Government Foreign Aid

IntroductionI accept, what I anticipate will be, a very productive debate. Con is arguing that governments, namely the United States, should not give foreign aid to other countries. I, being Pro, will be arguing that governments SHOULD give foreign aid. definitions:Foreign aid (1): Is, but is not limited to "economic, technical, or military assitance given by one nation to another" Note that this can be given independent of alliances, so the quotes by the founding fathers addressed towards U.S involvment in alliances is irrelevant. Should (2): " Used to express obligation or duty" Since that is the base of the argument, con's first reasoning for his position was that there are more negative than positive consequences for providing foreign aid. However, con agreed that it would be the moral thing to do. In life, we are often faced with the question of "what should we do?" However, this question is answered through refering to a heirachy of justifications. Is this action legally correct? Is it morally correct? Is it more beneficial?.... As we think through these many questions trying to find what we SHOULD do, the highest and most important is, "is it morally correct?" Christine Korsgaard (3):"[W]e must value our moral nature as what I call a form of practical identity, a description under which we value ourselves and find our lives worth living. I claimed that our moral identity, which I took to be equivalent to our human identity, is the ultimate source of reasons, because the moral law is the ultimate source of justification - a consideration must be capable of being embodied in a universalizable maxim if it is to count as a reason at all. So if we are to have any reasons, or to see anything as being valuable, we must value and identify with our nature as moral beings."Hence, all that is necessary to prove that governments SHOULD give foreign aid, is the question of whether or not it is the moral and ethical course of action. Whether or not the action benefits or even puts the giving nation at a disadvantage is of lesser importance, as morality is the ultimate source of justification. If I can prove that foreign aid is the moral course of action, then that means that governments SHOULD provide it, hence meaning that I have won the debate. Refutations 1. My opponent argues that there really is no spirit of giving in the method of forced taxes. Hence, the U.S foreign aid does not stem from a desire of the citizens to give, and a higher moral purpose. * I refute that taxes are not collected with the singular intention of providing foreign aid. Taxes, rather, are USED as a method of fuding foreign aid when necessary. Hence, while it is true that the citizens aren't really giving, we must acknowlede that the government IS. Furthermore, with account for my earlier conclusion on how this debate can be won, this argument is irrelevant. Basically, con states that this aid is "charity" ( safe to assume is moral), but is costing the citizens as a result. The fact that the action is moral and charity is enough justification for why it should be done. Unless this moral action is done through severe injustice on the citizens of the country, it SHOULD be done. We all know that there is no severe injustice created on the citizens by foreign aid, ergo, foreign aid SHOULD be provided 2. The private charity defense. * Private charity is excellent, but that does not mean that the government should not give charity, and only leave it to the private groups. There are certain matters such as natural disasters (Take what happened to Japan in April) that need the military, resources, aid, and simply human care of external nations. Private groups can only provide so much. So if your implication with that private charity argument was that private charities can take care of foreign aid, the government doesn't need to, then that is factually incorrect. Proof of my Position1. My Opponent concedes that government foreign aid is moral. "...we, being in an affluent society, are morally obligated to give humanitarian aid. From a purely moral perspective, perhaps he is right" 2. Morality is the unltimate justification, and all that is needed to prove that an action SHOULD be done (with the exception of the moral action creating injustice in the process. However, that is not the case here) 3. Hence, by transitive logic, my opponent concedes that governments SHOULD give foreign aid. Back to you Paradigm! (1)http://www.definitions.net...(2)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(3)Valuing our Humanity. Christine M. Korsgaard. Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University