DEBATE 500: Business Discrimination

FrameworkProblemsThere are many things we need to look at in a society. We all attempt to work for what best benefits us as an individual, but, as my opponent has even brought up, there are certain roles that the government upholds. The role of the government built off of that of the social contract where the will of the people is to be inforced by the government and law is to be upheld by them. That, by itself is the near very definition of Utilitariainism in a sense. My opponent brings up murder, however, utilitarianism doesn't support it and we have to look at how it casuses a great deal of unhappiness, and when we look to Rule Utilitarianism, for these reasons, murder is unethical under this scope [1]. Then when we move on to the discrimination aspect and apply it to Rule Utilitarianism, we can still see that there is a net pain that occurs in soceity due to the suffering that occurs through pain, social stigma, and the sucicides that take place due to these issues. These things would lead to something like this, being unethical. My opponent calls the refusal to deny this is slavery, but it is being blasted out of perporsion as I have already addressed on how this is simply not applicable as something that is personal property and private property are two completely different things. The business has advertised publically and as a result the public is now able to use this person's property due to their ability to now be able to commense business here. This is an open contract which they have no offered the invitation to bargin which now leads the individuals to be able to commense business within their location. Compatability and re:frameworkMy opponent's example of a bakery is a select example as a bakery does not provide the basic escentialls whether it is housing, food, water, and/or power. Some towns and cities only have one of two of these places and discrimination would result in displacement and people might not even be able to travel which would make their situation even worse. Discrimination of this kind violates the right to life and the individual's life/lives outweigh the perferances of the business owner(s) who could severly harm the individual's life that could result in death. This kind of treatment is unethical and the ability for this to continually exist and spread would result in chaos and many would suffer because of some minute thing a person doesn't like. Survial takes persidence resulting in a higher utility to be fulfilled to the public. Business and positive rightsMy opponent's example of the fruit farmers is irrelivant as it is simply an example of requiring or not requiring business mergers and has nothing to do with refusing business to another person. My opponent also miscontrews my argument on contracts. We have to see that when one publically advertises, they officially create an invitation to bargin to the public. Which means they are then required to have some sort of response from the public unless there is a withdraw from the business, but when the customers comes, it shows they have accepted the invitation to bargan and have now entered the barganing period which would result in a business transaction occuring or none at all if either of the parties involved tend to disagree with the contents of the deal. We shouldn't force people to do anything. The business only possess positive rights and this isn't the individual. The business is not a person, so it is not entitled to the same rights as an individual. The individual isn't forced to do anything, but once they, under the business, perform public advertisement or anything of that calliber, they are then to be required to perform the service they stated they would. A doctor is allowed to have another doctor perform a surgery if they wish not to, but if someone is capable then it should be done. If they refuse it on ludicrious motions then they should do it since it is their job to ensure this is done. The right to life triumphs and if the patient dies since the hospital refuses to do so, then the hosptial should be sued for having such an attrocity happen. Economic HarmsMy opponent misunderstands what is occuring as she states that some blacks are being discriminated agaisnt due to their race and switches it to state that it is due to them not being able to pay back loans all that great. Though you have to remember when I brought up the Ghetto Tax, this isn't quite the truth as this is what they are being offered, not the average of what it costs them. In the end, we need to focus on life. The individual's life matter most here and when people refuse service that is key and escential to that individual it could result in the death of that person. It could make their lives a lot harder for them even if they live nearest other areas as they would be in larger debt and would suffer more and businesses would refuse them loans and other places refuse them service. There should be no reason why a business should discriminate on minute factors when people's lives are at state. My opponent never address the suicide the deaths that occur due to this businesses discrimination and there is not one thing that is broughten up that shows why such a death would be justifiable. The business has publically advertised allowing the public to come and perchase their goods and services making it more and more probable and possible that they should be able to purchase these goods. With that I thank you and urge you to vote Con! Sources1. (. http://tinyurl.com...)