10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Human life. Human life is what I calla policy value – because by using it as a value, you gamble on the effectiveness of a hypothetical course of action. Immoral actions lead to negative outcomes for others, while moral actions are more likely to foster the existence of human life. Its a fairly easy value to defend, given the vast degree of respect afforded to life, and is the value to choose if youʼre more comfortable discussing the technical merits of nuclear weapon possession rather than the moral basis of the weapons themselves. Human life is topically relevant because the major ethical dilemma surrounding nuclear weapons is their vast capacity to kill likewise, the effectiveness of deterrence hinges on the question of whether wars in the nuclear age have seen a reduction in violence. This makes the concern very important, and one that states should take into consideration. 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 32 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com To critique human life is to critique the notion that all lives are the same. Perhaps in a nuclear world, lives are spared in conflict only to die slowly and painfully of radiation. Perhaps dangerous regimes - permitted to hold greater sway over international affairs – manage to lower the standard of living across the globe. The affirmative response, of course, would be to point out the irreversibility of death. Living conditions can be improved, nations can rise and fall, but a death cannot betaken back. Justice. This is a classic in the LD community, and the reasons why we value justice are available in a wide variety of places, so this will focus on the topical relevance of justice. The resolution asks whether states ought not possess nuclear weapons, but since it does not ask whether all states must possess them, there is great potential for an unequal system to emerge. The status quo, for instance, witnesses a nuclear club whereby a few largely wealthy, nuclear nations actively prevent nonnuclear nations from proliferating. Since we cant expect the international community to happily hand Zimbabwe a couple hundred nukes, it is reasonable to suggest that negation of the resolution would give rise to something similar to the status quo. The value of justice questions whether this two-tiered system is in fact fair. The critiques of justice are every bit as well-known as the reasons to support it, but resolutionally speaking, there area few nuances the negative should not miss the value of justice, for instance, might not fully recognize the game-changing effect that nuclear weapons have on an ethical discussion. Other international questions of justice do not threaten the survival of the planet as a whole, but given the magnitude of a nuclear weapons destructive capacity, justice may simply have to sit on the backburner while questions of survival are discussed. As a rebuttal, the affirmative needs to not only hammer home that an unjust peace is no peace at all, but argue that as the international communityʼs standards serve as a framework fora wider array of issues, justice in the international community maybe necessary to ever achieve justice on a smaller scale – meaning that if justice isnʼt a value here, it may as well never be a value. Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|