The Shah is Victorious, please read pages 1-13.
NO READING JOURNALS
In lieu of reading journals or standard blog postings, please post an affirmative and a negative argument and then respond to one another's arguments.
In addition, please find two pieces of scholarly evidence (journals, reputable newspapers, think-tanks, etc.)
1 pro/1 contra.
This is an introduction to the new forms of debate we will be exploring, have a look!
32 comments:
The paranoid part of me wonders how much the U.S. still does things like Project AJAX in small, yet useful, countries. It seems like ideologically-driven Islamic terrorists would be much harder to infiltrate than citizens that were ambivalent about communism, so the tactic wouldn't be as useful nowadays.
The REALLY paranoid part of me reads the temporary factors that can aid a coup and wonders if a coup would be possible here, in the United States. The U.S.'s current struggles are probably too minor to contribute to a coup, but that's not enough to stop my paranoid speculation!
Whoops, I thought we were supposed to do an ordinary post.
Violence is never justified in the pursuit of energy security because the safety of innocent people should not be jeopardized for the sake of more efficient energy while we already have usable forms of energy.
Violence is justified in the pursuit of energy security, especially if the benefits from energy security can increase citizen safety, saving more lives than it costs. Ensec.org states energy security does not even put citizens at a great deal of sacrifice.
Violence is justified in the pursuit of energy security because if energy is not protected or obtained, than an enemy can defeat a country by cutting off their resources.
Violence is not justified in the pursuit of energy security because there are renewable sources of energy available.
Violence is never justified in pursuit of energy security because human life is more important than a lifestyle.
Violence is justified in the pursuit of energy because risking a few lives is more important than loosing control of energy required elements of life such as communication, transportation, security etc...
Violence is not justified because an act of bloodshed or terrorism in the gaining of something small on a world wide scale could cause a much larger impact than if violence had not been used. In other words, the ends do not justify the means.
Violence is justified because there are others who will want your resources and are too stubborn to listen to reason and negotiating.
Violence is not justified in the pursuit of energy because individual human life is more valuable than energy.
Violence is justified in the pursuit of energy because in the long run energy will save more lives than those wasted in the pursuit of energy.
Violence is not justified in the pursuit of energy security because a human being, in order to get what he wants, should not put another human being in harm's way. There are other successful means of pursuing energy security.
Violence is justified in the pursuit of energy security because if a country prevents another country from obtaining energy security, violence is needed.
Violence is not justified in pursuit of energy security because human lives are more valuable than energy.
Violence is justified in pursuit of energy because more citizens could be put at risk if energy is not protected from enemies.
Violence is not justified in the pursuit of energy security because attacking another country for economic reasons is wrong.
Violence is justified in the pursuit of energy security because without affordable energy, the devastation to one's nation could be equal to the devastation to another nation if it is raided for resources. Wouldn't it be better leadership to care about your people than foreigners?
Violence is not justified by the pursuit of energy security because human life is valuable.
Violence is justified by the pursuit of energy security because the security could save lifes. So if the security could save more lives than it would cost it could be justified.
From what I can tell, the reoccurring theme here is human life and value. Can depriving someone of life or health be justified if our energy goals are satisfied? That looks to be the big picture in all this. However, we have the flip-side: This energy security can help SAVE lives. I liked how Jessica pointed out that the benefit should outweigh the cost. That's a valid point. Interesting moral question here. Kinda tricky.
I agree with Nathan, the issues seems to be people going to feel the consequences of violence in the pursuit of energy security. Also can acquiring energy security save lives in the long run? Or will it just result in more power struggles, and just cost more lives?
Yeah, I agree with Nate too. How does energy security specifically save lives though?
I think Ryan's argument against violence is an interesting one because it is does not mention the value of human life, but focusses on the fact that attacking a country for any economic reason is wrong. It just stuck out to me as I was reading over all the the arguments because it was so different from the ones before and after.
Yeah I liked how Ryan branched out from just the human life is valueble agruement. I think he makes an interesting point about how attacking for economic reasons is wrong.
Jacqui, energy saves lives because without fuel or electricity things necessary for life such as farms, food distributors, and hospitals can't do their jobs.
Energy efficiency justifies violence because violence is not a constant, but true energy efficiency would last constantly for generations to come. In other words, if we achieve energy security NOW (with violence if necessary), neither violence or energy issues will be a problem in the future. (NOTE: this assumes that violence is caused by the search for energy security, which is not necessarily the case.)
Violence does not justify energy efficiency because current, pressing issues (war, mass-murder, terrorism, etc.) should be dealt with before we look to sustaining the future and dealing with its problems (which are not yet so pressing).
@Megan: I think your argument is very interesting (human life vs human lifestyle). You almost seem to say, "We've survived in the past without renewable energy, we don't necessarily need it now (much less so if violence is involved). While this is a great theoretical argument, it isn't very practical. In reality, it might be more harmful and/or difficult for modern humanity to change its lifestyle than to engage in war for the sake of strengthening modern lifestyle.
Violence is not justified in the pursuit of energy security because, simply put, human life and human welfare are more important than energy security.
Violence-assuming any would be necessary-is justifiable in the pursuit of energy security because in the short term, IF violence is necessary in securing energy, it is almost insignificant compared to the violence that the established energy security would prevent in the long run.
@Max, I like the fact you included "if" violence would even be necessary because I had the same though: violence may not have a major role in securing energy. And commenting about your comment on Megan's comment (comment-ception), I agree that it would be difficult-most likely impossible-to change our modern lifestyle. Pity.
@Jacqui, adding to what Ryan said, you could even incorporate what we're are learning about in class to argue how energy saves lives: intelligence. Energy is a prolific proponent in the developments of better communication, satellites, etc., which all contribute to intelligence. And obviously we have some idea how American intelligence has more than likely saved countless lives by predicting and eliminating possible threats of violence. Although, you could make the argument that unstable and communistic nations use intelligence for the sake of violence, nevertheless you get the idea.
Cheers
@Max
I really like your position, as it is a little different from the value of life vs. value of energy. You're argument brings the initial argument into a future vs. present situation that I think it quite interesting (despite the assumptions). Clever thinking buddy!
I'm just going to have to go with the masses on this one. When in Rome, eh?
Contra energy security: Violence is never justified in the pursuit of energy security. The value of advanced technologies/transportation, etc. (things requiring energy to work) should not be placed over the value of a human life (assuming the "violence" harms people).
Pro energy security: Violence is justified in pursuit of energy security. Many technologies (requiring energy) help enhance and protect the human life. If violence must be committed to promote the greater good (e.g. national security gained through the security of energy) then it is a price worth paying.
Violence is never in anyway needed in securing energy. Humans are much more important that access to energy.
But violence will be used if countries keep each other from obtaining or using their energy.
When measuring and comparing the worth of human lives and securing energy for our country, government officials and those defending our land should always put the lives of (any) people first and foremost, and violence shall not be tolerated.
While most would argue that human lives are more important than keeping our source of energy safe, violence is necessary to lay claim and keep a hold of what our country is entitled to.
@Ian: The fact that you included transportation in your argument is a really good point, as that is one of the bigger things that people are focusing on.. Although I would say that those involved are trying to make transportation safer for humans.
@Mark: I do suppose that thinking of what the country can do to with violence on a short-term basis instead of stretching it out peacefully during a long period of time would be ideal.
Energy justifies violence because violence isnt consistant, but actual energy efficiency would be consistant for a long time. If we get energy security, violence will not be a problem in the future.
Violence doesn't justify energy efficiency because current, issues (riots, slavery, and terrorism) should be dealt with before we deal with future problems.
Violence is not justified in the pursuit of energy because human life is more precious than the growth of energy security.
Violence is justified in the pursuit of energy because the number of lives who benefit outweighs the number of lives lost.
Post a Comment