Totalizing the Other K (2:35)

Link
The affirmative advocacy is founded upon a destructive, Western mindset of totalizing
Other. This is especially the case when they advocate for a world where societies are able to
presume that it is justified to take the organs of dead people despite not knowing their
interests. This action of speaking for the Other is bound to fail as the Other is infinite
and one can never hope to understand nor categorize the Other.

Malin. [M.A. from University of Missouri Law School, placed 14

secret philosophical cheat sheet]. 2014. The Big Book of Philosophers.)
(Aaron

th

in the Nation for LD, gave us his

In Levinasian language, all these philosophical projects were simply a reduction of the Other to the Same. When
faced with a plethora of phenomena, philosophers long to make it all into one understandable system.

Levinas sees the history of Western philosophy as

a conspiracy to make everything the same, for the intellectual Self
to assimilate all Others. As philosopher Nick Smith explains: Several philosophers
became acutely self-aware that their discipline had sought, since its pre-Socratic beginnings in Parmenides and
others, and through Hegel and Heidegger, to render existence as a singular unified phenomenon.

Philosophers and scientists of the Western tradition craved a final theory that
could neatly [to] systematize the world into a n organized
framework that could logically explain away all the aberrations and
anomalies of existence. For these thinkers, nothing could exist outside of their
understanding of the world and all "otherness" could somehow be related to and harmonized with their conception
of the world. (Nick Smith, "Incommensurability and Alterity in Contemporary Jurisprudence," BUFFALO LAW REVIEW,
Spring/Summer 1997, p. 510)

Levinas's answer to this conspiracy is to remind us

that all these systems place the Self, and the concept of same-ness
and universality, as the starting point for all philosophical projects. If we put the Self first,
it is natural to assume that everything must be made to be like the Self. However, Levinas sees the
Other as [is] actually prior to the Self. Alterity, or otherness, rather than
being a far-away alien, is actually our very foundation. I would not even begin to
know myself, as self, without first having my dormant
consciousness interrupted by that which I am not.
The very preconditions of realizing my self-ness rely upon a distinction between the self and this interruption of the
self.

To think--at all--is to think about the Other first.

Since the Other appears to the Self before any philosophy, metaphysics, or any rational system can define it at all,
all thinking is subsequently a response to this alterity. For Levinas, to know the Other one must know it in the realm
of basic human relationships, not philosophy. In fact

"knowledge" [or

totalization] of the Other is a contradiction in

terms, since rationalism constructs the Other
rather than allowing its Other-ness to go
unopposed. This basic relationship, what we could call an ethical relationship, is pre-philosophical.

**Something how presuming that it is okay to procure organs from the dead is the same as
totalizing the other because you categorize them into a category that has consented to give
organs. This is bad because one can never truly categorize the other as the other is infinite
and always moves beyond categories impose onto it**
**Use CX to get opponent to make concession that the resolution is asking about the
deceased who have NOT written wills or left any sort of note behind (as that would mean
they have given consent and there would be no need to presuming anything). Then, use
Tylers method and ask them Is it really okay for governments to speak on behalf of the
dead? (this method is to ask them a question that makes it seem like you are arguing with
them and theyll get really defensive and make a whole bunch of shady justifications which
you can use against them later on). Boom, they link**
**Find some Levinas evidence about how one totalizes the other/his explanation of
what I just said**
**Also, get them to link that morality is essential in this debate. Ask, Is it really
moral to take organs from a dead persons body? (again, using Tylers method) and theyll
say something along the lines of morality being utilitarian, or trying to minimize suffering.
Then youll have two options: 1) morality entails us to recognize that ethics comes from
face-to-face interaction and thus my kritik acts as a side-constraint to morality or 2) get
them to admit that ethics comes from the existence of the other. This is pretty simple,
because ask them if morality requires acting ethically or if it subsumes ethics (theyll say
yes) and then ask them if ethics can ever exist without anyone else (because since ethics
govern the way we interact with people, whats the point of ethics if there is no one to
interact with?) and THEN ask them if interacting with the other is what generates ethics
(because all the previous concessions will point to it). Boom, they UBER link**

Impacts
The rationalization of the Other prevents us from recognizing our infinite obligation to the
Other and instead alienates the Other by branding them with an arbitrary category. The
genesis of racism, segregation, persecution, and other forms of discrimination is the
categorization and alienation of the Other.

Drabinski

12

(John E.
. Professor of Black Studies at Amherst College. Ph.D. from University of Memphis. 20
. Levinas,
Race, and Racism. Project Muse. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/levinas_studies/v007/7.drabinski01.html)

The problematic of race and racism is in some sense inherent in

Levinass own work. Perhaps no other force in world history has
created a sense of other in local, national, regional, and
global contexts than racism. Indeed, it has become all but standard to claim that
national identities are formed, not on the basis of an
inherent meaning and value of a people, but instead in relation to
an other [End Page vii] who, in its persecution and
marginalization, comes to define a people by
establishing what that people is only in contrast (or
contradiction) to what it is not . Rome had Carthage, Germany
had the Jews, the Americas had (or have) the Africans and people
of African descent, Amerindians, and the (always shifting) immigrant-as-other, and so on. The imperialism of everyday life is carried by this

To become a part of a people, one learns and

practices hatred of the political other. This social process thereby
social process.

establishes a moral or even metaphysical sense of otherness and, in rendering the political meaning of this otherness, defines (or wants to define)
ones collective and individual self as something that endures across time and history. The racial other makes an identity of the people beyond the
moment, inscribing the individual in a larger narrative of what it means to belong, sure, but also what it means to be as such. Racism, we could
say, produces its own particular form of conatus essendi . When Levinas says that politics left to itself is tyranny, we should hear the echo of
exactly this social process. Politics enters or even just is the plane of being, the play of identities; racism calcifies identities at the very moment it
makes them possible as political realities. What does Levinass work have to say to this social process and the questions of justice it raises?

This alienation of the Other creates a system of ethics that forces us to view the Other as
merely a concept and not infinite. This destroys morality because under this system of
ethics, we are allowed to commit terrible atrocities such as war and genocide as long as they
follow the rules of the system. This disregard for the Other forces them into a category of
the hated foreigner, making it impossible to ever fulfill our obligation to them.

Mensch

(James
. [James Mensch has been the recipient of four Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Grants,
his current grant being for writing a commentary on Levinas' Totality and Infinity. The author of ten published monographs, he serves on the
boards of numerous journals. In 2012, he was a member of the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Grants
committee. He holds the positions of Full Professor at the Faculty of Humanities at Charles University in Prague, Senior Research Professor,
Department of Philosophy, Saint Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, and Sir Walter Murdoch Distinguished Collaborator in the
School of Arts, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia. He is also a member of the Central European Institute of Philosophy. See http://www.sifpraha.cz/people/. His latest book, Levinas' Existential Analytic, A Commentary on Totality and Infinity, will be published by Northwestern

11

University Press in 2014.] 20

. Lectures on Levinas Totality and Infinity. Academia.edu.
https://www.academia.edu/1738226/Lectures_on_Levinas_Totality_and_Infinity)

Levinas [asserts that] begins the preface by opposing to morality [is the] its
opposite, that of war. He writes, Everyone will readily agree that it is the highest importance to know whether we are
not duped by morality. Does not lucidity, the minds openness upon the true, consist in catching sight of the permanent possibility of war

War... renders

(Totality and Infinity, hereafter cited as TI, p. 21) With war, we see the opposite of morality:

morality derisory (ibid). This means, for Levinas, that if we want to understand morality, then we must first grasp
war, which is its opposite. Now what characterizes war is totalization. One
should not forget the reference of this word, like that of totality to the expressions popular during the Second World War Totalitarianism,
Total War, etc. In each case, there is the emphasis that nothing be left out: Total War, a phrase that Goebels employed, means the use of

It means not distinguishing enemy

civilians from enemy soldiers, etc. Totalitarianism
means the inclusion of all life under state control . War,
according to Levinas, is the example of totalization. In his words, war establishes an order
from which no one can keep his distance; nothing
henceforth is exterior. War does not manifest exteriority and the other as other (ibid.).
Morality, as the opposite of this, is the order in which
one maintains exteriority, [and] one preserves the
other as other. To enter into the moral realm is, in his words, to proceed from the experience of totality back to a
any and all means to prosecute the war.

situation where totality breaks up, a situation that conditions the totality itself. Such a situation is the gleam of exteriority or of transcendence in

totalization, the denial of

alterity, and, hence, war is a feature of Western philosophy. In his words,
The visage [face] of being that shows itself in war is fixed in the concept of totality that
dominates Western philosophy. (21).
the face of the Other (autrui) (24). Levinass claim is that

**Something about how totalization of the other has led to a bunch of problems, such as
**
**Colonialism**
**Feminism**
**Wars/Genocide**

Alternative
The alternative is to reject the aff advocacy because they are grounded in the very criticism
that I have made. No matter how they go about it, the aff inherently advocates for a world
where war, racism, and discrimination will occur due to their action of speaking for the
Other. Vote negative as a result of this.

**You probably will have an opponent that isnt expecting such an unusual case, so
you wont have to prepare for uniqueness. But just in case, adapt the alternative as needed
so you can work with it. Remember, this kritik is can be run as an off-case coupled to your
NC**

CX Questions

Deceased have no wills

**Use CX to get opponent to make concession that the resolution is asking about the
deceased who have NOT written wills or left any sort of note behind (as that would mean they
have given consent and there would be no need to presuming anything).**
Neg Your definition of presume was (some crap about how its okay to make
assumptions), correct?
Aff Yes
Neg Does this mean that we can make assumptions for those who have explicitly stated
their interests?
Aff No (good)/Yes (PRESS and make contradiction so must autonegate arg)
Neg So thus, we can agree that the deceased we are discussing have not left any wills or
letters explaining their interests, correct?
Aff Yes (good)/No (PRESS and make contradiction so must autonegate arg)

Morality comes from the Other

**Also, get them to link that morality is essential in this debate. Ask, Is it really moral
to take organs from a dead persons body? (again, using Tylers method) and theyll say
something along the lines of morality being utilitarian, or trying to minimize suffering. Then
youll have two options: 1) morality entails us to recognize that ethics comes from face-to-face
interaction and thus my kritik acts as a side-constraint to morality or 2) get them to admit that
ethics comes from the existence of the other. This is pretty simple, because ask them if morality
requires acting ethically or if it subsumes ethics (theyll say yes) and then ask them if ethics can
ever exist without anyone else (because since ethics govern the way we interact with people,
whats the point of ethics if there is no one to interact with?) and THEN ask them if interacting
with the other is what generates ethics (because all the previous concessions will point to it).
Boom, they UBER link**
Neg

Trap 1
Then, use Tylers method and ask them Is it really okay for governments to speak on behalf of
the dead? (this method is to ask them a question that makes it seem like you are arguing with
them and theyll get really defensive and make a whole bunch of shady justifications which you
can use against them later on). Boom, they link
Neg Is it really moral for just societies to take organs from the dead?
Aff 1 (Bunch of defensive crap about why its just, using justification like util and
minimize suffering. Theyll end up biting right into your K because all of that utilizes a
system where we say that there are universal rules for human behavior. By establishing
norms of behavior for everyone, we attempt to turn all Others into the same as we are. This
is the very definition of totalization.)
Aff 2 (Stuff about how the dead dont need it anymore so its okay to take them. In this
case, bring up the concession they made on how the deceased we are talking about dont
have wills, so its impossible to know if they really do or dont want their organs taken.
Theyll say something about it doesnt matter since they dont need it. Boom, they link.)
Aff 3 (Im guessing a lot of people will run Opt-Out Plans/Advocacies, so a few champ
debaters might respond with stuff about how their case doesnt respond to that. In such a
contingency, run Topicality (or a pseudo-T) on them. Say how the definition of presume
means that the dead havent given an explicit will. Their plan/advocacy does not defend
presuming organ procurement from the dead, but instead advocates for a new system
where the default is that everyone who hasnt opted out will donate their organs. While
they might say presumed consent in their evidence, they only defend the benefits of doing
such a system; they havent answered my question. And since morality must come first
before all else, they must answer the question.)