Philosopher views
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- RUSSELL ON FREEDOM
- USING BERTRAND RUSSELL IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
RUSSELL ON DIVERSITYRussell believed that philosophers and citizens throughout society should not be limited by tradition or other limiting societal constructs. In this respect, Russell wanted to make sure that people were not judged based on assumptions that are made in society without any basis. One reason that Russell may have advocated for this perspective was because he was shunned during his day. Because Russell was so vocal about his beliefs about international politics, he was limited in his actions and credibility. Because he was outspoken about his opposition to the Vietnam War, he was ridiculed. Throughout his career he did not receive jobs, lost international respect, and was publicly shunned for his beliefs. Regardless of his motives for wanting diversity of viewpoints, Russell had good reasons to support his viewpoint. But unlike post-modernist philosophers who believe in questioning everything without end, Russell believed that it was possible and required to make decisions with all of the information that is available to you at a given time. He also made sure that the description and objective of any philosophy also had to be clear. While diverse and differing opinions were important, equally important was a clear and precise manner of explaining it. RUSSELL ON FREEDOMIn constructing his ideals of the role of government, Bertrand Russell presented his own ideals of what government should be. Russell believed that the most common sense and basic principle was that of freedom. With this tenet as the supreme value, his ideal form of government not surprisingly was an anarchist’s approach to government. Russell felt that it was the “ultimate ideal to which society should approximate." Governments that are hierarchies of domination were fundamentally illegitimate for Russell. This belief was what led him to be critical of the Communist regime under Stalin. Stalin was a brutal and oppressive dictator who dominated and slaughtered his own people. It was for this reason that Russell publicly criticized the Communist regime under Joseph Stalin. That does not necessarily mean that he opposed Communism as an ideology because he lessened his disgust for Communism post-Stalin’s death. Freedoms were vital for societies to function properly. Russell felt that for the government needed reasons to justify why their citizens needed to abandon their rights and give them to the government. Reasons that governments have given in the past, Russell felt were counter product to the discussion and did not adequately provide evidence to support the abolition of freedoms. USING BERTRAND RUSSELL IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATEThere are many ways that Russell can be useful in value-style debate. Possible values consistent with Bertrand’s philosophy include: equality, pacifism, resistance, humanism, globalism, and of course the ever banal value of justice. If you wished to be creative, Russell could also be used to uphold a value of resistance, civil disobedience, or socialism. Russell’s rejection of private property gives fertile ground for arguments against capitalism and governments that support it. Thus, Russell comes into conflict with liberal values such as those espoused by Locke or the Founders, the thinkers who normally provide the basis for the LD values of “liberty” and “natural and/or personal rights.” Russell’s argument, that capitalism provides the seeds for international warfare, is an indictment of the way those values are understood. Debaters wishing to utilize Russell could argue that the right to private property is not a right at all. In fact, private property is inherently damaging, because it draws people into competition with each other for more and more power. This, one could argue, is a root cause of all wars. Thus, the right of private property is turned against itself because it only leads to destruction and discord. Furthermore, Russell’s arguments in favor of a world government come into conflict with the values such as sovereignty. Russell does not believe that governments should be free to do whatever they please within their borders and argued that an international police force was crucial to maintaining world safety. This creates many arenas for contention. Russell is in favor of organizations such as the United Nations to such a degree that he believes the UN should just as sovereign over states and states are over individuals. Therefore, the role of international law is elevated to that of a global “standard.” Thus, debaters could use this argument to refute the idea that national sovereignty is crucial, by using Russell to demonstrate that international law has to be justified or otherwise there is merely “world anarchy” in which totalitarian governments have just as much moral legitimacy as more fair governments. On other hand, debaters could attempt to refute Russell by demonstrating that international government cannot fulfill the role that Russell thought it should. Many people believe that “international law” is really an agreed upon law from a few countries that is imposed upon the rest. Russell seems to be saying that sovereignty is unimportant, meaning that “peace keeping” missions against countries are ok so long as they are done by an international body. Thus, Russell has a particularly interesting stance on sovereignty that may help or hurt someone who tries to use him. Finally, Russell’s philosophy and life all point to the argument that people need to react against their government if they believe that the government is doing something wrong. Thus, values such as “resistance” and “civil disobedience,” may have some support from Russell’s analysis. Russell believed that non-violent civil disobedience was not only justified in the light of nuclear proliferation and the Vietnam War, but also required of political participants of conscience. Russell can therefore be used to refute the numerous “social contract” arguments of Lincoln-Douglas debate. Individuals did not sign away their consciences when they entered society, according to Russell, and therefore when any government commits actions which are repugnant to human dignity, human beings have the duty to break laws in order to end those actions. Russell emerges as a devout believer in humanism. He believes in a moral code that transcends individual communities or national laws, and he further believes that if human can unite together globally than peace can be achieved. _____________________________ The Economist, July, 2001 Irvin, Andrew. “Bertrand Russell.” Downloaded from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/ on 5/24/03 Cited in Sanderson, Beck. “The Pacifism of Bertrand Russell.” Downloaded from http://www.san.beck.org/WP24-Russell.html on 5/24/03
Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|