Zaradi's Prized Tournament Final: Food Security

Thanks to Beginner for his arguments. I will now be rebutting his case.PRO's CASEP1. The Purpose of GovernmentPro writes that "a government exists to serve a purpose. In other words, each governmental state assumes inherent moral duties to those that it governs." But this argument is missing several steps: it fails to explain why the purpose of government is (a) to benefit those it governs, (b) moral in nature, and (c) obligatory vice advisory in nature. I will talk about each one of these points in turn.Regarding (a), Pro explains justice to be about fairness and moral uprightness. Would not a "just" government then have a duty to help every person, regardless of the status of their citizenship? Surely, all people are equally morally valuable and it would be unfair to only provide goods and services (or to take actions partial towards) citizens. Why should the happenstance of birth mean that I get less healthcare or fewer amenities? After all, I cannot choose where I am born or conceived; it's inherently random. The impact here is one that we need to evaluate in the context of my arguments, since an obligation to provide food security to everyone on planet Earth clearly is not within the scope of a just government's capacity. Even more, one could say that because the resolution uses the term "citizens," Pro is locked into affirming an obligation only towards citizens, at which point, his failure to limit the scope of the government's duties negates.Regarding (b), Pro simply assumes that if government has a purpose, that purpose is a moral one. Firstly, a hammer's purpose is to beat things, but that does not mean that it is morally obligatory to use a hammer in only that way. Pro never explains how purpose is linked to morality, so Pro has failed to show that the purpose of government conveys any moral obligation of any kind. Secondly, Pro has not illustrated how a government is, itself, the kind of agent upon whom moral obligations can be bestowed. Simply put, Pro hasn't illustrated that the government is a moral actor; this is especially important when there is good reason to believe that governments are in fact amoral: "It literally makes no sense to say that a nation is morally responsible for an action, although it makes perfectly good sense to say that all those persons who contributed to the action’s coming about are morally responsible...[W]hen the nation has a purpose, as expressed, say, in a resolution of a governing body, it is not the nation that is self-aware but the persons who comprise it. And that self-awareness is not of each individual's own purpose, since one's own purposes may be in conflict with those of the nation. Even if they are not in conflict, that is, even if there is 100 percent support for a motion, the awareness of the nation's purpose as expressed in the motion occurs in the individual persons and not in the nation. Unless you can put purpose and self-awareness of purpose in the identical subject, you cannot have a moral agent. And in the case of group action, you can never have the identical subject that both has the purpose and is self-aware of having it. Knowing that my nation has declared war is different from the act of declaring war and occurs in a different subject." [1; for more, see: 2] The impact here is simple: if the purpose of government doesn't translate into a moral obligation, or if the government is an amoral actor, then either Pro has failed to link his arguments to morality and to uphold his burden or governments cannot have moral obligations.Regarding (c), even if we buy that the purpose of government is limited to citizens and is moral in nature, why is it obligatory vice advisory or desirable? I could say that a hammer's purpose is to beat things, and so it is desirable to use them in that fashion. That claim, operating under the assumptions Pro makes, is coherent. So, again, Pro fails to make the necessary leap to "moral obligation" from his arguments.P2. JusticeSP1. Meaning of JusticeWhilst I don't having many qualms with Pro's definition of justice, I think it is important to emphasize that in both of our conceptions of justice, we see justice as about fairness and/OR morality. The point here being that it is not nonsensical to imagine a fair but amoral actor, which is just by virtue of its fairness.SP2. The Government's Moral DutiesPro's only justification for his interpretation of the purpose of government is the Declaration of Independence. We can acknowledge two problems with this: (a) it's American-specific and (b) there are other interpretations of this.Regarding (a), this is an issue because Pro hasn't established that America is a just government, which leads to another missing premise. He is trying to show what a just government is by pointing to America, but he has yet to establish that America is a just government, and/or that American ideals are the hallmarks of just governance. Pro is committing a "begging the question" fallacy. [3] Additionally, this is an issue because there are myriad different governmental systems that reflect diverse cultural, political, and social situations. Some of these systems are going to be more prohibitive of government action. Since this resolution is broad, and doesn't refer to any specific country (we could even be talking about a hypothetical just government vice some actual government), Pro needs to give us a reason to narrow the scope of the debate to a more "western" or American outlook.Regarding (b), many would argue that the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence are negative, not positive rights. If that is the case, these ideals would be the basis for a libertarian state, not one that would actively ensure food security. So, Pro's interpretation of the text may be flawed. Positive rights necessarily encroach on our negative rights because they requires us to act or give something up, and negative rights also seem more fundamental in that they are our most basic guarantees of respect--not to be maimed, not to be killed, etc. So, if Pro cannot explain why his interpretation of the text is the best one in the round, we're left at an impasse of interpretations, which would render this argument moot.Even if we agree that a government's purpose is to the utilitarian interests of its society, there are still significant hurdles for Pro to overcome. However, I will be discussing the pitfalls of the conclusion Pro's draws from this argument when I get to his post-hoc musings.Pro also contends that "Premise 2 establishes that a government is just if it fulfills its moral duties." But this is false, largely because utilitarianism and justice are not compatible. Suppose that I am due Z, but it would be utilitarian to give persons A-Y item Z instead, even if they are not due Z. In this case, it would be unfair to deprive me of that which I am due Z, but beneficial and in furtherance of a government's purpose, to deny me Z. So, inasmuch as Pro contends that "utilitarian values of Life, Liberty, etc. are the ideals for which governments should strive," Pro is creating a dilemma whereby governments must occasionally act unfairly and unjustly towards some in order to fulfill their moral duties. Post-Hoc MusingsThe crux of Pro's argument here is this: "the affirmative does not need to show how to ensure food security. It only needs to affirm that food security ought to be ensured." However, this line of reasoning encounters several significant problems.1. Pro argues that a government's purpose is to pursue and promote certain values. This requires that we look not only at the ends, but also at the means. If we say that we want to value life, then it is not enough to look just at the value, because there needs to be a viable means of achieving that value in place. Similarly, if the government's objective is to ensure food security, then it might defund education, national defense, all public works, etc. in order to bankroll the food security goal. Clearly, this is contrary to the very purpose Pro asserts a just government embodies because it sacrifices myriad essential goods in order to deliver on just one essential good. If that is the trade-off that a government is facing, then, just from a practical point of view, it ought not to ensure food security, because it has other duties it has got to perform. The point here is straightforward: if the government wants to maximize or promote certain values, it must consider the practical issues considered with pursuing any one value, because failing to do so risks generating net detrimental harms. Governments have many obligations, and they must be balanced. Therefore, we need to look to the means, and not solely the ends.2. Suppose that a government could ensure food security by committing mass genocide, thereby shrinking its population to a more manageable size. Pro suggests that he only needs to show that a just government ought to ensure food security, and that he need not show how it ensures food security. So, in Pro's world, this genocide solution could occur, because no thought is given to the "how" only the "what." Surely, it is not morally right, fair, or just to use genocide as a solution to the food security question, and so some thought must be given to formulating a "how" that still respects the ethical values a just government is supposed to embody. If Pro cannot demonstrate that a moral solution to the food security problem exists, then he cannot affirm.3. Cross-apply my "ought implies can" arguments here. I will defend those arguments in my next speech.SOURCES1 - Lloyd P. Gerson. "Aristotle’s Politics Today," 2008 Albany: State University of New York Press2 - http://thinkersincorporated.com...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...Pro's case is severely underdeveloped, riddled with unwarranted assumptions and missing premises. Thus, I negate. Over to Pro...