WODC Round Two - Energy

Observation One: The resolution implies a direct actor to view the perspective of the round from. By it mentioning "The United States should do x", the resolution asks us to consider the weight of impacts and arguments from the perspective of the USFG. Therefore, arguments should be weighed toward their benefits to the USFG as an actor.Observation Two: The burden of proof is split as the resolution poses a hypothetical situation of asking if we should do x or not do x. Therefore, I have to show why the USFG should a) nationalize oil exports and b) try to join OPEC. Con must show why the USFG shouldn't a) nationalize oil exports and b) try to join OPEC. Whoever best argues for their side ought to win the debate. Framework:Morality comes first in this debate because it gives us the warrants required to actually do things and gives us reasons for why things matter. We can both stand up here all day and shout the pros and cons of the resolution back and forth, but all of it would only beg the question of why those things matter in the first place, which ethics gives the answer for. This means that if my opponent doesn't a) run some kind of competing moral framework or b) link into the framework I will propose, then my arguments are preferable because they actually try to explain why my actions and impacts are preferable. In order to understand what makes affirming this resolution a good idea, we must understand what about nationalizing oil and join OPEC is desirable to the USFG. Only this account of desirability gives us an explanation for our actions. Mark Mercer[1] explains: “To understand what another has done is … to have a … description of the action he has performed, one that reveals it to be intentional … to know an agent’s reason for performing … action involves understanding his motivation in doing it. … It is not enough, … to understand what a person who intentionally sips from a saucer of mud has done … An interpreter has also to comprehend what in desiring to sip from a saucer of mud was attractive to him. … One way is to connect that piece of behaviour to one or more of the strange agent’s self-regarding ends. If we can see in sipping from a saucer of mud a way of maintaining self-respect, or even a way to delight in the taste of mud, we can understand the desire the agent had to sip from a saucer of mud. We need not connect his self-regarding end to an intention to realize that end in or through his action; we need only … connect it to an expectation of realizing it.” This understanding of desirability towards our own self-regarding ends lays the basis for the framework of understanding our actions and deciding what moral actors ought to be doing: normative egoism. Mercer[1] continues: “weak … egoism is the doctrine that all actions are performed in expectation of realizing self-regarding ends. … egoism is the doctrine that behind any action whatever that an agent performs intentionally, ultimately there lies the agent’s expectation of realizing one or more of her self-regarding ends, an expectation without which the agent would not have performed the action. … if an agent does not expect to forestall his own unhappiness or to promote his self-image, …, in … performing an action … then that agent will not intentionally perform an action of that type. … some other self-regarding end, not as a consequence … but directly as part of engaging in that activity, … To enjoy tennis is to take pleasure in playing tennis, and not, … to attain experiences of pleasure through playing tennis.)” Therefore, under my framework, the USFG should take the action that is within their own self-regarding ends. Whether those actions are beneficial to others or affect others are irrelevant to normative egoism: so long as it's within the USFG's interest to nationalize, my framework is sufficient to affirm. Substance:The resolution asks me to argue in favor of two points: that we should 1) nationalize oil and 2) try to join OPEC. I'll address both parts here.To start off with, the economic benefit towards the USFG were they to nationalize would be immense. In 2013 oil companies were said to generate more than $1 trillion per year in revenue[2], which would be a massive boom towards our economy and solving back for the national debt. With an increase in domestic production since then with the discovery of shale oil, those numbers are only going to rise. Moreover, if we are to say that the role of the government is to serve the people that it governs, then nationalization of resources allows for governments to best ensure that resources are used to best serve the people, rather than in the interests of the private corporations. This means that a) the USFG makes more money from nationalizing the oil, and b) they will be better able to use it to best serve the citizens of the US rather than to make money for private companies and corporations, which is in the best interest of the USFG. So now that we've concluded that nationalizing oil is in the USFG's self-interest, why should we join OPEC? This one's pretty simple. OPEC controls the prices and supplies of a massive amount of oil in the world[3]. They're the organization that decides what people should price oil at and who gets what oil. If they wanted to make the life of the USFG harder, they could easily hamper our ability to get foreign oil, which isn't in the interest of the USFG. Joining OPEC gives us a voice in the decision making progress, meaning we can steer things toward our advantage, which is in the best interest of the USFG. Underview:Ethical theories that rely on the maximization of happiness and aggregation of impacts are nonsensical because the universe we exist in is spacially infinite. Nick Bostrom[4] explains: "Recent cosmological evidence suggests that the world is probably infinite. ... [I]f ... [it] is ... then it contains an infinite number of galaxies, stars, and planets. If there are an infinite number of planets then there is ... an infinite number of people. Infinitely many of these people are happy, infinitely many are unhappy." Bostrom continues to explain what this means for ethical theories like utilitarianism: "Suppose the world [does] contains an infinite number of people ... Ethical theories that hold that value is aggregative imply that ... [such an] infinite world contains an infinite quantity of [both] positive ... and ... negative value. ... [But we] can do only a finite amount of good or bad. ... adding or subtracting a finite quantity does not change an infinite quantity. Every possible act of ours therefore has the same net effect on the total amount of good and bad ... [namely] none whatsoever. Aggregative consequentialist theories are [thus] threatened by infinitarian paralysis: they seem to imply that ... it is always ethically indifferent what we do.” Thus, aggregative theories fail in an infinite universe. Two reasons to think that we live in one. Max Tegmark[5] explains: "the Level I multiverse ... is the least controversial type. We all accept the existence of things that we cannot see but could see if we moved to a different vantage point ... Objects beyond the cosmic horizon have a similar status. The observable universe grows by a light-year every year as light from farther away has time to reach us. An infinity lies out there, waiting to be seen. ..." Tegmark continues: "[The Level II multiverse is] an infinite set of distinct Level I multiverses, some perhaps with different spacetime dimensionality and different physical constants. ... [O]n the very largest scales. ... [space] as a whole is stretching and will continue doing so forever, but some regions of space stop stretching and form distinct bubbles, like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread. Infinitely many such bubbles emerge. Each is an embryonic Level I multiverse: infinite in size and filled with matter deposited by the energy field that drove inflation." Sources:[1] MARK MERCER. IN DEFENCE OF WEAK PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM. Erkenntnis 55: 217–237, 2001.[2] https://www.caseyresearch.com...[3] http://www.opec.org...[4] Nick Bostrom, “The Infinitarian Challenge to Aggregative Ethics,” 2008, http://www.nickbostrom.com...[5] Max Tegmark, “Parallel Universes,” Scientific American, 14 April 2003, http://www.krabach.info...