Blocks: A2 Fear of Death Kritik

(1). First, consequentialism is best. Even moral absolutists concede that catastrophic impacts come first

Haber 2002Joram Graf Haber, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Bergen Community College, ” Absolutism and Its Consequentialist Critics,” p. 6.

Furthermore, not only are Anscombe, Donagan, and Geach absolut ists (in the weak sense of the term), but so are Charles Fried and Bernard Williams. After defending what he calls absolutism (Selection VI), Fried observes:

We can imagine extreme cases where killing an innocent person may save a whole nation. In such cases it seems fanatical to maintain the absolute ness of the judgment, to do right even if the heavens will in fact fall. And so the catastrophic may cause the absoluteness of right and wrong to yield " And again:The concept of the catastrophic is a distinct concept just because it identifies the extreme situations in which the usual categories of judg ments (including the category of right and wrong) no longer apply.14

In passages like these. Fried shows himself an advocate of "weak absolutism" by saying that catastrophic cases produce conceptual anarchy. As Fried says later on,I do not know . . . whether I would be willing to kill an innocent person to save the whole of humanity from excruciating suffering and death. There are boundaries to each of these concepts themselves, and the concepts themselves often become blurred, indeterminate, subject to judgments of prudence at those boundaries."Thus, Fried is committed to the view that "In no situation could it be right to <|)" except when a catastrophe occurs, but that doesn't count since in that situation the concepts of right and wrong no longer apply . Bernard Williams suggests though does not exactly endorse a similar view when he intimates that in extreme situations (when the conse-quences of not coping would be disastrous), "it cannot matter any more what happens."16

(3). The negative team takes the authors of their evidence out of context. Judge, this is ridiculous-the authors of the critique definitely wanted to prove that fearing death was bad, but they never directly object to taking simple policy measures to save the lives of innocent people and prevent catastrophic impacts.

(4). Perm: do both. Pass the affirmative plan and rethink our fear of death. Do everything except reject the affirmative. The problem solving nature of realism can incorporate the criticism.Alastair Murray, 1997 Reconstructing Realism, p. 17 Chapter 6 addresses the contribution that realism might make to contemporary post-international theory. The defining characteristic of this body of theory is its qçosition to the rationalist orthodoxy.74 In that realism is usually presented as an archetype of such rationalism, it is condemned as a fundamentally conservative krce in international theory.

By examining the criticisms made from the perspective of constructivism by Wendt, from critical theory by Linklater, from post-modernism -v Ashley, and from feminism by Tickner, the chapter attempts to demonstrate three things. First, that the account of realism as part of the conservative rationalist orthodoxy is fundamentally mistaken. Second, that the reflectivist criticism of this rationalist orthodoxy is itself problematic, suggesting that a synthesis of the two is necessary. Third, that because realism incorporates both a distinctly problem-solving approach to contemporary international issues and a much more critical reflection on their sources and potentialities, it contains the potential to build a bridge between the two perspectives which might offer us a more constructive foundation from which to approach international politics.

(5). The perm solves best. The critique will lead to endless epistemological discussion. We must look at real world policies along with our rethinking of thinking in order to craft meaningful theory about the world

Jarvis, senior lecturer @ University of Australia, 2K (D.S.L. International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism )

There are, of course, problems with ontologically derived forms of theory. Postmodemists naturally dismiss this conception of theory and are not entirely wrong for doing so. Realism is not above criticism, and structural-realism even more so.58 But then again, neither is postmodernism! But this is not the point. I am not here attempting to defend realism against postmodcrnism or to dismiss postmodernism entirely from the purview of Inter national Relations. Rather, what I am attempting to do is defend the institution of theory against postmodemism which, in its more virulent forms, aims at its deconstruction and obliteration. So too am I attempting to defend the ontological aspect of theory against those who would engage exclusively in epistemological debate. For there to be theory in International Relations, ontological description must be the first order of things; without first defining the domain of international politics, identifying those entities and things we wish to explain and understand, epistemological debate would be altogether pointless. Save for this, the discipline threatens to transpose itself into philosophy and not International Relations, to be condemned to perpetual metaphysical reflection but without reference to the social world we are attempting to understand. Of course, this does not exonerate us from previous mistakes. International Relations, largely because of the dominance of positivism in the discipline, has, in the past, been apt to ontological description in the absence of epistemological reflection. Practitioners in the discipline have rarely seen a need to question the epistemological basis of their scholarship as Thomas Biersteker forcefully acknowledged.59 Yet, as he also reminds us, developing theory and generating knowledge requires judicious use of both ontological description and epistemological explanation. These are not mutually exclusive dimensions of theoretical discourse, but the elemental ingredients necessary to the construction of discourse itself. The exclusive focus upon one dimension to the detriment of the other probably explains why, according to William Kreml and Charles Kegley, “International relations research today. . . has failed to reach agreement about several fundamental issues. . . (1) the central questions to be asked, (2) the basic units of analysis (e.g., states or nonstate actors), (3) the levels of analysis at which various questions should be

explored, (4) the methods by which hypotheses should be tested and unwarranted inferences prevented, (5) the criteria by which theoretical progress is to be judged, and (6) how inquiry should be organized in order to generate the knowledge that will lead to international peace, prosperity, and justice.”

(6). Turn: Representations of fear are key to mobilizing coalitions for action that benefits humanity

Greenspan ‘03Miriam. Healing through the Dark Emotions.http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/newsh/excerpts/bookreview/excp_5513.html

"Our only protection is in our interconnectedness. This has always been the message of the dark emotions when they are experienced most deeply and widely. Grief is not just "my" grief; it is the grief of every motherless child, every witness to horror in the world. Despair is not just "my" despair; it is everyone's despair about life in the twentyfirst century. Fear is not just 'my' fear; it is everyone's fear — of anthrax, of nuclear war, of truck bombs, of airplane hijackings, of things falling apart, blowing up, sickening and dying."If fear is only telling you to save your own skin, there's not much hope for us. But the fact is that in conscious fear, there is a potentially revolutionary power of compassion and connection that can be mobilized en masse. This is the power of fear. Our collective fear, which is intelligent, is telling us now: Find new ways to keep this global village safe. Find new forms of international cooperation that will root out evil in ways that don't create more victims and more evil. Leap out of the confines of national egos. Learn the ways of peace. Find a ceremony of safety so that not just you and I but all of us can live together without fear."

(7). Turn: Focusing on catastrophic impacts mobilizes individual resistance – we can undercut the possibility of these impacts becoming a realityKateb 1992George, professor of politics @ Princeton University.  "The Inner Ocean:  Individualism and Democratic Culture."

Citizens, however, may find in the perspective of extinction a powerful impetus to think about the nuclear situation and to act as they can. But even they need not argue about whether extinction is a possibility. This is my crucial point. Citizens may, instead, challenge the right of any government, their own included, to threaten or to inflict massive casu alties and destruction, or to act so as to risk or actually bring on such casualties and destruction to their own people. Citizens would insist, contrary to official nuclear doctrine, that a special or limited use is as unacceptable as a sizable use, because the potentiality of a sizable use is present in the other kinds. But beyond that, there is no need for further insistence on a point that governments ignore or deride—that is, the possibility of extinction.All that citizens have to do is to focus on massive casualties and massive destruction. A theoretical barrier to such casualties and destruction is simultaneously a barrier to the

nuclear source of the possibility of extinc tion (to leave aside such sources as biological and chemical warfare). Here then—in the possibility of massive disaster—is the theoretical battle ground. And this is where the moral doctrine of individualism makes a noteworthy contribution.

(8). Fear of death is an improvement from the Status Quo, which is neurotic repression

(9) Turn: Confronting the death of others is vicarious suffering-it’s a way of overcoming ones fear of death

(10). Counter-Kritik: The negative fears fear, which is counterproductive

(11). Counter-Kritik: Humans all have an innate instinct to survive. Thus, fearing death is human natureAnesi, Professor at University of Chicago: Dept. of Social Sciences, 1/29/04(George, “Of Man’s Desires and Fears acc. To Thomas Hobbes”, Pages 2-3) <http://maroon.uchicago.edu/anesi/hobbes.pdf>

The concepts of desire and aversion and the simple passions, however, go wellbeyond explaining just everyday life. They are the main stepping-stones for Hobbes between his basic observations of man, and his definition of human nature and natural law. Hobbes makes the claim that among man’s desires is power. “I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.” (Leviathan, xi.2). The desire for power is based in some sense on the simple passions, but its foundation is set in avoiding man’s principal aversion, death, and fulfilling man’s principal desire, survival. This underlies natural law. “A LAW OF NATURE (lex naturalis) is a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or taketh away the means of preserving the same.” (Leviathan, xiv.1). Hobbes has set down the basis for human nature. Every human act, conscious or unconscious, is aimed at survival.

(12). Attempts to alter human nature leads to disastrous consequences-communism proves The Epoch Times, “Epoch Time Commentaries on the Communist Party”, Part 4 of 9, December 14th 2004, < http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-14/24953.html>In the last hundred years, the sudden invasion by the communist specter has created a force against nature and humanity, causing limitless agony and tragedy. It has also pushed civilization to the brink of destruction. Having committed all sorts of atrocities that violate the Tao and oppose heaven and the earth, it has become an extremely malevolent force against the universe. “Man follows the earth, the earth follows heaven, heaven follows the Tao, and the Tao follows what is natural.” [2] In ancient China people believed in complying with, harmonizing and co-existing with heaven. Mankind integrates with heaven and the earth, and exists in mutual dependence with them. The Tao of the universe does not change. The universe runs according to the Tao in an orderly manner. The earth follows the changes of heaven, therefore it has four distinct seasons. By respecting heaven and the earth, mankind enjoys a harmonious life of gratitude and blessings. This is reflected in the expression “heaven’s favorable timing, earth’s advantageous terrain, and harmony among the people.” [3] According to Chinese thought, astronomy, geography, the calendar system, medicine, literature, and even social structures all follow this understanding. But the Communist Party promotes “humans over nature” and a “philosophy of struggle” in defiance of heaven, the earth, and nature. Mao Zedong said, “battling with heaven is endless joy, fighting with the earth is endless joy, and struggling with humanity is endless joy.” Perhaps the Communist Party did acquire real joy from these struggles, but the people have paid tremendously painful costs.