The British Empire is something to be Proud of

I understand that you want to have a discussion about whether the actions were justifiable but that is not what the debate is about. As Pro, I have the right to set the parameters of the debate. At least that is the common practise of standard competitive debating. Let me explain why this debate will be about my two premises. Firstly, this is a historical debate. Therefore, to argue about solely the moral side is completely baseless since we need to understand what actions cause there to be a moral dispute in the first place. There simply must be a historical discussion and that's why it is so important. The second premise is there because I am trying to prove the first premise and therefore in order to satisfy the terms of the motion I need to link my conclusion for the first premise with the motion. Therefore, I need to evaluate whether the relative righteousness of the British Empire is sufficient to justify pride. With these parameters in mind, I want to point out a few problems with what you have just said. Firstly, you made a lot of claims about the Empire's supposed crimes. Although this was extremely unspecific, I will agree that a lot of crimes were committed. Slavery however was not one of them. There was exploitation but never slavery. Not once was the British state involved in slave trade. Britain was the first major power to abolish and launch a war on all slavery. There was undoubtedly exploitation but relatively minor to other powers this was extremely minor. The British Empire is often lambasted for supposed genocide and yet there is not one case of obvious genocide at all. The aboriginal people of Australia engaged in a war with the colonists and there is no evidence of genocide. It is so often exaggerated but the reality is that the British Empire was one of the fairest and most moral empires in existence. The second problem I picked out was when you said that equally independence is what has led to development. I understand your argument however to deny that colonialism and the commonwealth was not a reason for development is very naive. British imperialism laid the bedrock for much of the stability and democracy we see in the ex-colonies. In comparison to the absolute basket-cases of countries left by other completely murderous colonial powers like Belgium and France, commonwealth countries are remarkably more democratic and stable than their close neighbours. What is even more interesting is that in the years after independence in many colonies, growth slowed because colonial expertise and guidance just evaporated leading to immense economic problems. But fundamentally, parliaments and the rule of law left by the British have stayed with ex-colonies greatly aiding their development. The problem with your argument is that you claim that the British empire was simply less genocidal and evil. But this is not true. The British Empire was a shining beacon of development and democracy in a world that was lagging far behind. Colonialism through the British spread these ideas and many historians such as AJP Taylor believe that had colonialism not have occurred, many colonies would not be nearly as developed as they are now. What really needs to be considered is what were the alternatives without colonialism. Subjugation by a more barbaric power in the region or continued oppression and violence coming from corrupt leaders was the reality for most colonies before the British came. There is a very strong argument that despite some abhorrent injustices, the British empire was on the whole a beneficial force for good. And at least towards the end of the Empire, it became a force for justice and democracy - something that benefits the children of many countries today. Next onto the moral discussion. Now I'm sure we can both agree that, at least in this debate, being proud is being able to feel happy or satisfied at the overall positive achievement in something. I argue that the British empire left a positive humanitarian effect on the world which could be seen as morally right. I want to start by looking at what morality is. Ethics are very hard to reason with. Its not obvious that there is any truly morally right action. I propose a way of reasoning what is moral. The most moral action should be an action which causes the greatest advancement towards the ultimate goal of mankind. The "ultimate goals of mankind" are a cause of great debate within philosophy. I believe that one of the clearest goals is striving for every individual to achieve their best possible social and economic goal. I basically want future generations to be high achieving and as fulfilled and happy as possible. I'm sure you would agree that this is clearly an achievable and reasonable goal for mankind. With this in mind, for me, a moral or "humanitarian" action is one which brings us closer to this end game. Logically, the conclusion of my first premise (that the British empire brought about a positive humanitarian effect for mankind) is a moral course of action according to my model. This model is a logical and reasonable way of rationalising morality. Really, morality is so abstract and in philosophy there isn't actually right and wrong unless you are religious. Therefore, anyway to rationalise morality in this debate is a logical way to prove a moral hypothesis. The British Empire not inly set up a basis for growth but pursued a moral and humanitarian objective either intentionally or unintentionally. For these reasons, even if you claim the British Empire was merely better than other all equally bad alternatives, this still makes it the most moral and thus it follows that under my rationale that it is moral. This sounds counter-intuitive but it is the best way to rationalise morality. Human gut feelings however - are not rational. So that is why the British Empire is something to be proud of. Before I conclude I want to point out something very important. This is context. Now, society is constantly changing and evolving. In the same way, our ethics and moral stances evolve too. The moral beliefs 100 years ago are truly quite different from what they are today. Homosexuality for example was considered to be a great sin 100 years ago and yet now bigotry towards LGBT people is considered by many to be sinful. In this same way, the ethical mindset of society and leaders of the 18th, 19th and even early 20th centuries was different from what it is today. Considering this, we must be very careful to accuse the people of the time for being immoral. Since they knew no different for them what was moral was very different from now. We must be careful not to judge history through the rose-tinted spectacles on modern society but judge people on their contextual merits. There is no such thing as absolute morality. You can justify anything in the right context. I have never heard a convincing case for absolute morality. By revisionist historians rationale, the suffragettes were immoral since they were racist and the ANC was not progressive considering its homophobic and sexist stance. The action and not the people or society is immoral. The individual cases of British brutality are completely wrong but the people who committed are not necessarily immoral. Arguably, they were progressive and this is further evidence of the righteousness of the British Empire. To summarise this long philosophical rant, I reflect on my thoughts last evening. I felt proud when England beat Colombia on penalties. Kane played fantastically. Why did I feel proud? Because they achieved something I could rationalise as good. Now in the case of the British Empire, it achieved something that we can rationalise as good. It pursued a policy of democracy, law and order and blind justice as well as stamping out many of the great evils that haunted the world at the time. Without the British Empire, even if you denounce all other colonialists too, the world would be a much sorrier place. It could be justified at the time. Of course I can't justify empire now but that is not the question. Can I say I'm glad that the British Empire existed? Of course I can. And thus in its pursuit of allowing making to achieve its ultimate goal of happiness and prosperity for all I believe the British Empire was a positive effect on the world and thus I am proud. Based upon this evaluation, I urge the voters to be good historians and try to question what truly is moral. Somethings need to be rationalised and contextualised carefully. But once you've done that with the British Empire you will find that (at least if you are British or a member of the commonwealth) you can be proud of it.