Human Worth NC
Because the resolution asks what is justified, I value justice. This stems from our inherent nature as humans.
Quinn1 explains,
A person is constituted by his body and mind. They are parts or aspects of him. For that very reason, it is
fitting that he have primary say over what may be done to them-not because such an arrangement best promotes overall human welfare, but because any
arrangement that denied him that say would be a grave indignity. In giving him this authority, morality recognizes his existence as an
individual with ends of his own-an independent being. Since that is what he is, he deserves this recognition. Were morality to withhold it, were it to allow us
to kill or injure him whenever that would be collectively best, it would picture him not as a being in his own
right but as a cell in the collective whole.
Further, systems of utility have to include considerations of human worth because they are of the greatest merit.
Applebaum2 writes,
Because a violation-minimizing violation uses one as a means for the ends of others and so fails to treat persons as ends in
themselves. If persons are to matter in the highest possible way, then morality must value not only the absence of
violations of persons, but the treatment of persons as beings who have the status of being inviolable-whose
violation is not permissible. "What actually happens to us is not the only thing we care about: What may be done to us is also important, quite apart from whether or not it is done to us-and the same is true of what we may do
if morality permits violations so as to maximize the good of not
being violated, all persons cease to have a high degree of inviolability, which is a great bad. We all may be better off in
a world in which morality always treated us as ends, and so where it is always morally impermissible to violate us, even though we are
thereby more likely to suffer violation at the hands of immoral actors.
as opposed to what we actually do." 7 Since having the status of inviolability is of great value,
Finally, human worth is necessary to even begin formulations of cost benefit scenarios.
Dillon3 writes,
Economies of evaluation necessarily require calculability. Thus no valuation without mensuration and no mensuration without indexation. Once
rendered calculable, however, units of account are necessarily submissible not only to valuation but also, of course, to devaluation.
Devaluation, logically, can extend to the point of counting as nothing. Hence, no mensuration without demensuration either. There is nothing abstract about
this: the declension of economies of value leads to the zero point of holocaust. However liberating and emancipating
systems of value—rights - may claim to be, for example, they run the risk of counting out the invaluable. Counted out, the invaluable
[who] may then lose its purchase on life. Herewith, then, is the necessity of championing the invaluable
itself.
Thus, the standard is respecting human worth.
I contend that compulsory immunization violates human worth because it restricts our ability to make decisions
over our own bodies and justifies anything in pursuit of a greater social good
Fisher4 writes,
[As] disease and disability is destroying the health of more highly vaccinated children than any infectious disease epidemic in our history, including smallpox,
polio, whooping cough and measles. The response by health officials to this unprecedented national child health crisis is to tell parents that, every time another
child dies or regresses into poor health after vaccination, it is just a “coincidence” while quietly writing those children off as acceptable losses. It is this tragic moral
failure and scientific miscalculation by doctors we have trusted that now threatens the biological integrity of future generations of Americans. If we cannot be free to make informed, voluntary
decisions about which pharmaceutical products we are willing to risk our lives for, then we are not free in any
sense of the word. Because if the State can tag, track down and force individuals against their will to be injected with biological
products of unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take
away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.
1
Killing and letting die By Bonnie Steinbock, Alastair Norcross Contributor Bonnie Steinbock, Alastair Norcross Published by Fordham Univ Press, 1994 ISBN 0823215628, 9780823215621 431 pages Warren Quinn
2
Are Violations of Rights Ever Right? Author(s): Arthur Isak Applbaum Source: Ethics, Vol. 108, No. 2 (Jan., 1998), pp. 340-366 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2382196 Accessed: 18/09/2008 00:20
3
Michael Dillon 1999 “Another Justice” Political theory 27.2 (April) pg 155-175 //wpdu.jmm
4
Vaccine Freedom of Choice by Barbara Loe Fisher Co-founder & President National Vaccine Information Center Rally for Conscientious Exemption to Vaccination October 16, 2008 Trenton, New Jersey
Human Worth NC
Extensions:
Quinn – Extend Quinn, he tells you that a person is constituted by body and mind and since these are
intrinsically significant to the individual, each person retains exclusive say in determining what happens to
them. This is the only way to value individuals as ends in themselves because the alternative would allow the
state to utilize persons in order to fulfill greater social ends.
Applebaum – Extend Applebaum, he tells you that violations of human worth fail to treat individuals as ends
and that morality has to treat humans as inviolable beings. Since our inviolable status has such merit in
determining what may morally happen to us, it would be preferable to always be treated as ends and suffer than
to lose our inviolability. This has significant implications for utility because the greatest end will always be to
preserve inviolability which means that the AC ultimately has to impact back to my standard, irrespective if he
is winning his because I’m outweighing other harms on magnitude.
Dillon – Extend Dillon, he tells you that in order to make utilitarian calculations of good or bad you must first
treat humans as valuable. The reason for this is that if devaluation occurs, we can never utilize rational costbenefit analysis in making decisions because the sum of all ends would equal zero. The zero point of the
holocaust occurred because individuals were able to be thrown away irrespective of their worth in order to
promote the greater ends of the state. This means evaluation of the NC always comes prior to the AC because
respecting human worth is a prerequisite to weighing the merits of actions.
Fisher – Extend Fisher, she tells you first that the state is denying individuals sovereign control over their own
persons as the state is able to dictate what substances enter their bodies. This is a direct impact to the standard
because human worth is intrinsically constituted by a person’s body and mind. Next, extend the warrant that if
the state is allowed to utilize humans as means to an end now, there will be no check on their actions in the
future. This impacts to the standard because the state is then allowed to violate our status as inviolable beings
which is significant in determining moral wrongness.