The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

My argument in this debate will rest on the concept of the value of innocent lives and the fact of their destruction inherent to international conflicts. As this is a values debate resolution, I will use a value to prove the resolution. Value: Innocent Life An innocent life, as I am using the term, is a non-combatant. An innocent life is not innocent of all wrongdoing, but rather, innocent in the conflict in question. My value criterion, the means by which the United States best protects innocent life is the United States federal government. Three contentions will serve to further explain and impact my value-criterion pair. Contention 1: The protection of innocent life is a moral obligation Sub point A: Innocent life is intrinsically valuable Unlike other values, such as safety, which derive their worth from their results, innocent life is valuable in and of itself, and thus always valuable. Since it retains its worth in all situations, the protection of innocent life can never be wrong. It is always right to pursue innocent life. The definition of a moral obligation that we are using in this round shows that it is something we ought to do because it is the right thing to do. Therefore, if the protection of innocent life is always right, all aspects of a moral obligation are covered in its protection. It is a command that we ought to follow because it is right, and categorical because it is always right. The protection of innocent life is morally obligatory. Sub point B: Our nation's obligation Philosopher, Emer de Vattel, argued that a people, in forming a nation, "remain still bound to the performance of their duties towards the rest of mankind" (Vattel, 72) However, since the people have, in forming a nation, agreed to act in common, the government of that nation, as the sole representative body of the aggregate whole, must fulfill the people's obligations towards the rest of the world. Thus, while the people as a nation possess the moral obligation to protect innocent life, they fulfill this obligation through the institution of government. As we examine this obligation, we must understand that it does not obligate us to achieve a good result. Sub point C: Consequences of actions do not affect obligations The fulfillment of an obligation is not met by achieving a good result, but rather, by acting from a moral motive. Good Samaritan Laws recognize this truth. If, in dragging a man from a burning car, I cause his spine to fracture, leading to his death, I am not morally blameworthy. An unintended bad result does not remove the obligation to save that man. It may, however, indicate that a different form of action is required. For example, the fact that giving the Heimlich to a drowning man will have bad results does not mean that we should not seek to save that man"s life. Rather, it simply indicates that a different course of action should be utilized. Thus, we cannot focus on the various methods of protecting innocent life, but rather, on whether the obligation to protect innocent life exists at all. Contention 2: Mitigation is a moral obligation Our obligation to protect innocent life directly leads to an obligation to mitigate, as we see in the following two sub points. Sub point A: Conflicts take innocent life The taking of innocent life is inherent to all international conflicts. This is seen in the following examples. Example One: The Iran-Iraq War In 1980, Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein launched a surprise offensive against Iran. This war saw extensive use of chemical weapons, used to kill thousands of civilians in villages and hospitals. By the end of the war, nearly 8 years later, over 100,000 civilians had been killed. (http://www.hawaii.edu......) This conflict was not unique. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "For all possible wars in this world"given the nature of military technology and tactics, the heat of battle, and the limits of human knowledge and self-discipline"involve the killing of innocents"" (Brian Orend, professor of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu......) Conflict destroys innocent life, and here we find the moral obligation to mitigate. Sub point B: The United States is obligated to act If the United States is obligated to protect innocent life, and if conflicts take innocent life, then it necessarily follows that the U.S. has an obligation to mitigate international conflicts. Mitigation, however, can take on many forms as we can see from the Russo-Japanese War. During this territorial conflict between Japan and Russia, an estimated 20,000 Chinese civilians were killed between 1904 and 1905 by both Japanese and Russian soldiers. Finally, in 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt entered as mediator between the two combatants, and quickly arranged a successful peace. The obligation is clear: the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.