On Balance, Individual Liberty is preferred over Individual Obedience

Thanks for accepting this! Contention One: Liberty as an Ethical IssueThis argument will be based upon ethical imperatives that must be done, and shall be centered upon one proposition. If this proposition is proven to be true, then the whole resolution is affirmed. This is my first time doing deontics in these debates, so I shall assume that truth-tables can be used. Apart from this, don't assume that all my propositions will be wffs. Firstly, let us affirm that "all men are born equal" I believe that this house does not need to affirm this, or even argue about it. No such ubermensch, in the Nietzschean philosophical doctrine, can exist with this knowledge; for all living creature whom nature has given the judgement of "man" upon him must be part of the ever lasting game of natural selection. He must not be discarded by his kinsmen, and often, he is not. With the affirmation of the above value, let us state that the consequences of our actions, or in more "Machiavellian" terms, the "ends" of our actions, is happiness and the liberation of suffering. With this fact affirmed, let this house now recognize several formalized deontic judgements, which shall inherently prove that obedience has conditions, whilst liberty doesn't. With this affirmed, let us now formalize our ethical judgements into a formal modal logical language. (OuΞ(LlO))Deontic Translation: Obey, if and only if (1) liberty is preserved and (2) obedience does not oppress. Rational Proof of Soundess of Proposition: The "Social Contract" theory is a theory often cited. In this proposition, one shall make the argumenation that the groundworks for obedience is often the protection and sustainability factor of liberty itself. In the State of Nature, humans lived in an isolated, asocial environment in which two things happened on a daily basis (these two factors are like the Golden Mean to Hobbesianism and Rosseau's Political Theory): (1) humans are unable to sustain themselves, and as a result of that (2) a state of "war of all against all" breaks out. No one theory of these two can prove and theorize the creation of the state. With this, it is neccessarily to see that they unite in order to preserve liberty and prosperity. The first factor can be dismissed; the second one is the one we will take a lot of time examining. Take this as an example; whoever is at complete liberty can kill anyone, for if a man is not bound by any sense of justice, he might as well kill a man over the slightest sort of disagreement, as anger often proves to end with a irrational conclusion. With this said, liberty is still around, and so is obedience. Ever man sacrifices the same amount of rights for the sake of obedience, but these rights should not intefere with the general liberty of the person, for if a man is stripped of his rights, he is no longer human; the only thing that keeps our world going is the evolutionary offshoot of kin alturism, thought also to be the origins of morality away from religion.Proof of Validity of Proposition and Argumentation: If:(OuΞ(LlO)) is via defense, true, and "Ou" is, as proven, to be a attribute of L (of liberty), henceforth, the ends of this proposition must be the preservation of liberty. The Three Conditions of Logical-Ethical Consistency are:1. Means-End Consistency2. Logical Consistency3. Moral ConsistencyFirstly, (1) means-end consistency of this can be proven via the following arguments, in truth table form:Logical Terms Meaning: (Ou=Ought to be Obeying, Ou=Is obeying, L=Liberty, O=That is that does not oppress)Ax. L neccessarily leads to happiness, which is needed1. (OuΞ(LlO)): Our original proposition2. If ~(LlO) then ~Ou (possibility #1)3. If (~LlO) then ~Ou (possibility #2)4. If (Ll~O) then ~Ou (possibility #3)5. (OuΞ(~LlO)) then ends of L is not reached, and O is not a viable end, henceforth Means-End consistency is not reached6. (OuΞ(Ll~O)) then ends of O is not reached, but L is a viable end, henceforth Means-End consistency is reached.7. (C) Ends-means consistency is only reached in the following circumstances only: (LlO)(Ll~O) Consequence: Obey authority if and only if liberty is guranteed and you are not oppressed. The means of this is disobedience to authority that gurantees liberty and gurnatees that your are not oppressed. The ends of this happiness. Contention Two: On History and Liberty "What is the Enlightenment" was the question that was posed and answered by Immanuel Kant in his famous quasi-political essay, "The Enlightenment: What is It?" Quite simply, it is the ability to use one's own reason. The Age of Reason was the age of liberty to use one's own reason to overpower the powers in faith. The Age of Reason is secular humanism on steroids.And does it surprise this house that during the Age of Reason, a huge amount of political, theological, and many treatises came out. The Age of Reason laid foundations upon 20th century thought; Heidegger is forever in debt of Kant, every philosopher is forever in debt of David Hume. It was because of the liberty to think, that these treatises came out.But this isn't the only time; for the Renaissance, when thinkers used their own reasoning to deduce conclusions that destroyed the Church's fideism created and paved way for huge scientific breakthrough. Whole nations, founded on the principles of rational reasoning, were created due to overexcess liberty; the United States of America, South Korea and the Empire of Japan, two countries created on the principles of liberty, were able to create most patents. If the society was built upon the axioms of obedience, then this would have been impossible. [1] The Renaissance was another period, where through doubting the Church's fundamental fideism, more education were given out. In fact, it was only due to the liberty of thought, and periods that embraced it, that education has gone up. [2]It was only because of the freedom of the use of reasoning, only available under liberty, that humans can think, and make scientific breakthrough. Contention Three: Psychology, Evolution and ObedienceObedience causes mental disorders; especially strict obedience. On a small scale, authoritarian parents often create children suffering from such diseases that make them more egocentric; this is because that due obedience causing absolute morality, or a sense of it, to be instilled. The Third Reich is a fine example; Hitler's parents were of an authoritarian manner, and Hitler turned out to be a mentally-ill egocentric person. [3]Apart from this, obedience can create the following factors to happen; more aggression during out of home endeavours, lower self-esteem in oneself, and often have low EQ due to the fact that they have been indoctrinated with an absolute morality of their parents. [4]Let us then next affirm the game of evolution. It is because of liberty that we are here; game-theoretical decisions such as the answers to the Rendzevous problem, and the Centipide Dilemma, can be answer through liberty only. Evolution is based upon the fact that liberty is present; humans will never develop into a better, more psychologically healthy man if we have the liberty to do so. This is because liberty is a psychologically healthy alternative to obedience, as shown through the Adolf Hitler case.Contention Four: Obedience as a Negative ValueObedience often has a negative value to it; as humans obey only because they will to obey, and only because convenants have been accordingly adjusted, and it would only be just if they obey. However, obedience is a negative value.Let us first affirm that humans are all equal, as stated. For something to have a positive value, it has to affirm that all equal persons are moral and no man can have authority over another. However, a negative value in this case would mean that one man would have power over another. This is negative, because power, especially the monopoly of it, often means that the man is superior to him, and he is not born equal.Freedom is when self-actualization has been reached. We shall not go for Hegellian definitions of freedom, for it has become increasingly based on God, but we shall use a secular part of it; every man is part of an ever moving wheel. This wheel will move, if and only if the free-will to move it exists. The free-will to move the ever moving wheel of society is only present in the human being's ability to assure that liberty is a fact, for the role in the ever moving cog cannot be dictated to them. Etc. a man cannot be dictated to play one role in the cog. He cannot be told to be the man who fishes, nor can he be told to be the man who cooks. He is not a brutish robot; he is a man. A man has consciousness; the only way to exploit this consciousness is to self-actualize. Self-actualization of consciousness comes only with the liberation of the sprit from the chains of strict obedience, or obedience at all. "The government best is the government that does not govern at all" Obedience is a negative value. Liberty is a postive one. CONCLUSION:Ethically, psychologically, historically, liberty has always triumphed, when met, authority and obedience. Through several methods, I believe that the resolution lies negated. Note that this is my first debate, and I may not do well. But, good luck and have fun to the opposition! :DCitations:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://education-portal.com...[3] 50 Facts About Psychology You Should Know, Adrian Furnham[4] http://psychology.about.com...