Calen Smith

March- April 2013

LHS DEBATE

Dedicated to the Memories of Karen Evan

I affirm the resolution -Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the
internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights
abuses.

For the sake of clarification I would like to provide a few observations about this
debate.

OB1- Because of the word attempt in the resolution neither side out need to provide
consequential impacts in this debate. Pattison- explains to us that the moral
legitimacy of the action matters more than the impacts of such intervention,
specifically dealing with the case of human rights. He provides two main warrants
for his position 1) that looking to consequences of human rights intervention
undermines the moral legitimacy of the action. 2) Looking to human rights
intervention on a consequential case undermine the moral legitimacy of those
involved as it reduces human worth to a matter of suffering rather than inherent
value.

OB2- Krieger a professor at oxford explains to us that with intervention we would

not be forcing our American ideals onto the host nation. With the term human rights
provide us with the explanation that all rights intervened on would be universal and
apply to all humans. The United Nations tells us that the Universal Rights that exits
include equality, life, and freedom of pain. These rights however do not exist based
on things such as suffering but the inherent worth of an individual.

The Value will be morality as all ethical systems are in some part a piece of morality.
Morality allows us to weight the ultimate desirable end while being inclusive of all
ethical systems. For example justice seeks to determine what is right based on a
code while deontology allows us to looks to the means behind the action, in this way
all ethical systems lead back to what is right or wrong also known as morality.

I contend that Human Worth is the best way of weighing human worth. Applebaum
explains to us that we can only see ourselves as moral individuals or even
comprehend morality if we place an inherent value on all other people in the world.
If we do not see everyone with a codified set of worth our sense of individual
morality fails to exist.

Calen Smith

March- April 2013

LHS DEBATE

Dedicated to the Memories of Karen Evan

Contention 1-

SA) The United States survives as the protector of all human rights.
Cicero the roman philosopher tells us that the man who does not defend
someone, or obstruct the injustice when he can, is at fault just as if he had
abandoned his parents or his friends or his country. He tells us that our moral
obligations exist not to only to those close to us but to the entire human species. He
says that these obligations exist due to our nature. We dont chose what society we
are born into so rather we have an obligation to protect everyone or else our own
inherent worth is harmed. If it isnt worth it to help one it isnt worth it to help any.

Shue and Lu- Professors of Ethics and Political Science bring to light the concept of
the United States as a Sovereign of Rights. Shue tells us that the US has built itself
onto a platform of human rights. He tells us that the western democracies survive
as the protectorates of liberties. A society based on individual liberties of its own
people is morally corrupt if they fail to protect that of others as well. Lu and
Glanville on the other hand tells us that by entering into international agreements
with the UN such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we except it onto
ourselves the moral thing to protect others. This contractarian ethics binds us into
moral agreements not just as nations working together but as a species working
together to protect our inherent worth.

SB) By not intervening in rights abuses we delegitimize the rights of all humans.

Take for example this scenario- you have a person who is being discriminated
against in America likewise you have a person being discriminated against in
Taiwan. What makes either scenario different? Common sense tells us that all
humans have inherent value. In this example we see both sides as moral equals
with equal worth. Gutmann (political science professor) explains to us that by
ignoring the inherent worth of one individual but paying attention to that of another
delegitimizes that human as well as all worth. Because the United States actively
participates in prevention of human rights abuses domestically we are morally
obligated to extend protection of worth to anyone else in the same predicament.

Calen Smith

March- April 2013

LHS DEBATE

Dedicated to the Memories of Karen Evan

Pattison and Lu (senior political lecturer and political professor) extend to us the
explanation of equal worth via the idea of Cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism is the
idea that all humans are a member of a larger society of the world rather than
individuals nations because of trade, similar cultures, alliances etc. Because we are
all connected in some way it takes to reason that we all be equals. By ignoring the
needs of another and placing our own nation first we ensure moral damnation by
putting our own worth higher than the rest risking the slip of everyone elses worth
as well.

SC) By Ignoring the Inherent Worth of others we risk moral and rights atrocities onto
ourselves.

Roth writes in the journal of international law Every time the united states doesnt
intervene in rights atrocities our political and social respect and influence greatly
diminishes in the world. He provides the warrants that A) the United States is seen
as a beacon of rights, every time we ignore abuses we lose our ability to be seen as
world leaders. As our public influence diminishes so does the inherent worth of our
beliefs B) Every time we ignore abuses we go down in the opinion of other powers in
the world, this means that should the United States ever risk its own abuses or time
of need no one would come to our aide.

Craner (assist sec of state) - tells us that Reasons for contempt towards the United
States that exist today are primarily caused by lack of human rights intervention.
He tells us that addressing human rights abuses helps address the underlying
causes of things such as terrorism, or the attack of other rights. He tells us that
terrorism takes seed in social unrest in areas with deep rights abuses. These then
get directed towards others worth as an attempt to release resentment and anger of
the present abuses. He then say that just simply by providing intervention presence
we can increase the worth and moral of the citizens enough to avoid organizations
that ensure the targeting of others worth.