Just Governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens

I negate and value justice since the resolution is a question of what governments owe their citizens. The standard is governmental obligations because the word "ought" in the resolution implies an obligation. I will contend states do not have moral obligations. Contention 1: The government is made of multiple actors so it can"t be held morally culpable. The United States government, and all governments for that matter are made up of multiple parts, and it would be irrational to hold one part of that morally culpable. It would be illogical to hold a Senator morally culpable for actions taken in Senate if they voted against it. Even if the affirmative says that accountability is important this would not be sufficient to prove why moral culpability itself is (1) possible for government and (2) more important than the culpability that the government has to its other obligations. Requirements that depend for their force on some external source of authority turn out to be inescapable because the authority behind them can be questioned. We can ask, "why should I act on this desire?" or "why should I obey the U.S. government? Any purported source of practical authority depends on reasons for obeying it"and hence on the authority of reasons. Suppose, then, that we attempted to question the authority of reasons themselves. Since governments can"t reflect on the reasons for actions they can"t be held morally culpable. Even if providing food security to citizens is a moral act on its own accord, the government doesn't have the ability to be held morally culpable for the action of providing food or not. Contention 2: Consent determines moral obligations but the government cannot consent to morality as a whole. Consent determines moral obligations, but the government cannot consent to morality as a whole. Therefore it is not bound to the same obligations of upholding morality as an individual is. Even if the affirmative gives reasons why the government acts consistently with morality, it would have to prove that the cause of the actions is morality-if they don"t then it would simply be correlation. Intentional refers first and foremost to the self-awareness of the presence of the purpose and the self-awareness of the mental states leading to its realization. That is, of course, precisely why we refrain from claiming that someone is responsible for her actions when she is unaware of what she is doing, especially when she could not have been aware. The acknowledgements of self-awareness is necessary for the attribution of moral agency. Now onto my opponents case. "Poor nutrition causes nearly half of deaths in children under five." The justness of a government ought to be seen through multiple lenses. A government can be justified in some things that they do, if they in-fact do things morally just. A government ought to not be required to provide food security under my core value of Justice. Justice as defined is what a government owes their citizens. The government in fact does not owe their citizens food security, but ought to owe them security. Ought implies an obligation, and the United States does not have an obligation to fill with food security.