Economic Sanctions ought not be used to acheive foreign policy objectives

I'll take from the opening statement that this is intended to be a way to improve PRO's current case, so I won't time with my own. ======== =His Value= ======== ï¿½"Justice is composed of two things efficiency and morality." This is just an assertion, nothing more. I that justice demands efficiency. He says that "[efficiency] ensures that the action is successful" but I still don't see why this is a requirement of justice. Suppose a child fell into a pool but couldn't swim. Would you not jump in to save him, even if there was still a 90% chance he would drown? Of course. This concept of 'efficiency' goes completely against his criterion of utilitarianism as well as any form of statistics. Accepting his criterion of utilitarianism, we ought to act in a way in which we would expect to be most happy. The formula for the expected value of an action is: probability x magnitude For example, would you rather a 30% change to win $5 or a 10% chance to win $50? Moreover, under a utilitarian moral system justice is not normative; it is comparative. If we have two potential actions, we choose the better one. An action need not be efficient to be better. Suppose I give you a free lottery ticket. Would you keep it? It's not efficient: there's a very low probability of winning the lottery. However, it is still superior to the alternative, which is guaranteeing that nothing is achieved. ========== =utilitarianism= ========== I have no opposition to his criterion. ========== =Contention 1= ========== ï¿½"Economic sanctions have to be both just and effective as outlined by my value" 1. His criterion simply says it has to be the superior option. As stated above, effectiveness is not a necessary component of a utilitarian moral action. 2. He never proves that an action must be effective; he simply states it. 3. This is a redundant statement. If it is just, it is necessarily effective, according to my opponent. 4. What is the point of a criterion if he plans on impacting straight back to the value? ï¿½"These sanctions endanger the lives of one country for no reason at all." Sanctions that are not used for security purposes are not 'for no reason at all.' They are often humanitarian endorsements, such as refusing to trade with Burma because it oppresses its citizens. --- Beyond that, my opponent is actively hurting his case with this argument. He has clearly isolated what makes sanctions ineffective: that they are unilateral and that they are not for security purposes. We reach a clear conclusion from this: We should use multilateral sanctions for security purposes. You can turn his contention here. The decision that would maximize utility would not to be to reject sanctions, it would be to accept future sanctions, provided we ensure that they are multilateral and security-related. ::A - Just War:: ï¿½"If not for security, then how could they be just?" While only a handful of sanctions (such as sanctioning Libya for harboring terrorists) are implemented in order to protect ourselves, that does not make non-security-related sanctions unjust. Is ending an intracountry genocide unjust? How about stopping human trafficking? There are many things sanctions can be used for outside of security purposes that would be considered just. ï¿½"Better alternatives for U.S. foreign policy by Joseph J. Collins found the success rate to be as low as 5%." ï¿½"7% of sanctions have been for security purposes as well as being multilateral. ï¿½"This cross applied to the 7% of just sanctions and there is a one thirty fifth (0.0035) of a percent" Why are you cross-applying evidence about a single country's success rate to the percent of sanctions that are made up of multiple countries? ï¿½"In other words less than 2 out of 522 sanctions are just and efficient." Sanctions against: South Africa, Libya, Cambodia Those are 3 off of the top of my head, and I'd guess that atleast one of the 500 sanctions I've never heard of has worked. Empirical examples disprove what my opponent is saying. ::B - Just War:: Who cares whether we are killing innocents or combatants as long as we are achieving the greatest good for the greatest amount? That's the mindset my opponent demanded that we take by outlining the criterion of utilitarianism, meaning this point has no link. ------------------------ My opponent has set out for himself the burden of proving that sanctions don't work towards the greatest good. He has outlined what makes sanctions effective: that they are multilateral and that they are implemented in the interests of security. We know what makes sanctions effective, so in the future we can ensure that sanctions are effective, thus achieving the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Rejecting sanctions by affirming stops this, so you negate.