The Instigator
Spaceman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Is it the moral duty of those wi the capability and moral ideals to act in a international situation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 15367
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Spaceman

Pro

I want to argue that anybody who is a position of power not merely government organisations and has what would be deemed good moral judgement on a situation should act, in a materially selfless manner to prevent any amoral acts. My proposed example of this is the current problems that have arisen in Libya. I propose that the fault for the current situation should not be blamed merely on the influence of Colonel Gadaffi but also on the inaction of other global powers that have left the situation deteriorate and taken largely no action, due to the political and material implications of attacking an oil governing regime. Although this situations is extreme i propose that as a race each person has the group to act for the greater good in a situation given a moral duty.
Nails

Con

PRO has set for himself a rather lofty burden: to prove "that anybody who is a position of power not merely government organisations and has what would be deemed good moral judgement on a situation should act, in a materially selfless manner to prevent any amoral acts." He further clarifies this to say that, not only should they be obligated to act, but that they should be faulted for failing to act (such as in his example of Libya). I find this to be a hard philosophy to support, one to which I have numerous objections.

1st, there is no reason to prevent amoral acts as amoral acts are neither moral nor immoral. [1]

2nd, I am incredulous as to which philosophy it is that my opponent subscribes to that counsels him to hold agents accountable for that which they are wholly uninvolved in. Seeing as the powerfully-positioned persons in question presumably have no relevant connection to the conflict in which PRO prompts them to intervene, it seems impossible to me to see from whence the obligation arrises. Whether or not the US, for example, can involve itself in other nations' affairs is an entirely separate question of whether it is obligated to. If we played no part in the fiasco, we have no duty to resolve it.

3rd, getting involved is not always the best idea. In the context of military intervention, acting indiscriminately on multiple conflicts leads to an overstretched military, a huge military budget, and a high number of casualties. It can also be counter-productive by simply providing an increased motive to continue fighting. In the context of the sanctions being debated for Libya, they, too, can have a few negative effects. First, they can induce a rally-around-the-flag effect in citizens who don't like seeing their economy targeted by foreign governments. Second, leaders in power can compensate for any reduction in government income by shifting the economic burden onto the citizens, so sanctions fail to affect the government and just further harm resistance efforts. I could go on, but I don't think I need to. The point proven here is that it's not always a good thing to intervene, and it certainly isn't obligatory.
[1] http://www.yourdictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Spaceman

Pro

Spaceman forfeited this round.
Nails

Con

Nails did not forfeit this round.

Debate Round No. 2
Spaceman

Pro

Spaceman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
SpacemanNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
SpacemanNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution was redundant and spaceman totally dropped the debate. Con wins by default