely possible, if one were constructing a hypothetical society from scratch, that you wouldn’t end up with one looking like an actual society that has evolved over centuries or millennia. However in the real world there are interest groups and those who to a greater or lesser degree are advantaged or disadvantaged, everyone may have equal rights but we do not always naturally have an equal capability to defend our rights. The role of the state is to provide some degree of balance. Simply removing the mechanisms in place would accentuate those differences that existed within society at the time of their removal. |
training-philosophy-pppghwblro-con02b | It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended. The presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view. |
training-philosophy-pgppghba-pro03b | Democracies are not perfect but they are better than the other options. Whilst democracies are not perfect they are the best way we have of aggregating the interests of society. People might not always get what they want but this is inevitable where there are differences in opinion and one course of action must be taken. Heads of state may not be demographically representative at the moment but we are seeing an increase in the numbers of minority groups in positions of power in many countries. Removing the state to solve this problem is using a sledgehammer to crack a n |
training-philosophy-pgppghba-pro04b | States have done much good as well; World War Two was fought because states wanted to prevent Nazi conquest; states intervened in the Kosovo war to prevent ethnic cleansing; and the American Civil War was fought to stop slavery, it is clear that states use their military power for good as well as bad, in a stateless world there would be no actors who would be there to prevent people from taking advantage of their fellow man. While states can do bad things the solution is not to dismantle states, we need a better international court system to help prevent atrocities and hold those responsible accountable for their actions. |
training-philosophy-pgppghba-pro03a | States are never truly representative of the people. Even if we ignore all of the totalitarian regimes in the world, democracies do not truly represent the people. Politicians all too often promise progressive changes and then fail to deliver, for example Obama’s failure to close Guantanamo Bay [1] and Nick Clegg breaking his promises over tuition fees [2] The interests of politicians in democracies are far too often tied to the interests of the rich and powerful; people like Rupert Murdoch have unprecedented access to politicians which is quite simply not available to the average person [3] Demographically heads of state are very rarely representative, The USA has never had a female or Hispanic president, the UK has never had a non white Prime Minister and 66% of UK ministers have been privately educated [4] . These people can never truly have the people’s interests at heart. [1] [2] [3] |
training-philosophy-pgppghba-pro04a | The state has far too often been an instrument for facilitating wars and other acts of violence. The state has, throughout history, been responsible for an immeasurable amount of violence and destruction. From ancient times where states were the primary instrument of enforcing laws so that people could keep slaves, to the actions of imperial nations like Britain, to the holocaust to all of the pointless wars fought throughout history, states have a long record of slaughtering and ruining the lives of countless numbers of their own and other states people. William Eckhardt estimates battle deaths since 3000 BC at 151million while Beer came out with a much higher figure of 1.1 billion battle deaths (NB both use dodgy calculations and of course in either case the total military deaths let alone civilian would be much higher).1 These actions are always taken because they are in the interest of the ruling class, but the ruling classes are never the ones directly involved in these conflicts, they instead use the state as an instrument to coerce other people to fight their battles for them. In a stateless society the people might need to fight against oppression but they would never be forced to fight for causes that have nothing to do with them. [1] |
training-philosophy-eppprfmhb-pro02b | Ignoring the law some of the time undermines the state. The opposition believe that this legislation goes much further than showing solidarity between the government and religion, and is actually the government showing submission to religion. This legislation sets religion as a higher authority than the government and, as such, undermines the government’s power as the ultimate authority. The likely effect is that religious groups will begin to see themselves as above the law and will begin to disregard to government to an ever greater extent. |
training-philosophy-eppprfmhb-pro02a | Relationship between state and religious population People who are caused distress and have their religious freedom limited by their government are likely to feel disillusioned with and sidelined by their government. They will wonder why other religious groups can follow all the teachings of their faith while the government limits theirs. This kind of limitation of how to worship or what traditions and beliefs to follow can be part of the cause that leads to members of that religion feeling not welcome and discriminated against, ultimately leading to extremism. Allowing religious beliefs to override government laws would relieve these feelings and dramatically improve religious people’s relationship with the state. This improvement in relationship would severely reduce the likelihood of anti-government feelings and general civil unrest. |
training-philosophy-eppprfmhb-pro01a | People have a right to freedom of religion. Freedom to religion is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion is very similar to freedom of expression and is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away by the state. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of… religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” [1] In addition to this, many people consider religion to be the single most important thing in their life. Under the status quo, many people are inhibited in their ability to practise their religion to its fullest degree. This not only causes them great distress due to how important this is to them but is a breach of their human rights. The government has an obligation to provide people with a basic standard of life and thus must pass this legislation. [1] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations Article 18 |
training-philosophy-eppprfmhb-pro01b | Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society. The government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people. |