Class consciousness is an important aspect of Socialism, it would be hard to find a period in recent history when the majority have been so aware that their interests are not the same as the uber-rich  It has rarely been so clear that the interests of the few are not the same as those of the vast bulk of either European societies or the world outside it. At a time of rising unemployment, a handful of people who are already fantastically rich continue to pay themselves obscene salaries and bonuses. Of course there is nothing in this that is unusual, it’s just not usually done in so cavalier a fashion.  Although there is nothing mechanical in the process, most Socialist thinkers have been clear that the popular realisation that there really is a class distinction between what the Occupy protesters refer to as the 1% and the rest of us is an important first step towards establishing Socialism.  Whatever the media and political classes may pretend, Socialism is not – and never was – a single party or policy. It is a process. And that process is being seen on the streets across Europe


political philosophy politics government society house believes socialism dead

While there are a vast number of potential combinations of resources, the ones that are useless are mostly obvious and do not need a market to tell us so. Nobody would attempt to generate power by burning bicycles, for example.  An economy that is organised by prices will be organised by those with enough capital to out-bid all others, not those willing to pay the best price because they can make the most use of the resource


Socialism has changed historically to meet the challenges of the moment and is addressing those of the 21st century in new ways  It should perhaps come as no surprise that the days of standing outside shopping centres and train stations handing out soggy newspapers have passed into the annals of political history – although some still do it.  Equally, trades union are no longer seen as being as central to European Socialism as they once were. However, the militancy seen over the last few years suggest, if anything, that what was a diversified ‘anti-capitalist’ movement is now coalescing around a rather clearer set of goals of which the basics of the anti-capitalism movement are merely a part. In the light of the globalisation of Capitalism, the left is increasingly rediscovering its internationalist roots which were lost to a great extent in the seventies and eighties in national struggles to save industries and jobs.


What investors want more than anything is a stable economy and skilled workforce. Ironically it is the European nations where socialist thought remains strongest (the Nordic Countries) that are consistently ranked as the most competitive economies in the world. [1] Careful state management of the economy, provision of infrastructure and investment in exceptional health and education systems through high taxation have created a dynamic and highly qualified workforce, and attracted huge investment from technologically advanced industries.  [1] World Economic Forum, ‘The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012’,


Setting the crises of the last few years against decades of prolonged growth under market capitalism really shows the lie of this idea. There is no doubt that certain sectors over-reached themselves in the latter part of the last decade but to suggest that this is a collapse of the Capitalist model makes about as much sense as the idea that a handful of idealists camped outside St Pauls are the emergence of a new political movement.  Both ideas are preposterous and only give credence to some of the madder parts of the Right whom would like nothing more than to be able to demonise the protesters and their demands.


ethics life house believes right die

This conveniently ignores that patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) do recover. It also ignore that Alzheimer’s patients enjoy moments of lucidity that bring pleasure to both themselves and their friends and relatives. It also discounts the possibilities offered by advances in medical science. The one point in any of the processes that is irreversible is the point of death – in the event of a misdiagnosis or the creation of a new drug, it’s too late if the person is already dead.


ethics life house believes right die

Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.  We now live longer than at any time in the 100,000 years or so of human evolution and longer than the other primates [i] . In many nations we have successfully increased the quantity of life without improving the quality. More to the point, too little thought has been given to the quality of our deaths.  Let us consider the example of the cancer patient who opts not to put herself through the agony and uncertainty of chemotherapy. In such a circumstance, we accept that a person may accept the certainty of death with grace and reason rather than chasing after a slim probability of living longer but in pain.  All proposition is arguing is that this approach can also apply to other conditions, which may not be terminal in the strict sense of the world but certainly lead to the death of that person in any meaningful sense. The application of medical science to extend a life, long after life is ‘worth living’ or would be possible to live without these interventions cannot be considered a moral good for its own sake. Many find that they are facing the prospect of living out the rest of their days in physical pain or are losing their memory. As a result, some may see ‘going out at the top of their game’ as the better, and more natural, option.  [i] Caleb E Finch. Evolution of Human Lifespan and the Diseases of Aging: Roles of Infection, Inflammation, and Nutrition. Proceding of the National Academy of Sciences of the united States of America. 12 October 2009.


ethics life house believes right die

Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised. [i]  [i] Young, Robert, "Voluntary Euthanasia", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)


ethics life house believes right die

Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.  When confronted with chronic pain or with diseases that steadily remove our sense of self – or at least the self of whom we are aware – death has proven to be a sensible option taken by sensible people [i] . It is a simple fact that we all die, our objections to it tend to be based on the idea that it can happen at the hands of others or at a time, or in a manner, not of our choosing.  Neither of these issues arise with either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. Proposition has no difficulty at all with the suggestion that both procedures should be regulated and take place in safe, medically supported, environments.  However, if an individual accepts that death is their preferred option in such a scenario, it is difficult to comprehend of reasons why they should not be allowed to proceed. Our social rejection of murder does not, ultimately relate to death itself but to the denial of choice. With murder someone is denying that person all their future potential so denying their freedom of choice, and this remains the case even if the murder was completely painless. Here, reason tells us, the virtuous act is death and the reservation of that choice.  The determining element of humanity is that we are rational beings; a blanket ban – legal and social – on choosing the time and manner of our deaths reflects our primeval fear of a death that comes, unwanted, in the dark of the night, not the mature judgement of modern, thinking (and long-lived) humans.  [i] Andy Bloxham. Husband films assisted suicide of wife to prove it was not murder. The Daily Telegraph. 10 March 2011.


ethics life house believes right die

It is the mark of a civilised society that we accept the inconvenience of laws in some circumstances because we also require their protection in others. To take a trivial example we take away the choice for people to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else. Here the protection offered by a full moratorium on killing requires that we accept all of its implications. The challenge is to use medical science to make it a moot point. Proposition has therefore made a powerful argument in favour of better painkillers and more research into mentally debilitating illnesses. Many of those developments have come about as a result of the very human attributes prop is so keen to cite. Realising that they have an opportunity of future free of pain and illness, humans have found ways of delivering it. It is precisely because death can now be managed that the process of self-imposed triage prop suggests is increasingly unnecessary; a fact to be applauded, not discarded


ethics life house believes right die

The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.  Ultimately, the decision to die is a personal one, it may affect others but, clearly it has the greatest impact on the person who decides to die.  Clearly those who remain behind will have to deal with the consequences of that death and the end of their relationship with that person but, one would hope, that would be the case if she had died of natural causes at a later date. Furthermore the experience of watching someone die can by as traumatic, or more so, for the carer or loved one than it is for the individual concerned.  What it clearly is not, is an issue for legislators and other strangers who have no connection to the person involved. There are deeply personal issues such as love, death, sex, and reproduction where we accept the state may have a role in the formal sense of preventing their abuse but otherwise should not have an opinion either way. With the right to die the state has maintained not only an opinion but a criminal sanction. This is a clear example of where the role of the state is to respect the individual and step back; legislation is far too cumbersome a tool with be used in circumstances as varied and complex as these.  Dealing with the loss of a loved one, particularly in a situation such as assisted suicide, is painful and traumatic enough for all concerned without adding to that the additional stress of a threat of criminal sanction.


ethics life house believes right die

This risk can be mitigated by making it clear that the elderly, disabled, and others who may feel a burden are genuinely wanted as a part of society but that the right to die is there if they feel it is too much. Any right to die being allowed is not going to be as simple as going to the doctors and getting an injection. In any system there would be checks and balances put in place. There would probably be some form of application process, checks to see if there is any coercion and that it is what the individual really wants as well as probably some form of cooling off period after which the checks would probably be redone before they finally have their chance to exercise their right to die.


ethics life house believes right die

The issue that Op highlights is the matter of intention, that the courts should not be interested in why someone took the decision to kill another person. However, that does not apply here as the intention is that of the person who has chosen to die. In a majority of nations suicide is already legal – the most spectacular exception to this being North Korea, a country with, otherwise, a fairly relaxed approach to the deaths of its citizens. Accepting the right to die simply extends the ability to do so to those who currently are incapable of performing the necessary procedure themselves [i] .  [i] BBC News Website. Right-to-die law appalling, says Health Minister Anna Soubry. 8 September 2012.


ethics life house believes right die

Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised.  It is easy to say that this social move would not lead to healthy thirty year olds walking into emergency rooms and asking to end it all because they had just broken up with their partner or been sacked. However, it’s rather difficult to see why it should not. Proposition says that all this would do is extend the right to commit suicide to those currently incapable of performing the act themselves but that isn’t so. It also extends the surety of success and of a medically painless procedure that is not available to the teenager with a razorblade or the bankrupt with a bottle of pills and another of vodka. For the sake of exactly the equality of approach, it seems only fair to do so. Proposition are attempting to pick the easy bits of the case but, by doing so, they leave contradictions in their case, why shouldn’t the right to die be universal? They know the reason; society would reject the idea out of hand, regardless of its merits. As a result they draw an arbitrary line simply because it is difficult to argue this right as a response to poverty or grief or addiction. They could argue that all of those things “might” get better. Well similarly a cure for cancer “might” be invented. The only consistent argument is either a universal ban or a universal acceptance. Anything else is an argument about where to draw the line; such approaches tend to lead to a gradual, slippery descent away from the original intentions of legislators. Whatever the initial legislation, it would likely be a matter of days before the court cases started.


ethics life house believes right die

The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself.  Even setting aside the religious concerns of many in this situation [i] , there are solid secular reasons for accepting the sanctity of life. First among them is the impact it has on the survivors. The relative who does not want a loved one to take their own life, or to die in the case of euthanasia. It is simply untrue that others are not affect by the death of the individual – someone needs to support that person emotionally and someone has to administer the injection. Because of the ties of love involved for relatives, they are, in effect, left with no choice but to agree regardless of their own views, the law should respect their position as well.  It further gives protection to doctors and others who would be involved in the procedure. Campaigners are keen to stress that doctors should be involved in the process whilst ignoring that, pretty much whenever they’re asked doctors say they have no desire to have any part of it [ii] . Indeed it would be against the Hippocratic oath which while it is no longer always taken still sums up the duties of a doctor which includes doing no harm and includes "And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel." So ruling out euthanasia. [iii] Presumably, the very case that is so keen on the voluntary principle would also observe this compelling rejection by a group critical to the plan.  [i] Joint letter to the Telegraph. The terminally ill need care and protection – not help in committing suicide. The Most Rev Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster. Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi.  [ii] Ella Pickover. Doctors Reject Assisted Suicide. The Independent. 28 June 2012 .  [iii] Sokol, Dr Daniel, ‘A guide to the Hippocratic Oath’, BBC News, 26 October 2008 ,


ethics life house believes right die

There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved.  By far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide [i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden.  [i] Joiner, Thomas E. et al., ‘The Psychology and Neurobiology of Suicidal Behaviour’, Annual Review of Psychology, 10 September 2004, p.304 .


ethics life house believes right die

It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others.  In terms of moral absolutes, killing people is wrong sets the bar fairly low. Pretty much all societies have accepted this as a line that cannot be crossed without the explicit and specific agreement of the state which only happens in very rare circumstances such as in times of war.  There is a simple reason for a blanket ban. It allows for no caveats, no misunderstandings, no fudging of the issue, and no shades of grey. Again, the reason for this approach is equally simple; anything other than such a clear cut approach will inevitably be abused [i] . As things stand guilt in the case of murder is determined entirely on the basis that it is proven that someone took another life. Their reasons for doing so may be reflected in sentencing but the court is not required to consider whether someone was justified in killing another.  It is in the nature of a court case that it happens after the event and nobody other than the murderer and the deceased know what actually took place between them. If we take shaken baby syndrome cases as an example the parent still loves the child, they have acted in the madness of a moment out of frustration. It’s still murder. Supporting a dying relative can be no less frustrating but killing them would still be murder, even where that comes after a prolonged period of coercion to fill in forms and achieve the appearance of consent. It would, however, be very hard to prove. At least with a baby we can assume consent was not given, that would not be the case here.  [i] Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman. ‘Second Thoughts’ Grow on Assisted Suicide. The Wall Street Journal. 5 August 2012.


ethics life house believes right die

Obviously nobody is going to compel doctors or others in the medical profession to undertake a procedure of which they do not approve. Indeed doctors are routinely required to give independent advice - so that a patient is aware of the available options - without being required to perform a procedure themselves. The same is true with relatives or friends. There are many issues in life, where we may disagree with someone’s decision but we respect their right to make that decision just as they respect ours to check that they have considered all the implications. In the case of the doctors this is simple professionalism, in the case of loved ones, respect.


ethics life house believes right die

It is not uncommon for legislation to apply in extreme circumstances and not in more routine ones – the right to use violence in defence of the home or self being just one example. If the legislation states that this relates to certain, terminal conditions and those patients shown to be of sound mind, then that’s how the legislation works. Society gives the universal right to free education but not if you’re 46 and decide that you should have done something different at school, the right is confined. That applies here and in most universal rights. Its aim is to solve one particular legal problem, not all of them.


animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal

Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1]  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)


Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved  Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. [1] It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals.  [1] European Commission, 1997. Euthanasia of experimental animals. Luxembourg: Office for official publications


Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective.  Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, academic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible.  If we ban animal research even if research advances continue we will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy the rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years. [1] Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - should be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough.  [1] Ator, N. A., “Conducting Behavioural Research”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 3.


Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society  Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.


Animals have a right not to be harmed  The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind. [1] Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism. [2]  [1] Clark, S., The Nature of the Beast: are animals moral?, (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1982)  [2] Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)


Animals do not have such a right not to be harmed; even if they are similar to humans in terms of their feelings (that opposition does not concede) this right is impossible to argue for. The right of a human not to be harmed is a part of a quid pro quo that we will also not do harm to others. Animals are unable to engage in such a contract either to us or to other animals. Animals are not about to stop hunting other animals because the animal that is hunted feel’s pain when it is caught and it even if animal experimentation was to be ended it is unlikely that humanity would stop killing animals either for food, to prevent overpopulation or by accident all of which would have to be the case if animals feeling of pleasure and pain and resulting rights had to be taken into account.


We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as morally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money would be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just.


We do not need to justify the moral value of severely cognitively disabled persons, although if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of kinship, and family as providing a justification for acting in an apparently specieist manner. [1] Rather, it is sufficient to highlight the point, that experimenting on humans of any cognitive function, carries with it certain negative externalities. Such persons are likely to have relatives who would be harmed by the knowledge that their loved ones are being used in medical experiments for example. Even in the case of such a person who lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled rights groups could be harmed by a policy that allows treating some disabled persons differently to the rest of our moral community.  Such externalities would make experimenting on animals, rather than such persons, both preferable and morally consistent.  [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)


Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature  As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1]  [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.


Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animals  It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments.  We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This would be a morally inconsistent and specieist stance to adopt, and as such unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals. [1]  [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)


This again highlights some of the problems with animal research. In the UK example cited, animal testing had been done, and the dose given to the human volunteers was a tiny fraction of the dose shown to be safe in primates. Animal research is an unreliable indicator of how drugs will react in the human body, and as such alternatives should be sought and improved upon.


To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate.  [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)


People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy  23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . [1] . While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered.  New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case.  [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'.


Animals involved in animal research are mostly well treated.  The vast majority of animals used in research are not subjected to suffering. Where there may be pain, they are given painkillers, and when they are euthanized it is done humanely. [1] They are looked after well, as the health of the animals is usually not only required by law and good practice, but beneficial for the experimental results. Many of these animals live better lives than they might have done had they been born into the wild. Many animals, and indeed humans, die untimely deaths that are due to reasons other than old age, animal experimentation may increase these numbers slightly but so long as the animals are treated well there should be no moral objection to animal research. If the foundation of the argument for banning animal experimentation is therefore based upon the cruel treatment and pain suffered by animals then this is a reason for regulation to make sure there is very little suffering rather than an outright ban.  [1] Herzog, H., “Dealing With the Animal Research Controversy”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1.


Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable  Developed countries, including the US and all members of the EU (since EU Directive 2010/63/EU) have created laws and professional regulations that prevent scientists from using animals for research if other, non-animal research methods would produce equally clear and detailed results.  The principle described above is also enshrined in the "3Rs" doctrine, which states that researchers and their employers have a duty to identify ways to refine experiments conducted on animals, so that yield better results and cause less suffering; replace animals used in research the non-animal alternatives where possible; and reduce the number of animals used in research. Not only does the 3Rs doctrine represent a practical way to reconcile the necessity of animal research with the universal human desire not to cause suffering, it also drives scientists to increase the overall quality of the research that they conduct. Governments and academic institutions take the 3Rs doctrine very seriously. In EU countries scientists are required to show that they have considered other methods of research before being granted a license for an animal experiment.  There are a huge number of ways of learning about our physiology and the pathologies which affect it, including to computer models, cell cultures, animal models, human microdosing and population studies. These methods are used to complement one another, for example animal models may well produce data that creates a computer model. Nonetheless, there is some research which cannot be done any other way. It is difficult to understand the interaction of specific sets of genes without being able to change only these genes – something possible through genetically modified animals.  Finally, as noted above, given the high cost of conducting animal research relative to other methods, there is a financial incentive for institutions to adopt non-animal methods where they produce as useful and accurate results.


Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances  Undoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise.  After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials.  Novel compounds (as opposed to so-called "me-too" drugs, that make slight changes to an existing treatment) are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans.  Research into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy.


This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.


Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights  Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. [1] Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good.  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Speciesism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)


The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures.  Second, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments.  Finally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research.


Firstly the vast majority of drugs released today (around 75%) are so called “me too” drugs that add little, if any genuine innovation to the existing body of pharmaceuticals in production. Rather, they represent only a slight molecular tweak on an existing drug line. Such drugs rarely save lives or even relieve much suffering upon their release, as they are only very slightly better, for only some patients, than the drugs available prior to its release. [1] None the less, the development of only technically novel compounds is used as a justification for research on animals, even when the benefit from such research is marginal at best. Secondly, even if there was a small increase in future human suffering, relative to a future where such a policy was not adopted, it would be worth it due to the saving of so much animal suffering, and the moral impermissibility of inflicting that for our own gains.  All this is notwithstanding the proposition point that much of the research does not necessitate animal testing.  [1] Stanford Medical Magazine. 2005. Me-too drugs: Sometimes They’re Just The Same Old, Same Old.


ethics life kill one save many junior

To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five.


ethics life kill one save many junior

More ‘good’ is produced by saving five lives than saving one  When any life is removed so too is the future good that life may produce; all of the good that person would have experienced as well as all of the good they could have brought to other people’s lives will no longer occur. It is difficult to say precisely how much good a person may bring. However, it is fair to assume that saving five people brings with it a greater chance of higher levels of ‘good’. Considering the fact that one does not know anything about the people on the tracks one must assume that there will be five times more ‘good’ produced by saving their lives than if the one person is saved.


ethics life kill one save many junior

We do not always choose the most rational course of action. If we do not know anything about who we are in the situation we still know that if the one person is killed then their life has been unfairly ended. If the five people die then we know that this is an accident. Therefore we might still choose to allow the five people to die. This is because we can still decide the right or wrong of the situation and choose not to make the decision based on self interest.


ethics life kill one save many junior

As humans we try to save as many people as possible  There exists a basic right to life which, as humans, we try to follow. Killing others is outlawed because we generally believe that every person has the right to live their life and no one else has the right to take that life away. In the situation with the train there are two possible outcomes which both lead to life being cut short. Due to the fact that we place such value on life we have a duty to reduce the number of people who die. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and this is to kill the one and save the five.


ethics life kill one save many junior

People suffer unfortunate deaths on a daily basis. The fact that people die in accidents does not necessarily mean that their right to life has been violated. Therefore, if one lets the train run its course five people will suffer an unfortunate accident. The real violation of rights in this situation is the action of changing the course of the train. The single person on the track is in no immediate danger. However, by changing the course of the train one is actively participating in the removal of that person’s life. If we believe that a person has the right not to be murdered then pulling the lever is a violation of that right.


ethics life kill one save many junior

Killing one person is the rational choice  The philosopher John Rawls came up with a thought experiment to discover the right way to organize a society. When people talk about how society should be organized they generally take their own situation and interests into account. Rawls asked us to imagine a situation in which we do not know anything at all about our own lives and then try to organize society? Without knowing anything about our wealth, intelligence, personality, race, gender, religion etc., we would create the fairest society. This is because without knowing who we are we have no idea where we will be in society once it has been organized. So, in order to make sure we have the best chance to be treated fairly we create a society in which all people are treated fairly. The same experiment can be applied to the train problem. If we do not know anything about who we are in the experiment we would chose to kill the one person. This is because there is a greater chance of us being one of the five people and so killing the one person gives us the best chance to survive.


ethics life kill one save many junior

Our feelings are clouded by the way the situation is presented and so we cannot use feeling as a way to decide what to do. For example, most people instinctively say that they would pull the lever to save the five people. However, if the case is presented differently and to save the five people you have to push a man onto the track to stop the train then most people will say not to do it. The two situations are morally identical; the only change is the physical act that needs to be done. Therefore it is clear that our feelings can change despite the principle staying the same.


ethics life kill one save many junior

Choosing not to act in the situation is still a choice and does not remove the responsibility in the situation. If someone stands by and watched as another person drowns, even though they could have rescued them, then they are no better than the murderer who participates in a person’s death. The idea that active killing only relates to taking action to cause death is wrong. When one has the ability to prevent death then one is actively involved in the situation whether one chooses to accept it or not.


ethics life kill one save many junior

We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not  It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.


ethics life kill one save many junior

The act of killing is emotionally damaging  To actually be involved in the death of another person is an incredibly traumatic experience. Soldiers coming back from war often suffer from ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ which suggests that being in a situation in which you have to take another persons life has a long lasting impact on your mental health. This is also true for people who are not directly involved in the act of killing. For instance, the people who worked on developing the atomic bomb described an incredible guilt for what they had created even though they were not involved in the decision to drop the bombs. The same traumatic experiences would likely affect the person responsible for pulling the lever.


ethics life kill one save many junior

We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable  As soon as we agree that there are situations where killing is acceptable we have reason to fear for our own safety. By accepting killing in certain situations society as a whole becomes more open to the idea. It then becomes hard to draw the line as to where killing is acceptable and where killing is unacceptable. It is much better to outlaw all instances of killing so that we have a general moral standard to follow in all situations.


ethics life kill one save many junior

In the train example there is no one else around and it is only you that can save the five lives. With the charity example there are many other ways in which the lives can be saved; governments can save them or other people can donate money. Therefore the moral duty to act is dramatically reduced.


ethics life kill one save many junior

Utilitarianism is demanding  If we choose to save the five people just because we have the power to do so then we also have to consider all the other lives that are in our power to save. It is in our power to donate all of our excess money to charity to save lives and so we must also do this. Actions like this are worthy of praise but no one would suggest that we have a duty to do them.


ethics life kill one save many junior

We instinctively know killing is wrong  While sometimes our feelings as to what is right and what is wrong are not accurate they are needed when thinking about morality. If a theory is well argued and thought out but goes against our feelings as to what is right and wrong then we will dismiss it. Most people have the feeling that killing is wrong and so to partake in any action that leads to the death of another is also wrong.


ethics life kill one save many junior

The same traumatic affect would also result from not pulling the lever. One must still cope with the fact that one could have saved the five lives. Post traumatic stress disorder can be brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death.


ethics life kill one save many junior

Killing is worse than letting someone die  People die in accidents and by natural cause all of the time. However, it is much rarer for a person to be actively involved in another person’s death. If one chooses to pull the lever and change the course of the train then one is actively participating in the death of the one person. The other option involves no action; it simply allows a set of events to run their course. There is, therefore, a greater responsibility involved in being actively involved in the death of another.


ethics life kill one save many junior

The specific circumstances of every case need to be taken into account. In this case someone will definitely lose their life and one’s decision is to decide how to minimize the damage done. It is wrong to suggest that this is an act of killing; instead it is an attempt to reduce the number of deaths in a tragic situation. Pulling the lever is not an act that the person would do if the five people were not tied down and so it is very different from an act of intentional murder.


ethics life kill one save many junior

Given that we don’t know anything about these individuals all we have to work with are the numbers. If you take five random people and one random person then there is a greater chance that among the five people there is a life saving doctor. The only time this is not true is if the average person has a negative effect on the world. However, if this is the case we would always have to act in a way that fewest people survived which is absurd.


political philosophy house believes civil liberties should be sacrificed

If there is even a slight injustice, then there is a problem worth addressing. It is a fact that recent anti-terrorism legislation, in nearly all western countries, has been used for a variety of uses from international banking [1] to petty thievery. This is obviously beyond the original intentions of these measures; something that should not be taken lightly.  [1] Wintour, Patrick, and Gillan, Audrey, ‘Lost in Iceland: £1billion from councils, charities and police’, 10 October 2008,  , accessed 9 September 2011


The apparent loss of liberty is overstated.  Negative cases of security abuse are few and have been greatly exaggerated by an emphatic civil rights lobby that has no empathy for the victims of terrorism. Of course, with any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. For example in the UK terrorism suspects were originally detained without charge under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act however the detention was declared unlawful by the law lords in 2005 so the government introduced new scaled back policies such as ‘control orders’. [1] Therefore government has always been willing to scale back its security legislation when the courts believe it goes too far. Nonetheless it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights [2] . The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them.  [1] Hewitt, Steve, THE BRITISH WAR ON TERROR TIMELINE, Libertas, 2007,  , accessed 9 September 2011  [2] Stratton, Allegra and Wintour, Patrick, ‘Nick Clegg goes to war with Labour over civil liberties’, guardian.co.uk, 13 April 2010,  , accessed 9 September 2011


The opposition does not except the importance of legalisation like the US Patriot Act, as such legislation is always used for aims it was not originally intended for example when it is being used to investigate media companies dedicated to free speech - Wikileaks [1] . The fact that western countries are already quite liberal should not be an argument for why that has to change. Should we not be moving forwards towards even more freedoms for citizens instead of backwards?  [1] IBTimes Staff Reporter, ‘Wikileaks: U.S. Seeks Assange Info Through Patriot Act’, 24 August 2011,  , accessed 9 September 2009


The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.  It would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen.


National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of  Terrorism is part of the modern world and is inextricably linked with the rise of modern communications, the internet, and a global community. This is an age in which space and time are bending to the tune of new media – information at your fingertips may sound nice, but for those who want to destroy, it only makes their object easier to attain. And so more strict national security measures must be employed in order to keep up with the enemy. Escalation is the name of the game imposed on governments around the world by terrorists for example the Mumbai terrorists used GPS systems to guide them into Mumbai, attacks were coordinated on cell and satellite phones and Blackberrys were used to monitor the international reaction [1] . In order to keep up states need new powers to stop, deter, and prevent terrorism. The government needs to secure state-security first; only then can the debate on civil liberties begin, and only then.  [1] Shachtman, Noah, ‘How Gadgets Helped Mumbai Attackers’, Wired, 1 December 2008,  , accessed 9 September 2011


Nothing justifies some of the security measures taken by western governments. The ancient western conventions of the accused being innocent until proven guilty and his right to a fair trial have both been undermined [1] by the recent Labour administration in the UK. And all in the name of security. The trade-off has gone too far; liberty is something that must be protected at all costs – it seems that governments the world over have forgotten that the whole point of the state is too protect citizens liberty, not destroy it.  [1] BBC News, ‘A brief history of habeas corpus’, 9 March 2005,  , accessed 9 September 2011


The issue would indeed by easy to solve if what the proposition spoke of was the whole story. Unfortunately, the legal measures put in place will always be open to abuse and so, as all power corrupts – and as absolute power corrupts absolutely – the more and more power we give to the authorities the more and more abuse and corruption we will witness. We have seen what happens with big, powerful governments; this is a historical rule, without exception.


Granted, the measures are implemented with popular support; the opposition cannot argue against this. However, to claim that democracy has some inherent value beyond providing a stable society is naïve. Democracy is, in this example, simply the tyranny of the majority – populist measures like unjust anti-terrorism legislation holds no currency in reasoned debate.


Western countries already benefit from extremely liberal laws.  The USA is at present far better than most countries in their respect and regard for civil liberties. New security measures do not greatly compromise this liberty, and the US measures are at the very least comparable with similar measures already in effect in other democratic developed countries, e.g. Spain and the UK, which have had to cope with domestic terrorism for far longer than the USA. The facts speak for themselves – the USA enjoys a healthy western-liberalism the likes of which most of the world’s people cannot even conceive of. The issue of the erosion of a few minor liberties of (states like the US’s) citizens should be overlooked in favour of the much greater issue of protecting the very existence of that state. [1]  [1] Zetter, Kim, ‘The Patriot Act Is Your Friend’, Wired, 24 February 2004,  , accessed 9 September 2011


It is with the popular support of the public that security measures are taken.  Let us not forget that is with the consent of the public that these security measures are taken, CCTV for example was a populist measure that has often been considered a threat to civil liberties [1] . It is in line with democratic ideals; the majority of the country wants greater security [2] . For example in 2005 59% of Americans wanted the Patriot Act extended. [3] And because democracy embodies all those values we are fighting for – freedom and equality included- we must adhere to a democratic spirit when deciding on how to organise ourselves or else risk falling into the same mind-set as those terrorists themselves.  [1] Norris, Clive, McCahill, Mike and Wood, David, ‘Editorial. The Growth of CCTV: a global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publically accessible space’, Surveillance & Society, 2(2/4):110-135, 2004,  (2)/editorial.pdf, accessed 9 September 2011  [2] Law Council of Australia, ‘Politics and Populism win out at anti-terror summit’, 30 September 2005,   [3] Langer, Gary, ‘Poll: Support Seen for Patriot Act’, ABCnews, 9 June 2005,  , accessed 9


If the opposition’s argument is correct then there is simply no way to win. The argument is illogical; they would have the terrorists pick us off slowly until we were all victims all because we simply let them. In short, governments have to do something instead of being completely irrational and holding the immature high ground – “letting them win” is a childish argument.


The proposition can point to the clear acts of terrorism of recent years that have proven difficult to combat and fatal to so many thousands. What the opposition is asking is to simply disregard all these facts on principle, and on principle only; this is overly idealistic and naïve to the extent where people’s lives would be put at risk. To question the motives of democratically accountable governments is a separate question; this is about terrorism and how to stop it; it’s about life and death, and how best protect the former and stop (by all means necessary) the latter.


The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope.  The proposition puts us in a dangerous place. That situation is the thin edge of a totalitarian wedge – we must take a principled stand for liberty and stop the increasing number of anti-terrorist legislation and over powerful policing powers. Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims, Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans and many other groups were persecuted in World War II, [1] something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed.  [1] Hummel, Jeffrey Rogers, ‘Not Just Japanese Americans: The Untold Story of U.S. Repression During 'The Good War'’, The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1987 (Vol. 7, No. 3),  , accessed 9 September 2011


In the public’s eyes, the government seems to suspect everyone.  Although the anti-terrorist measures are supposed to be trying to catch certain people, it is the whole of the public who have to suffer on a daily basis: an abundance of security cameras, security checks, and anti-privacy measures continually invade innocent people’s lives and yet it is supposed to be the terrorists who are being punished. The issue of justice, and whether it is actually being done, has to be fully looked at properly. These measures are not solving the problem of terrorism as it does not address the core grievances. Instead other ways such as negotiation to address grievances is necessary, as happened in Northern Ireland [1] .  [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Northern Ireland’, The Guardian, 11 May 2007,  , accessed 9 September 2011


It impedes economic progress.  Extra-security measures only impede, or halt the flow of trade [1] , make the country harder to deal with - less internationally ‘friendly’, and disrupt communities. Security states almost always have slower growth than freer states because there is extra red tape, transport networks are slowed down, for example airport check ins take much longer. The U.S. Travel Association, says on average, in the United States as a result of the airport security measures each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening. That amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines and other travel suppliers. [2] And this is even before the losses caused by unproductive hours, and deterred investment. All these things will decrease incomes and GDP growth.  [1] Verrue, Robert, ‘Tighter Security Must Not Slow Down World Trade’, The European institute, Spring 2004,   [2] McCartney, Scott, ‘Aiming to Balance Security and Convenience’, Wall Street Journal, 1 September 2011,  , accessed 9 September 2011


It would be letting the terrorists win  It is the aim of all terrorists to influence by violent means government policy. If we changed how our country was run we would be letting the terrorists win – they would be getting what they wanted. If we changed the way we lived [1] , greater security measures or something else, we would be shaping our society to the tune of the terrorist. So more security measures at airports limit the freedom to travel, turning the country into a surveillance society makes everyone nervous; ultimately the country is no longer the same as it was having lost the freedoms which are the best way to combat terrorism. This is something perversely wrong.  [1] Symanovich, Steve, ‘If you don’t read this, the terrorists win’, Washington Business Journal, 24 December 2001,


This is just like any other investigation. Obviously the government has to take a broad approach because any loophole could be exploited by the unscrupulous terrorist. It is a necessity, albeit one with unfortunate consequences, but a necessity all the same. As for negotiations with terrorists, it is the propositions view that this option does not exist when dealing with terrorists of a fundamentalist background, who are, by definition, not willing to compromise and therefore unable to be negotiated with.


The threat of terrorism and security risks are overstated.  The threat of terrorism is greatly over exaggerated. Western governments all over the world are effectively selling the threat of terrorism to their citizens in order to increase their powers of control. The threat, however, has to be exaggerated in order for the electorate to believe that the security measures are needed. The motives of governments doing this vary; some just want the new security measures to make their jobs easier; others however, see it as an opportunity to increase state control and power over the average citizen. There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since than it had been for several decades. For example there was the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 killing 270 people or the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut which killed 63. [1] While the scale is smaller than the 9/11 attacks they are just as terrible and were met with a much more measured response that did not involve infringing civil liberties. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events.  [1] PBS Frontline, ‘terrorist attacks on americans, 1979-1988’,  , accessed 9 September 2011


Admittedly, extra-security measures do halt economic growth. But then again, so do a lot of things like inertia, or lack of consumer confidence. It is, however, a matter of degree; if the trade-off is between a lessening of economic growth and lives saved, then it is not hard to decide in which direction reason is behind. When lives are saved the economy benefits as those people will remain productive workers. And having lots of security is not all negative, the security business does very well.


If the opposition is citing examples from history then there are just as many examples, if not more, of western governments resisting the corrupting effects of increased power and turning not from good into evil intentions. The fact of the matter is that most of today’s western nations have a relatively good track record. It seems the opposition is once again forgetting the real enemy – the terrorists. In most Western countries we have a fully independent and liberal judiciary, vigorously and vigilantly watching for human rights abuses and protecting civil liberties. For nearly all Western countries, a slippery slope simply does not exist.


niversity philosophy political philosophy minorities house would use positive

There is little or no evidence of bias in universities admissions procedures. Universities admissions departments go to great lengths to ensure fairness, not least because it is in their own self-interest to take only the best applicants, to maintain the intellectual credibility of their institution. Any overt or explicit discrimination would be illegal, and should be guarded against by using a wide range of admissions procedures and interview (where applicable) by more than one academic. Any charge of prejudice would be an argument for ‘colour-blind’ (or school-blind) admissions, in which the background of the applicant is hidden from the admissions officer, so as to prevent any possibility of discrimination, subconscious or otherwise. The presence of positive discrimination would, if anything, raise the incidence of racism and prejudice on university campuses, with lecturers and fellow students resentful of members of the university perceived to have been given a helping hand.


Overcomes prejudice  Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [1] [2] Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist.  [1] Bertrand, M. “Racial Bias in Hiring”. Spring 2003.   [2] BBC News Magazine. “Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?” August 27, 2011.


Positive discrimination will increase negative perceptions of university. Far from changing attitudes about campus life among disadvantaged groups, positive discrimination is likely to be seen as patronising, belittling of the achievements of ethnic minorities and the working class, and serve to reinforce negative stereotypes15. By making the statement that disadvantaged groups are so far behind the rest that they need discrimination in their favour and quotas, universities will alienate themselves from the group they are seeking to help, and will come over as elitist. Survey evidence suggests that affirmative action is usually opposed by the target group, affirming the view that people wish to achieve things for themselves, without being given a ‘leg-up’ by the state. Moreover, positive discrimination devalues the achievements of those who would have been accepted into university even without the assistance, and these people are likely to be deterred from applying.


Equality of opportunity  Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite 93% of UK schoolchildren state educated. [1] In addition, there is a clear underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in these universities. [2] A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities in the USA - white students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than black and Hispanic ones. [3] [4] These examples reflect the opportunities granted to wealthier children from particular socioeconomic and racial groups, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded.  [1] Sagar, P. “The truth about Oxbridge admissions: a reply To Dave Osler”. Liberal Conspiracy. May 21, 2010.   [2] Vasagar, J. “Twenty-one Oxbridge colleges took no black students last year”. The Guardian. December, 2010.   [3] Orfield, Gary, et al., 'Losing Our Future; How Minority Youth Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis', Urban Institute, 25 February 2004,   [4] Marklein, M.B. “Minority enrollment in college still lagging”. USA TODAY. October, 2006.


Though affirmative action wishes to create an equality of opportunity for the poor and ethnic minorities, it also creates an unfair situation in which talented students lose their places. Ability may ultimately not be rewarded as the whole point of affirmative action is to promote a less able applicant ahead of a more able one, measured by their test scores. It undermines the fairness of the system if reasonable objective measures of a person’s ability, such as exam performance and aptitude testing, are overlooked. Under a system of positive discrimination, able students from the majority group or who went to private school are required to achieve more than others to get the same reward. Furthermore, positive discrimination is bad for the talented students from the target group who would get into university even without affirmative action: the policy will undermine their achievement, making their peers (and even them) believe that they only got to where they were because of different standards. It would create a two-tiered university system, in which the achievements of one group were elevated above the achievements of another.


Quotas create stigmas and enforce negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities. It means that students from these groups are incapable of entering universities on their own. And during their time at university, the students may face the stigma of being known as a “quota student”. This may cause students to feel inferior and lose self-confidence, and this may ultimately affect their academic performance. In addition, quotas do not solve the root cause of the problem. The best way to help the poor and ethnic minorities is through investments in public schools and basic services so that at the end of the day, admission tests are a true reflection of academic ability and not as a result of economy and geography. [1]  [1] Stahlberg, S.G. “Racial Inequality and Affirmative Action in Education in Brazil”. August 2010,


Changes negative perceptions of university life  Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist. [1] The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term.  [1] Ancis, J.R. “Student perceptions of campus cultural climate by race”. Journal of Counselling and Development. Spring 2000.


Increase the number of Minorities  College admission processes are impersonal and favourably biased towards white, affluent students – therefore, quotas specifically for minority students need to be established. College admissions processes are as such because they heavily rely on standard tests or college admission exams. This has caused countries such as Brazil to create quotas for brown (mixed) and black students in most universities. [1] These students cannot afford the better education enjoyed by their rich, white counterparts, and therefore do not perform well in college exams and do not gain admission into university. Quotas are needed to make the admission process a little bit fairer and increase the number of minorities in university campuses.  [1] Stahlberg, S.G. “Racial Inequality and Affirmative Action in Education in Brazil”. August 2010,


Affirmative action has never sort to be the cure for underlying social problems. The goal of positive discrimination is to level out the playing field for admission procedures; and create opportunities for disadvantaged groups. In a society in which sweeping societal reforms that benefit minorities are not forthcoming, affirmative action may be regarded as an immediate solution which counteracts the continual injustice faced by certain groups.


By having more students from disadvantaged backgrounds get into university and ultimately have access to top professions, and more likely to enter politics, law, or become the heads of major corporations, affirmative action will generate more role models for the poor and ethnic minorities. As a consequence, the aspirations of disadvantaged youths will change – it will become more realistic for them to see themselves in public life, and will thus have a better incentive to work hard at school. Not only is this good for their own development, but it will also help wider society by tackling social problems such as petty crime and truancy.


Affirmative action can create social tensions  Under the policy of affirmative action, there is a real danger that social tensions become inflamed. This is because in the process of benefiting minority groups it helps to disenfranchise the majority. For example in the 2001 riots in Oldham and other cities of Northern England one of the main complaints from poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding. [1] There was a possibility that the more privileged from minority groups such as upper-class blacks will be favoured at the expense of the marginalised within majority groups such as lower-class whites. Therefore, rather correct racial bias, affirmative action may inevitably deepen it.  [1] Amin, A., 2002. ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity.’ Environment and Planning, 34, pp.959-980, p.963


Affirmative action will not work  The underlying issue which affirmative action tries to gloss over is the embedded social problems which put the poor and ethnic monitories in continual disadvantages generation after generation. This policy merely papers over the cracks by masking the fact that the failures of state-funded schooling and attempts at integration have led to a situation in which ethnic minorities and the poor are so vastly underrepresented in universities. The state should do more to address these underlying problems, rather than covering up its failures with a tokenistic policy. Better funding of state schools, real parental choice in education, and accountability through the publication of comparable examination data would all drive up standards and allow more underprivileged children to fulfil their potential. [1] [2]  [1] Gryphon, M. “The Affirmative Action Myth”. Cato Institute Policy Analysis. No 540. April 13, 2005.   [2] Rosado, C. “Affirmative Action: A Time for Change?” March 3, 1997.


Achievements should be earned not given  There is a great possibility that beneficiaries of positive discrimination may not be regarded as good role models as their achievements may be viewed as unearned. [1] A role model is someone others can look up to and admire for the things they achieved through hard work and talent – by parachuting people into university, their ability to act as a role model is undermined. It is also patronising to assume that young people from ethnic minorities can only look up to people who have the same colour skin, or went to the same type of school – in a society that admires diversity and cosmopolitanism, we should surely accept that anyone can act as a role model.  [1] The British Psychological Society. “The Hillary Clinton effect - how role models work for some people but not others”.


Social tension, especial in poor areas and minority groups, does not come as a result of unfair affirmative action policies, but as a result of inadequate funds available to the communities which result in individuals struggling for limited resources. Affirmative Action creates an opportunity whereby more politicians and businesspeople rise up from humble backgrounds are given the chance to change the political and economic structure of society. By “giving back” to their community, they will be able to assist the less well-off, for example by expanding welfare systems and ensuring greater equality of opportunities, or through different hiring practices.


nomic policy economy general international europe philosophy political

Neo-functionalism believes in building a community Europe, but then the question is raised, what is the purpose of this new entity? There is no common outlook and getting the major powers of Europe to agree what this should be will be near impossible. Intergovernmentalists would also argue that economic determinism regarding integration is wrong. As they believe national governments have to consciously make these decisions and will not be economically driven alone, ‘Extensive cooperation is not at all ruled out: on the contrary, such cooperation will benefit all participants as long as it corresponds to and enhances mutual interests’. It will always be politics that drive integration, while the motive may be economic – to solve a crisis or even just to profit – the key decisions by all actors will be political. [1]  [1] Martell, Luke, ‘Globalisation and Economic Determinism’, Paper given at Global Studies Association conference, Challenging Globalization, September 2009, www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ssfa2/globecdet.pdf , p.4


Neo-functionalism proposes a purpose to EU integration.  Neo-functionalism proposed building a community Europe, through the concept of spillover the theory proposes economic determinism. Spill-over will eventually lead to a completely integrated Europe with a strong central government. This has not yet been proved true, as EU integration has become a long and difficult process. This is understandable since it is not exactly easy to integrate together all those policies, economies and people. However this would most probably be the eventual result, which is already visible: The experience of the European Union (EU) is widely perceived as not just an example, but the model for regional integration. In recent years, the EU has also been pursuing an increasing number of trade agreements which may in turn lead to spillover. [1] Furthermore the recent enlargements of the EU in Eastern Europe, as well as the ongoing negotiations with Croatia and Turkey have renewed the academic and political interest in the effects of European Economic integration. [2]  One of the theory’s strengths is to predict the outcome of integration and an eventual conclusion to the process, allowing for political and economic aims to be made and realised. For example ‘Larger companies have been acting on the assumption that the internal market will eventually be established’. [3]  [1] Bilal, Sanoussi, ‘Can the EU Be a Model of Regional Integration?’, Paper to be presented at the CODESRIA - Globalisation Studies Network (GSN), 29-31 August 2005,   [2] Lafourcade, Miren, and Paluzie, Elisenda, ‘European Integration, FDI and the Internal Geography of Trade: Evidence from Western-European Border Regions’, 23 December 2004, www.cepr.org/RESEARCH/Networks/TID/Paluzie.pdf  [3] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, ‘Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,


Intergovernmentalism assumes states to be the core actors, this is difficult to deny as most economic boundaries and policies are administered by the nation state. It believes that the logic of diversity will prevail in areas of high politics (e.g. security), however it does accept the logic of integration in low politics, that when interests coincide integration is possible (when there is consensus among elites, similar external situations and domestic politics situations). Intergovernmentalism does not allow for the idealist aim of transforming the regional system to a ‘better’ order as what qualifies as ‘better’? The logic of diversity denies the possibility of states agreeing on what is ‘better’.


Supranational Entrepreneurs played a crucial role in integration  The role of supranational entrepreneurs within the development of integration within Europe has been crucial. Characters such as Jean Monnet envisaged and worked continuously towards uniting Europe. As the head of France's General Planning Commission, Monnet was the real author of what has become known as the 1950 Schuman Plan to create the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), forerunner of the Common Market. Later a similar role was played by Jacques Delors with the creation of the Single European Act (SEA) and the all-important 1992 project that would see the single market and eventually fully Economic and Monetary Union complete. These characters act in support of integration within Europe and represent an empirical example of cultivated spill-over. Unmitigated pressure from Delors in pushing for the single market ensured that it became a reality in the time it did.


Neo-functionalism explains the cause of integration  Spill-over is the following concept – in order to enjoy the full benefits of integration of the first sector you need to integrate the related sectors. An example of this is the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) evolving into other energy sectors and forming Euratom. There are three types of spill-over – functional spill-over, political spill-over and cultivated spill-over. Firstly, functional spill-over, which regards spill-over in an economic context. For example, this might involve integrating coal and steel, then integrating transport systems so that coal and steel are moved around more easily. Secondly, there is Political spill-over, where political actors shift their allegiance to a new centre, for example from the national parliament to Brussels. Thirdly, there is cultivated spill-over, which is the idea that institutions drive further integration by being in practice; for example the European Commission’s growing autonomy. [1]  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe "Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,


The counter theory to spill-over is the logic of diversity. Neo-functionalism is flawed as it assumes that integration in low politics (economic) will lead to integration in areas of high politics. This is not possible as issues of high politics are integral to the national interest; so integration will only be possible when national interests coincide, which is possible but unlikely. Neo-functionalism believes areas of high politics can be cultivated into integration, whereas intergovernmentalism believes that the fate of the nation-state should never be subject to the decisions of others.


The role of elites acting in their national interest better explains the logic behind integration. Key players such as Charles De Gaulle and his untiring opposition to British membership and Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers and his success in gaining what he set out to achieve through the Luxembourg compromise demonstrates that the true power actually lay with him and the state. Another example to contradicting the role Delors played was that of Margaret Thatcher. Her relentless demand for a British rebate (1979) and general demeanour in the European Council demonstrated a powerful state elite getting her way. The single market came about because Thatcher wanted it more than most and was thus willing to compromise on certain areas of the Single European Act (i.e. on QMV in the Council of Ministers). [1] It is because of this that the role of individual elites is far superior to that of supranational entrepreneurs.  [1] Dinan, Desmond, ‘The Single European Act’, European Union Centre of Excellence,


Neo-functionalism is too simple, it does not account for external forces well, as some states have better defined their international position more towards US hegemony than towards each other. “Whereas in economic issues (soft power) the EU has been able to respond to the US in trade disputes, in political and security affairs (hard power) the panorama is mostly discouraging“. [1] Intergovernmentalism rejects economic determinism and therefore rejects Neo-functionalism’s ability to predict. Neo-functionalism may provide a starting point for analysis but it requires much more to be able to explain other pressures of integration.  [1] Dominguez-Rivera, Roberto, ‘Dealing with the U.S. hegemony: soft and hard power in the external relations of the EU’, 8th International Conference of the European Union Studies Association, 27 March 2003,


Neo-functionalism - liberal theory of regional integration  Neo-functionalism is an example of a liberal theory of regional integration. Its focus is on human welfare needs, not political conflict and law. Its focus is on individuals aggregated into interest groups as the main actors in integration, so the focus is on low politics and the areas which become integrated in the European Union reflect that. As such there has been much more progress on economic integration than there has on creating a common foreign and security policy. [1]  It also accepts the independent role of international organisations and that the transformation of the international regional system towards a better order is feasible so making the European Union a project worth investing effort in.  [1] Center for European studies, ‘European Union –Common Foreign and Security Policy’, unc.edu,


Neo-functionalism provides a good starting point for EU analysis.  Neo-functionalism is an accessible theory which provides a good starting point for analysis. As a theory it has the advantages of being able to predict the outcome of integration and clearly explains which actors must be studied in order to explain integration. Haas and Lindberg’s “main thesis was that sectorial integration was inherently expansive - integration of some functional tasks would tend to spill over into  integration of other tasks(…) In the basis of this analysis, Haas argued that an acceleration of the  integration process could be 'safely predicted' and that it might lead to a 'political community of Europe' within a decade”. [1]  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe "Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,


The Empty Chair Crisis of 1965 may lead some to presume that National governments are all powerful, but it may have just been a ‘speed-bump’ on the road of spillover. Ben Rosamond (2005) [1] did a reassessment of Haas and concluded that he never abandoned Neofunctionalism; he just changed it and accepted more the view of ‘Complex Interdependence’. The revival of integration since 1985 including the Treaty of Maastricht 1991 led to co-decision procedures which are an example of Political spillover as political decisions and procedure moved to the supranational level.  [1] Rosamond, Ben, 'The Uniting of Europe and the Foundations of EU Studies: Revisiting the Neofunctionalism of Enrst B. Haas', Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2005, pp. 237-254,


Ernst B. Haas was the founder of Neo-functionalism in 1951, Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen identified the 3 types of spill-over within the theory. However neither author placed a time limit on how long the integration process would take. The revival of European integration in 1985 shows it may be many years between instances when Neo-functionalism is an adequate theory for explaining integration. This may be equally coming true in the financial crisis as the Euro is necessitating further reforms and may well lead to much greater integration in order to have the tools prevent members being forced out. The political spill-over concept makes account for the fact that national elites 'will undergo a learning process, developing the perception that their interests will be better served by seeking supranational than national solutions'. [1]  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, ‘Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,


The Founder of Neo-functionalism abandoned his own Theory (Haas).  The Founder of Neo-functionalist theory Ernst B. Haas later abandoned his own theory; According to Tranholm-Mikkelsen (1991)- “By the mid-1970 s, Ernst Haas had effectively abandoned the neo-functionalist theory by assimilating it within general interdependence theories of international relations”. [1] The theory proved a success in the economic realm but a fiasco in high politics; “…at the time of the ‘empty chair’ crisis [see next point] neo-functionalism was considered too incapable of describing the process of integration in general because of its extreme Eurocentric nature. Rosamond states that it is emerged from the process of complex web of actors pursuing their interests within a pluralist political environment.” [2] Neo-functionalism remained a partial theory, good at explaining particular parts of integration but required supplanting by other theories to keep it relevant.  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, ‘Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,   [2] ‘European Political Theories: Neo – functionalism’, May 2011,


The international system is characterised by anarchy and the distribution of economic and military capabilities  Stanley Hoffman used a Neo-Realist view of International relations to build the theory of intergovernmentalism. In a neo-realist understanding the international system is characterised by anarchy and the distribution of economic and military capabilities is of primary importance. States will not trust each other but can still reach agreement, but the agreement will be characterised by bargaining and negotiation (not an automatic process!) ‘Nations prefer the certainty, or the self-controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled uncertainty of the untested blender’. [1]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Intergovernmentalism’, en.wikipedia.org,