The united states ought to join the ICC

RA: The resolution implies a moral obligation, in order to judge this round we must look solely at the morality of the action of joining the court. Also, because it implies moral obligation, the aff must prove that the US has a MORAL not just prudent reason to join. Prudence is defined as: Enlightened Self Interest, not duty. Such an action could conform outwardly with duty, but isnt actually acting out of duty. –Immanuel Kant Value: Humanity A. Defn. : The core element of humans, each human is seen as his or her own character. People cannot be used as means to an end. B. we are human before all else, and because we are debating whether or not we should submit to a higher power, we must make sure people are not being used as a means to an end. C. Affirming cannot uphold humanity because it violates my criterion: Criterion: Categorical Imperative. A. Defn. : According to Kant: We ought to "act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" According to Kant, a maxim is the reason we act, or our motivation. (For example: "we ought to protect life") So, the categorical imperative states that we should only act in a way that our motivation would be beneficial as a law for all people. (For example: all people ought to protect life) An action that is in agreement with the categorical imperative is deemed moral, all others, wrong. Furthermore, because it tells us what we ‘ought' to do, it gives us a moral duty to uphold those actions that are found to be in agreement with it. B. Must look to CI The main reason we must look only to the categorical imperative to judge this round is because ends based frameworks fail. Take, for example, any theory that looks to what the actions cause to judge morality. You can have all the evidence in the world, but still cannot accurately predict the future. For example: I'm at a lake, I see a child drowning. Naturally, I act to save the child, and jump in. However, I couldn't see that there was another child under me. I end up landing on that child, and he drowns. Furthermore, he hinders me so that the original child drowns as well. By any consequentialist framework, my action of jumping into the lake was very much wrong. However, the action of jumping in was, in itself, a moral and good thing to do, however unfortunate the outcome. Using a consequentialist or ends based framework, we cannot know if our action was just until we've already done it. For this reason, we must look to a framework that looks at the motivation behind the action, which I supply. The purpose of courts is, in the end to punish people. Because the aff is advocating that we submit to a court, I will show through my contentions, that this is wrong. Contention 1: Punishment violates Humanity A. Deterrence violates humanity Deterrence is based on the principle that if we punish someone for doing something, that others will be afraid to do the same thing. In this case, the criminal is being USED to prevent further crimes; this violates the value of humanity because we are using a criminal as a means to an end. Therefore it is wrong. B. Retributive Justice violates Humanity The only purpose of retributive justice is to avenge the victim and in many cases to satiate the victims families. This clearly violates humanity because we are using the criminal to make the victim and those closest to them feel better. Again, we are using a person as a means to an end. C. Restorative Justice violates Humanity According to the U. S Dept. of Justice's guiding principles of restorative justice: "The First priority is to assist victims", "The second priority is to restore the community, to the degree possible" Again, we aren't looking to the criminal here, but the victim. We are USING the criminal to assist the victim and to "restore" the community. THIS IS WRONG. As I have shown, the entire premise of punishment is wrong, and although it may be prudent to holding society together, that does NOT make it moral. By using people as a means to an end, affirming also violates my criterion. Contention 2: Affirming is wrong A. The maxim we are looking to is "we ought to value humanity" (not in the LD sense but in the sense that it has value) Because my value is people as ends, the best maxim to operate under this value would be "we ought to value humanity" or "we ought not to use people as means to an end" B. If upheld universally, would bring good. If everyone were to act on this maxim, there would be no crimes against humanity, and no one would have such pain brought upon them. C. this constitutes a moral duty Because this maxim can be upheld universally, it becomes our moral duty to act on it regardless of the actions of others. D. Morality is objective The morality of your actions is not affected by the actions of others. Yes, there are people who act wrongly; this does not mean we should act wrongly in return. Because I have shown punishment is inherently wrong, and we are debating whether or not to submit to a court, which's sole purpose is to punish, it clearly follows that it is wrong, and that we have a moral duty to NOT join the court. Because of this, you must negate. On to the Aff case: Justice: 1. This value is completely undefined My opponent defines justice as morality, being equitable, doing what is right. So. .. his claim is that affirming is moral because it upholds morality. THIS DOES NOT WORK! The purpose of the value is to show how affirming IS moral; the aff value does not do this. The aff says that joining is good because it's good. Furthermore, how do we know what is moral? We don't. The terrorist's in iraq think blowing up innocent people is moral, we don't. However looking to the aff case, you wouldn't be able to know. 2. Negating better upholds Justice Look to the Defn. , even if it's vague, it says that what is "morally right" is just. Therefore, Cross apply my ENTIRE case which says that submission to any court is immoral. 3. Humanity is a better value Humanity is very clearly defined, and I have shown how the aff cannot uphold it and how the neg can. Criterion Debate: Human Rights 1. undefined. We do not know what human rights are, simply that they are intrinsic to humans. 2. no reason to uphold The aff simply says that we wouldn't want to prosecute crimes against them if they weren't important. .. yeah. .. we shouldn't be. .. 3. Does not provide Moral framework The aff fails to show how protection of human rights tells us how to act morally, because of this, they DO NOT provide a moral obligation to affirm, and if you look to my Resolutional Analysis, because of this, you cannot affirm. 4. Negating better upholds Look to my value, humanity is clearly a human right, or at least, is intrinsic to humans. Because courts actually violate this right as well as many others: (right to life, liberty, persuit of property/happiness, all are violated when put in prison for life or killed. .. .) we CANNOT affirm the resolution. 5. Categorical Imperative is superior First, Cross Apply by B point under my criterion which shows how you cannot know the ends of an action. The aff criterion tells us that things that hurt human rights are bad. But we cannot know if something is going to hurt human rights until we do it, because of this, you cannot look to the aff criterion. The Categorical imperative shows how morality is defined before the action and provides us with a moral framework as well as a duty. Because of these things you must look to the categorical imperative to judge this round. I. Cross apply my case again, as well as my 2 point under the value. This shows that justice is actually hurt my submission. II. On this one, cross apply my 4 point under the criterion debate. Courts violate these rights. Vote NEG (con)