LIVE DEBATE: The "Right to be Forgotten" as a Civil Right

I affirm and value morality. Morality isn’t an appeal to an overreaching normative structure but rather the ethical dilemma of whether we are obligated to assist is a decision of temporal finitude however that moment is haunted by a trace of time – the past violence and non-violence and the future possibility of lesser violence and greater violence. From this trace we find that ethics is defined by the relation to the Other that we must respect. Hagglund 1: Hagglund 10 (Hagglund, Martin. “The Non-Ethical Opening of Ethics: A Response to Derek Attridge”, Edingburg University Press, October 28th, 2010.) “The structure of the trace follows from the constitution of time, which makes it impossible for anything to be present in itself. For one moment to be succeeded by another moment … every temporal moment ceases to be as soon as it comes to be and must therefore be inscribed as a trace in order to be at all. The trace enables the moment to be retained, since it is characterised by the ability to remain in spite of temporal succession. … It is this irreducible dependence on and exposure to the tracing of time that Derrida calls the relation to ‘the other’. … ‘the other’ … designate another human being. … ‘Without autoimmunity, with absolute immunity, nothing would ever happen’ … life is necessarily open to death, good necessarily open to evil, and peace necessarily open to violence. Inversely, an absolute life that is immune to death, an absolute goodness that is immune to evil, or an absolute peace that is immune to violence is for Derrida the same as an absolute death, …” Derrida’s trace speaks to a fundamental aspect of ethics – we are always exposed to an irreducible alterity of the Other. In this sense the appeal to the Other is the non-ethical opening ethics where in striving for lesser exclusion we are confronted by the possibility of greater violence. This account of ethics is the very possibility of ethics and is thus apriori. Hagglund 2: Hagglund 10 (Hagglund, Martin. “The Non-Ethical Opening of Ethics: A Response to Derek Attridge”, Edingburg University Press, October 28th, 2010.) “The non-ethical opening of the relation to the other gives rise to every chance of progress and every threat of regress. … alterity … precipitates af@257;rmations and negations, con@257;rmations and resistances that stem from the ‘same’ exposition to undecidable events. … it is the undecidable future that necessitates decisions. One is always forced to confront temporal alterity and engage in decisions that only can be made from time to time, … The ethical is … a matter of responding to alterity by making decisions and calculations, … the ethical arises in responding to the other, … with … hospitality that welcomes the other ‘without consideration of its goodness or badness, without forethought about likely consequences’ and consequently without ‘any of the processes of judgment or classi@257;cation’ … we are bound to the other before any decision, but this passive exposure to the other is precisely not ethical: it is the non-ethical opening of ethics that demands a response in the form of conditions, calculations, decisions” Under this conception of epistemology, our normative ethic must be grounded in the ethics of hospitality where the metaphor of host and guest is applied to normative dilemmas. Only this understanding of ethics accounts for the non-ethical opening of ethics. Westmoreland: Mark W. Westmoreland. Interruptions: Derrida and Hospitality. KRITIKE VOLUME TWO NUMBER ONE (JUNE 2008) 1-10. “Ethics,” … is an ethics without law and without concept.” … the possibility of ethics is referred, not to its actuality, but to its impossibility.” … Derrida defines ethics as hospitality, hospitality as ethics. Hospitality is not removed from ethics, nor is it a specific area of ethics. It is the … the whole and the principle of ethics … ethics relies on hospitality so much that one cannot speak of ethics without speaking of hospitality, although the relationship between the two may be at once both hidden and calling to be seen.” Thus the standard is maintaining consistency with an ethics of hospitality. Additional reasons to prefer: First: we cannot appeal to a preexisting presumption about what the good is and appeal to utopian ideals that are outside of the opening to the Other because that commits us to a state of absolute violence and destroys the very possibility of ethics. Hagglund 3 writes: Hagglund, Martin. The Necessity of Discrimination: Disjoining Derrida and Levinas. Diacritics, Volume 34, Number 1, Spring 2004, pp. 40-71 (Article). Project Muse. “A possible objection … is that we must strive toward an ideal … end, … that would prevail … the possibility of violence. … it is … with such an “ontological” thesis that … hauntological thinking takes issue. … a … life— … not haunted by any ghosts—would be nothing but a complete death. DerridaF0; s point is not simply that a peaceful state of existence is impossible to realize, … Rather, he challenges the … idea that absolute peace is desirable. In a state of being where all violent change is precluded, nothing can ever happen. Absolute peace is thus inseparable from absolute violence, … Anything that would finally put an end to violence … would end the possibility of life in general. The idea of absolute peace is the idea of eliminating the undecidable future that is the condition for anything to happen. Thus, the idea of absolute peace is the idea of absolute violence.” Second: The only account of an ethical event is grounded in it’s opposite – a radical evil that would haunt it. Ignoring this aspect of ethical decisions is to functionally ignore the descions itself and negate the purpose of ethics. The ethics of hospitality is the only ethical system that accounts for this. Hagglund 4 writes: Hagglund 10 (Hagglund, Martin. “The Non-Ethical Opening of Ethics: A Response to Derek Attridge”, Edingburg University Press, October 28th, 2010.) “that if I invite a good friend and we have a great time it is an irreducible condition that ‘the experience might have been terrible. Not only that it might have been terrible, but the threat remains. That this good friend may become the devil, … for an event, … to happen the possibility of radical evil must remain inscribed as a possibility’ since ‘if we exclude the mere possibility of such a radical evil, then there will be no event at all. When we are exposed to what is coming, even in the most generous intention of hospitality, we must not exclude the possibility that the one who is coming is coming to kill us, is a @257;gure of evil’ … evil is a necessarily possibility but also that nothing would be desirable without it, since it is intrinsic to the experience of the good itself. … when I experience something good, the coming of a friend for example, if I am happy with a good surprise, then in this experience of happiness, within it, the memory of or the lateral reference to the possible perversion of it must remain present, in the wings let’s say, otherwise I could not enjoy it’” Contention One: No right to be forgotten causes discrimination in the hiring process. First, People’s past crimes, even if they’re old and outdated crimes that don’t apply to their behavior today, still come back to haunt them when they apply for jobs. Wright:(Wright, Kai. "Boxed In: How a Criminal Record Keeps You Unemployed For Life." The Nation. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2014.) “So I made a phone call and asked to speak to them,” he explains. He says his boss told him, “We found out you have a record. And you can’t work here, … At age 22, Rivera says, he committed a burglary in the Bronx. … The judge didn’t make him serve any time, just released him to his parents’ custody and gave him five years of probation. Within two years, he’d earned release from probation … But the conviction has nonetheless stalked him ever since. “Twenty years later, it’s still there.” And, unemployment biases keep people from getting jobs simply because they are unemployed MANY ARE LONG TERM UNEMPLOYED DUE TO UNEMPLOYMENT BIASES. THIS ISN’T JUST A SPECULATION OF BIAS, STUDIES EMPIRICALLY PROVE THIS. Ghayad:Rand. "The Jobless Trap." Job Market Paper (2012): 3. Print. I submit roughly 3360 fictitious reL9;sumeL9;s to 600 job ads divided among a specific set of firms in four targeted industries … and applicants’ credentials on reL9;sumeL9;s were randomly manipulated to uncover how different reL9;sumeL9; characteristics affect … Employment status and the duration of the current nonemployment spell were randomized across reL9;sumeL9;s ….The reported results for my entire sample reveal that applicants with long nonemployment spells are less likely to be invited for job interviews. … examination of the data … reveals a sharp drop off in average interview requests after six months of nonemployment. Applicants with one month of nonemployment need to send about 10 reL9;sumeL9;s to get one interview request whereas applicants with seven months of nonemployment need to send about 35. Contention Three: We need to stop unemployment Poverty outweighs all impacts, and causes a meta-ethical obligation to help G`illigan 96:James, “Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes”, p 191-196) BT The deadliest form of violence is poverty.…*Structural violence is … invisible, … structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence … 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with … 100,000 deaths … from … conflict.Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II … the Indonesian massacre … the Vietnam war … and even ahypothetical nuclear exchange… cannotbegin to compare with structural violence, … Structural violence is… the main cause of behavioral violence…