Experts' Debate Competition R2: Just Societies and War

Thanks to Phantom for accepting--I do think this will be an enjoyable round. DEFINITIONSJust - agreeing with what is considered morally right or goodDeliberate - to think about or discuss issues and decisions carefully Initiate - to cause the beginning of; to startAll of the foregoing terms were defined by Merriam Webster. [1] War - “The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. The conflict of arms must be actual…for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be…widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war. ” Furthermore, “the onset of war requires a commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until a fighter intends to go to war and until it does so with a heavy quantum of force. ” [2]Never - as a rule. For example, if I say, "I never drink soda, but maybe this one time," I am saying that I don't drink soda as a rule, or I don't drink soda as a principle. In this way, "never" is oftentimes used to express something very rarely done, or, as noted in the example, a rule-of-thumb. Should - morally right. For example, if I say, "you should care for your grandma" I am making a statement about what is the morally right thing to do. Therefore, I must show that, as a rule, Just Societies should not, morally-speaking, start wars. Con must show the converse. FRAMEWORKWhen we think about morality, 2 theories typically spring to mind--that of utilitarianism and that of deontology. Utility, or the best for the most, and deontology, absolute moral rules, both, intuitively, make sense. There are cases where we feel some moral rules to be so powerful that they cannot be broken, but in other cases, we accept that rules can be set aside for the greater good while still acting in a moral fashion. I submit that we should presume in favor of absolute moral rules. Why? Because if murder is wrong, it is almost always wrong. There are very few cases in which acts, like murder, can be considered "right. " We also need to take into account the subjectivity act-utilitarianism promotes. Oftentimes, utilitarians view morality through the lenses of their own preferences; for example, imperialists felt that what they were doing was beneficial for most, whereas indigenous locals vehemently disagreed. Therefore, constructing an objective cost-benefit analysis is often difficult, if not impossible. Consider finally that it can be hard to predict outcomes of actions and that "happiness" and "pleasure" (terms associated with utility) are vague and immeasurable. However, utility is not wholly irrelevant. When faced with two option of equal moral value, utility is important. For instance, Option A involves murdering someone to save 5 people. Option B involves murdering someone for no gain. In cases like this, deontology would say that both actions are immoral. I would posit, however, that if you had to take an option, your only moral course would be Option A. Yes, you murder someone, but it is better, from a moral perspective, to do something less bad than more bad. I will argue, following from this, that 1. War is against morality and 2. that War is not, as a rule, beneficial. CONTENTION ONE: DEONTOLOGYThe argument here is very straightforward. We ought not to kill innocent people. War kills innocent people. Therefore, we ought not engage in war. This same logic can be applied to the destructive nature of war, and how war, as an action, is inherently immoral. It is ridiculous to say "always initiate war when. .. " It is more logical to say that, as a rule, war is a bad thing that should be avoided. CONTENTION TWO: UTILITYI will be using rule-utilitarianism as the basic premise for my arguments here. "The rule utilitarian does not consider the consequences of each particular action but considers the consequences of adopting some general rule, such as 'Keep promises. ' He adopts the rule if the consequences of its general adoption are better than those of the adoption of some alternative rule. " [3] This is useful in that it links back to the notion of "never" as enshrined in the resolution, and in that it encompasses the importance of moral rules, while not ignoring consequences altogether, which would, as I noted, be foolhardy. Sub-point A: Deliberate initiations of war lead to more devastating warfare. "the financial costs of the preparation and waging of deliberate war have increased, as has the devastation caused by those war. .. Such deliberate initiations spur the desire for more potent weaponry. And as one armed force gains weapons of greater destructive power and delivery systems capable of carrying these weapons further and faster, others strive to match them, for fear that they will be overwhelmed by these weapons in potential future conflicts. So the deadly spiral of the arms race escalates. The effect of this escalation is to make us less, not more, secure. And as more weapons are made, so more and more of the world's productive resources are diverted to their production. At the same time, states are forced to tighten control of their populations: to tax and conscript them, against their wills, to provide the resources and personnel necessary for war. .. " The author also notes that this intensification is also likely to lead to a greater reliance on the vastly deleterious "total war" model. [4] Sub-point B: Deliberate Initiations of War engender aggression and intensified violence. According to Prof. Frederick Schuman, "Since other powers feeling themselves threatened by an expanding power, they will at some point resist its further aggrandizement; relentless pursuit of power spells war--which is the ultimate negation of all morality. " By this, Schuman indicates that aggression results in a pushback as a counter to the initial aggression, creating an endless cycle of violence and retaliation that will result in incalculable harms. Prof. Steven Murdoch concurs, arguing, "For many experts, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations change the self-defense analysis. In a world with these catastrophic weapons, they believe that countries should be allowed to strike preemptively. But how far these experts are willing to stray from a strict rule of self-defense, which requires actual enemy attack, turns upon what they emphasize. Some lawyers worry that a lower threshold for self-defense interventions, decided upon unilaterally, will impinge on nations' sovereignty and increase cycles of violence. " [5] Sub-point C: Limited strategic information makes deliberate initiations of war unwise. "In July 1949, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimated that the Soviet Union would not be able to construct a nuclear weapon until mid-1951, though the first Soviet nuclear test occurred only some weeks later in August 1949. .. The day before the first Chinese nuclear test, the CIA estimated a Chinese test within 6 to 8 months. " The author goes on to summarize his meta-analysis of various military actions, stating simply, "that in this modern era, intentionally beginning war fails or is made more destructive more than it succeeds as there is usually an incomplete intelligence picture of the situation. " [6]Sub-point D: War is too easily undertaken when preemption is justified. "The problem with the doctrine of preemptive war. .. is that it is simply too open-ended. Virtually any rival or power can be deemed to be a threat needing to be preempted. Tension alone becomes justification for violent self-defense. " [7]Sub-point E: Preemption is often detrimental to efforts at global cooperationFirstly, global cooperation is key to any society: "To safeguard our own security, we need the assistance of the allies whose doubts we scorn, and the protection of the international restraints against which we chafe. We must therefore resist the easy seduction of unilateral action. In the long run, our interests will best be served by an international system that is as lawlike and collaborative as possible, given the reality that we live in a world of sovereign states. " [8] Secondly, war undermines a society's ability to cooperate. War, by its very nature, engenders animus. Consider that even North Korea has allies (e. g. China) who we would alienate by attacking, even preemptively. In this way, preemption makes it hard for a society to function and to meet the needs of its own people. Due to the destructive nature of war, and due to the negative impacts arising from poor intelligence, reduced cooperation, and increased violence that preemption inspires and creates, under a rule of utility, war is something we ought not to initiate. Thus, the resolution is resoundingly affirmed. SOURCES1 - . http://www.merriam-webster.com...2 - . http://plato.stanford.edu...3 - . http://www.encyclopedia.com...4 - Alexandra, Andrew (2003). Social Theory and Practice. , 29, 4. p.589(18). [Currently a Prof. of Anthropology and Social Inquiry at the University of Melbourne as well as a Senior Research Fellow for the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE). Formerly an Adjunct Prof. of Philosophy at the Australian National University. ]5 - Murdoch, Steven 2003, DC Bar Magazine, Preemptive War: Is it Legal? [Holds a PhD from Cambridge University. Currently, a Security Researcher at Cambridge University. ]6 - . http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil... 7 - . http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com...8 - . http://prospect.org...Thanks!