On Balance, Individual Liberty is preferred over Individual Obedience

Counter-Contention One: On Liberty as an Ethical Value Firstly, the opposition violates the Humean Is-Ought law; whatever is, is not what ought to be. For one can have polio, but all ought not to have polio. With this said, we shall move on into our inquiries into the beginning of obedience. The opposition quotes two great philosophers in concluding “empirically” that obedience precedes liberty. This may be true on a political timescale, but definitely not in a biological and psychological perspective; as we are here talking about individuals, and not society, it would be easy then to dismiss the appeals to society, and how obedience in political societies precedes liberty. Subcontention One: On Biology On a biological timescale, the game theoretical explanations for the origins of obedience can be found in the “game theoretical models” of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Metaphorically, there are two prisoners; both of them are guilty. The have two choices; the first choice is to “defect” that is, to confess that the other prisoner is guilty; once confessed, the other prisoner gets 3 years in prison, whilst the prisoner defected is free. If both defect, then both get 3 years in prison. The second choice is to cooperate, and do not defect; quite simply, if they do this, they get one year in prison only. The reward preliminary is T > R > P > S; in this dilemma, if both prisoners defect, then the P is given. If both prisoners cooperate, then R is given. If one defects, then the one who defects gets T while the other gets S. If both defect, they both get payoff P. [1] This Game Theoretical model has been developed by the players of natural selection, and continues to be one of the main explanations for the human survival story. Game theory is not what ought to be done, but what has already been done in our evolutionary past; this can be seen from the high amounts of kin altruism, which has often been called the “origins of morality” Nevertheless, let us take the Prisoner’s Dilemma model into a social contract context, and in the analysis of the prisoner dilemma in the real world, it will soon become clear that human liberty necessarily precedes human obedience. Replace the prisoners with humans, and replace defect and cooperate with “anarchy” and “government” The guilt of man is that he “survives only via diffidence, competition and glory” (according to Hobbes). All men are guilty; if one chooses to defect, then T is gained. However, T is seldom gained, as humans, due to huge complexes of kin altruism, will always help others. Henceforth, due to kin altruism, all men necessarily “cooperate” and gain the R award. This is short of T, as the result of cooperation (government, R) cannot exist with all rights necessarily gained, henceforth the point of this debate. [2] Men, henceforth, choose obedience; he is not forced to obey. “Man obeys at his will.” Yet, before the Social Contract, let this house analyze men first; due to the development of language, which hath (pun intended) allowed men to “negotiate and use the senses of reasoning”, inequality ariseth (another pun). Some men are better at reasoning than others, as is self-evident. Men come through the social contract still with the three values of the state of nature still intact, which are namely diffidence, competition and glory. A man who is good at these three virtues in a civilized society will necessarily have more resources and be “superior” in all senses to man without these three virtues, henceforth the origins of inequality. Subcontention Two: On Psychology From a psychological perspective, it has to be said that our maxim in the previous round still stands firm, as an ethical maxim for all human obedience, for humans will only obey if liberty is ensured, and humans will obey only for the sake of themselves. Let us take the Zimbardo Prison Experiment as a case study in the development of human obedience, and the true unconscious reasons for obedience. In the timework of evolutionary psychology, humans have a naturally free will, or so they think. Unconsciously, this free will necessarily works best without obedience, and without interference. The ZPE (Zimbardo Prison Experiment) has shown that: (1) Humans obey because of the need to preserve even the slightest bit of their liberty (2) Humans obey because the unconscious intuitive senses urges man to preserve the present free will. This was present in the ZPE via the facts that prisoners obeyed willingly if they were given some liberty, even as prisoners; they obeyed even inhumane and horrific orders, often taunting those who did not in an exercise of their liberty. The unconscious free will drives this, for humans without any free will are often subjected to more psychological pains, and cannot ever become enlightened, as they are more oft to obedience in order to gain liberty. This was why, due to the simple free will of the man, the Milgram Experiment worked perfectly well, as well as the Holocaust, as they were just “following superior orders” [3][5] Nevertheless, extremities in obedience destroy the human mind. This case shall be reaffirmed in the following contentions. Counter-Contention Two: On the Age of Reason and History Firstly, the opposition’s piecemeal response highlights a fact that he bases this argument upon the axiomatic conclusions that were shown false in the last contention. Liberalism and libertarianism and all countries, which have followed it, have gained unprecedented head in scientific discoveries; the Age of Reason is only available when the liberty to use the reason is available. This contention still remains affirmed Counter-Contention Three: On Psychology and Obedience The opposition states that an excess of something is always bad, and an excess of obedience is always better than an excess of liberty. This is a lie; the state of nature has surely not killed as many people as the Holodomir or the Holocaust. Nevertheless, this contention shall be invested in reaffirming that the negative aspects of obedience, especially extreme obedience, shape the behavior of man. In a study done to investigate the psychological effects of totalitarianism. i.e strict individual obedience, it was shown that citizens under totalitarian regimes are much more extreme. Psychiatrists sent a questionnaire to random citizens of post-Ba’athist Iraq; these questionnaires showed some highly concerning schizophrenic-behavior. It was in the same societies that 49% of the households reported cases of ear amputations, and 58% of households reported cases of involuntary torture done by the government. Under the doctrines of obedience, this will inevitably happen. [4] Albeit too much liberty will inevitably cause the corruption of the human mind, as shown in the ZPE and many cases, too much obedience can bring out the harshest qualities of man, for the tyranny of the man upon another is much harsher than the tyranny of nature. More freedom is always welcomed, but more oppression isn’t always needed; a generation of man can submit, but not an entire race.Counter-Contention Four: On Obedience as a Negative Value The opposition’s response to this is based upon an axiomatic conclusion that has been proven to be unsound. But nevertheless, I shall introduce more formal proofs in order to support this argument:1. It is possible in some worlds that some men are superior to other men 2. It is possible that in some worlds, some men are created superior to other men 3. From 1 and 2, possibility of superiority via birth and via ability is a possibility. 4. (D) Negative Value is defined as a process that attempts to make something finite. i.e It attempts to make liberty infinite, but ultimately one cannot conceive infinity with something greater.5. (D) Positive Value is defined as the value/virtue that makes liberty infinite. i.e Nothing can be conceived as greater than liberty6. (D) Obedience is the only thing able to be conceived that is greater than liberty7. (D) Liberty is the infinite characteristic that can only be conceived and deterred by obedience.8. It is self evident from 1 and 2 that liberty can be made finite, but is not originally finite. According to 4, another must conceive whatever is negative in regards to liberty. According to 6, the only thing greater than liberty is obedience. 9. C: Henceforth obedience is a negative value in all worlds. Then what are the implications of a negative value? Let us extend the above argument. 10.According to 1 and 2, superiority may be conceived in some possible universes. 11.If superiority may be conceived in some possible universes, and obedience is a negative value, then demand for obedience can only stem from the superior12.According to 10, if demands for obedience comes from the superior, then the superior necessarily imposes a negative value onto a man13.(Ax) Infinity is the greatest14.(Ax. from 8) If liberty is infinity, then liberty is the greatest15.All attempts to limit infinity are necessarily finite.16.By (13), liberty is the greatest and an attempt to finite liberty is a negative value, henceforth, via this humans have limited themselves to something finite (finite is not the greatest) rather than something infinite (infinity is the greatest)17.Obedience is finite and can only deter liberty18.(C) Liberty is superior to obedience, as liberty is infinite I shall be only defending the points, which are fundamental. Proposition 8; liberty is the most infinite thing, as under liberty, there is nothing to conceive the limits of the free will. Proposition 12: Obedience comes from the “superior” and henceforth the “superior” attempts to limit an infinite substance, making the action a negative one. This deductive argument proves my point, and ultimately, the resolution. Citations:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...