The Instigator
RH1700
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Cowboy0108
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Is the U.S. justified to interviene within other countries in order tomitigate human rights abuses?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Cowboy0108
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 905 times Debate No: 32741
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

RH1700

Pro

Is the United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses?
I am on the affirmation.
1. First round is acceptance only.
Cowboy0108

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
RH1700

Pro

The moral imperative is what Immanuel Kant held in high regard. The moral imperative is defined as a principal originated inside a persons mind that compels that person to act. According to Kant, our moral actions should be treating human beings as morally valuable.

In order to achieve this we should value and view human rights as something that should be achieved throughout the entire world in order to have a reduction of human rights abuses. Kant believed, as I stated before, that human rights must be kept whole, no matter what that may cost the powers that be, and in this case it is intervening in other countries in order to attempt to attempt to stop human rights abuses. Elise Wiesel, a Nobel Piece Prize winner, political activist, writer, and proffer, stated, "Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must " at that moment " become the center of the universe." Morally, human rights are not just something that should be sought after and obtained only in our own country but in countries all around the world. Thus it is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.

According to The Philosophic Foundations of Human Rights written by Jerome J Shestack he stated that" rights that human beings have simply because they are human beings and independent of their varying social circumstances and degrees of merit."

My three main contentions are:
1.It is the United States moral duty to intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.
2.Intervening into other countries based upon a moral obligation in order to mitigate human rights abuses has worked.
3.Because of intervening, the United States can help mitigate the amount of chaos spread(ing) and for future problems within that specific country, along with countries surround it.

Therefore my first contention, which is tied in closely with the value, is that it the United States moral duty to intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. Again as Immanuel Kant believed, human rights must be kept whole, no matter what that may cost the powers that be. Thus it is our moral job and duty as a powerful and substantial nation to intervene in order to protect human rights and stop human rights abuses. According to Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory."

Our military held in high regard. According to defense.gov, the Defense Department of the United States implemented a new 10-year strategy, last January, which ensures that the United States remains one of the world"s strongest military powers. A moral obligation requires us to act now and intervene in order to stop the outstanding numbers of individuals lives thrown away due to human right abuses. Intervention will be beneficial and it will help us to achieve the value, based upon Immanuel Kant"s view, that our moral actions should be treating human beings as morally valuable.

This leads into my second contention, which states that intervening into other countries based upon a moral obligation in order to mitigate human rights abuses has worked. It is not something that is an experiment that has never worked before. The easiest way to prove that this is a proven fact is to think and ponder upon the results of World War 2 as stated above. It is proven, by Michael C Williams 94 (Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa), "Humanitarian Intervention and the Use of Force," The Center for Applied Policy Research,www.cap.lmu.de/transatlantic/download/williams.doc, written in 1994, AL), that by intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses we will be benefiting society without a need to worry about it would work because it will work!

My final contention is that because of intervening the united states can help mitigate the amount of chaos spread(ing) and for future problems within that specific country along with countries surround it. This intervention helps to ensure that violence and chaos does not/will not spread, not only through that specific country, but also into other countries. Without helping to mitigate this problem, not only would other countries around them be negatively affected but we could possibly be putting our own country at risk.

For the following reasons, the United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses! It is morally right and a moral obligation of citizens in the world to value the moral imperative in order to mitigate the amount of human rights abuses as something that must be kept whole, no matter what that may cost the powers that be! We need to reduce human rights abuses and the United States can help do so. Thus, it is moral and necessary to affirm this debate.
Cowboy0108

Con

You stated several times that the US should intervene no matter what the cost. However, what if that cost, in turn, causes the United States to slip into an economic depression due to increased debt. Especially considering the fragile state of our economy today, the US should think twice before intervening. I am all for helping people, but I am not for going into an economic depression. Besides, what good is the United States if it fails economically? None.
Analogy: When an airplane is crashing and the yellow masks fall from the ceiling, people should put it on themselves before putting it on their passed out neighbor. This is because if you pass out before you can put it on yourself, you will die. However, people can still be alive and have no oxygen. To put it simply, wait out helping people and consider costs.
I will answer your question:
The US is not justified to intervene with other countries to mitigate human rights abuses. It will hurt America and it is not garenteed to work(drug addicts do relapse).
Debate Round No. 2
RH1700

Pro

Although that is a good thought, those are the "what if" and the up in the air scenarios. We do not know if that will happen, the economic collapse. We should again look and see Immanuel Kants view of how human rights must be kept whole and the belief that human rights is the most valuable thing. We cannot simply be one sided and not realize the horrendous conditions that people are living in, with abuse and death around every corner.
Although it is good thinking about the "what ifs" in order to make the decision to intervene, we should look and see how the positives clearly outweigh one possible negative aspect.
For example:
1.The first, as I stated above, because of intervening, the United States can help mitigate the amount of chaos spread(ing) and for future problems within that specific country, along with countries surround it.
2.The second- We will help the innocent victims of poverty, oppression, and individuals have their voice taken away from them. Ethically, we need to help the individuals that need it the most. Although we are arguably not in the greatest economic standpoint we are better off than other countries that have citizens that are in dire conditions. I am not saying that the United States does not have any problems or is in perfect condition but we are better off than other countries. Because of this fact, we should use our abilities to reduce human rights abuses. By doing this we will be treating lives as not just a number but as something we value, a human life.

Overall, this has proven to work and not set our economic in economic despair through a tragic spiral downfall. World War two was successful and it did help to reduce human right abuses. Unlike the negation stated, it will not hurt America and it will help to reduce human rights abuses. It is for those reasons that I ask for a vote in the affirmative.
Cowboy0108

Con

When the earthquake in Haiti occurred, the US government put millions into Haiti. This further put us into debt and made us worse off. (Note: Use, " By doing this we will be treating lives as not just a number but as something we value, a human life." for any debate against abortion. Also, abortion is a human rights problem in America, but you do not see Europe helping us.)
The end of the holocaust was not a reason behind the war. Many did not even know the full extent of these camps. Taking down overly-aggressive Germany was the main goal and ending the holocaust was nothing more than a positive side effect.
Again, we are of no use to other countries if we are bad off economically. According to your example, America would keep spending to make the world better, it would collapse economically, and eventually, the other places would relapse.
Personally, I cannot think of one example in which intervening because of human rights has ever helped the US. All I can recall is examples in which human rights was just an effect of a bigger issue with America.
The US cannot be the world police. Its military should be used to take down threats to itself.

Furthermore, what kind of morals are you teaching the American citizens if you are basically forcing them to support human rights in other places. The only moral way to do it is for citizens to donate time and money to these problems. Forcing people to give you money is actually taking away their human rights and is immoral.
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 Kicker_Swag 1 year ago
Kicker_Swag
RH1700Cowboy0108Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Cowboys r cool
Vote Placed by Gondun 1 year ago
Gondun
RH1700Cowboy0108Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con got s&g from a few grammar issues with Pro. Pro got arguments because Con ignored many of Pro's and Con came out with some new arguments in his last round. Sources goes to Pro, even though most of his evidence was "Kant says we should".