Blocks: A2 Fear of Death Kritik

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

Haber 2002
Joram 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 absolutists (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 judgments (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 ‘03
Miriam. 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 reality
Kateb 1992
George, 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 casualties 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 extinction (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 nature
Anesi, 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 well
beyond 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.