Shark v. SolonKR, Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

General: Pro does not contest my definition of fairness as “the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is right or reasonable”. As morality is defined as the distinction between right or wrong, fairness invokes morality (“Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong”. Thus, what is fair must be moral, and since what is fair is just (as justice is “fairness or reasonableness”), what is just is moral. Prefer my framework, as it the most fair. Pro begins by redefining justice, which we had already agreed upon as meaning, "fairness or reasonableness," or as "giving each their due". He accuses me of “dropping” his arguments; this is untrue, as I simply used the round for my opening argument, as, given no structure at the opening, I used my R2 only for my opening argument. Prefer this structure, as it is what is guaranteed to give each side the same amount of rebuttals. He further accuses my case of being a critique. This is also untrue. A critique requires challenging the fundamental assumptions of a resolution or argument. I did not do this. I established, within the context of the given definitions, a framework by which to measure justice, and, by extension, morality. This is no different than his establishment of a utilitarian framework. Defense 1: First, it is crucial to note that Pro does NOT rebut my point that just governments are founded on the social contract theory. He only attacks the merits of the theory itself. Because I have established a social contract government as just, prefer the libertarian framework, as it is the morality behind this just system. Pro’s first contention rests in historical contexts. His example of Hume only demonstrates that the social contract as an explanation of historical governments is wrong, which is irrelevant to the theory’s applicability to today. Pro attempts to state that because a citizen today might not necessarily agree with every verdict of a government, there cannot be any true consent; however, this is untrue. Consider treaties between nations, like the recent Iran deal. In any negotiation, the individual governments cannot obtain every advantage they would like in a treaty, because of conflicting interest. The resultant treaty, therefore, cannot contain entirely agreeable terms to either nation, except in cases of unconditional surrender. Similarly, modern social-contract governments cannot have entirely favorable terms for every member of society; yet, there is true consent of the masses in the form of election of officials. The feminism argument is entirely irrelevant to both of our presented frameworks of morality; as Pro presents no link to either utilitarianism or libertarianism, this argument is dropped. Pro also presents no reason as to why feminism is moral or just to begin with; nor does he qualify the arguments of Friend, only stating what people argue, and not WHY they argue it. Pro presents no evidence for ‘economic man’, nor why women or children aren’t considered. Friend 2 presents a coherent argument, but it is irrelevant to the resolution, as whether or not affective societal bonds are essential or voluntary does not have anything to do with government; society is a distinct entity from government. Defense 2: Pro does not explain how the “flaws” in a libertarian framework he has attempted to expose would cause it to be less desirable. He attempts to call it inequitable, but this argument falls apart when one considers the fact that everyone does, in fact, have property—their own bodies and minds. This is the fundamental concept that liberty of contract rests on when it comes to employment—some people trade away physical or mental bodily products in exchange for other products, i.e. wages, which are used to trade for property. Furthermore, this point is irrelevant in that the idea that some might have more property than others does not pertain to either one of our moral frameworks. He does not explain how a difference in property is unfair. If one works hard and works intelligently with the resources he is given, he will have the opportunity to negotiate better contracts; this is foundational to capitalist, libertarian thought. Rebuttal 1 Physicalism is flawed, due to the disregard for consciousness. Chalmers 1996: “1. According to physicalism, all that exists in our world (including consciousness) is physical. 2. Thus, if physicalism is true, a metaphysically possible world in which all physical facts are the same as those of the actual world must contain everything that exists in our actual world. In particular, conscious experience must exist in such a possible world. 3. In fact we can conceive of a world physically indistinguishable from our world but in which there is no consciousness (a zombie world). From this (so Chalmers argues) it follows that such a world is metaphysically possible. 4. Therefore, physicalism is false.” Furthermore, Pro does not explain the rational link between physicalism and consequentialism. It is generally true that humans avoid suffering, but this does not explain why it is immoral for one human to harm another, if it is to the benefit of the first human, and not even to society at large. Indeed, Pro actually argues that saving one to save many is moral; by his logic, it would be perfectly reasonable and moral for a just government in one country to require employers to pay lower wages, provided that those sub-living wages maintain a state where more citizens in foreign countries can benefit from it to a greater degree than those who are harmed by it. Living wages are not the same as subsistence wages, Pro noted, and paying a whole country only subsistence wages to do factory and manufacturing jobs would greatly improve the lives of citizens in all other countries thanks to cheap imports. Therefore, just governments certainly can morally be obligated to pay low wages under utilitarianism, and his argument is null at best. A) Rebuttal: Under a utilitarian framework, deaths are not morally undesirable It’s first important to recognize that the countries Pro speaks of when talking of extreme poverty are developing country. With low GDPs, these countries simply cannot afford to pay extravagant wages and will economically collapse if they mandate living wages. (1) B) This issue was far more complex than simply poverty causing the financial crisis. It had to do a lot with irresponsible lending in the housing market, which was caused by people living beyond their means rather than being poor in the first place, and an unregulated money market (2). C) Pro does not prove at all that living wages reduce unemployment. Correlation does not imply causation, and the quote provides no statistical documentation for its argument about workers’ buying power creating jobs. It could just as easily be a pre-existing favorable economic climate in those particular states. Furthermore, there are more effective ways to increase purchasing power, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (3). Rebuttal 2 A+B) 1. The upper class can just as easily drive spending and growth as the lower classes through investment. In addition to effects on investment spending, it also increases the number of employment opportunities, still contributing positively to consumer spending in the GDP (4). 2. Small business is not as important in the economy to begin with, as the majority of people are employed in big business (5). 3. Pro never explains why taxes are beneficial in the first place. 4. Pro provides no source for his claim of increased volatility. Sources: 1. http://data.worldbank.org... 2. http://www.economist.com... 3. http://www.nytimes.com... 4. http://www.forbes.com... 5. http://www.census.gov...