The Instigator
000ike
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Mestari
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Secession is justified (morally)

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 4 votes the winner is...
Mestari
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,207 times Debate No: 18536
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (4)

 

000ike

Con

I am happy to debate Mestari once more on this issue. I will, however be using the same opening argument from a previous debate with Sociopinko since that debate was forfeited.

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 4: Rebuttals

No semantics.
Mestari

Pro

I happily accept this challenge. It should be an interesting debate since our first was so similar, but on opposite sides of the resolution. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
000ike

Con

Thank you for accepting.

I would like if we did not go in too deep on the definition of morality, as that is not the focus of the debate. It is rather our focus on the natural rights of people and whether a state can even have a natural right.



Secession and Anarchy

Lincoln stated in 1861 during his inaugural address:

" Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left." (1)

As Lincoln explain, secession is rule by the minority. One small faction of a larger sovereign cannot individually decide to claim all sovereignty over itself. My proof exists on observance, for if such a claim were true, what would prevent mere households from becoming nations?

What is secession? In essence, secession is a mere disempowerment of authority. If a right existed to remove something from the rule of an authority at will, then the authority has no authority! Entities would simply declare their independence whenever decisions were not to their liking.

If South Carolina can declare independence from the U.S, then a county can declare its independence from South Carolina,...and then a city can declare its independence, and then individuals can declare independence. What then happens to authority? It has no power. There is no rule, no government, and what is left is the essence of anarchy, anyone can rule themselves at a moments notice.

As an article published in the New York Times (1860) stated:

"The ties that bind the States together will first be severed, and respect for law and order correspondingly weakened. Obligations to municipal laws will next be repudiated by a refusal on the part of the people to obey them. Next will follow the obligations between individuals, till neither persons nor property are longer respected, and forms of government become a mockery, because they can neither command respect nor enforce obedience." (2)

To argue for a right to secession is to argue for a right to anarchy.



Reliquished Sovereignty

Imagine if 50 people had 50 individually owned pieces of wood and nailed it all together to form a building to house them all. Should one of the people be dissatisfied with the new living arrangements, can he simply rip out his plank, freezing the entire house, and be on his merry way? Of course not. The individual may leave, but he cannot take his plank because it no longer belongs to him. He relinquished INDIVIDUAL ownership of the plank for a joint ownership of the house. There was no settlement on the time that the plank would return to individual ownership, nor was there any talk that the plank must return. The default policy is that the arrangement is permanent until both the giving and recieving parties consensually agree on any changes.

"By ratifying the Constitution, the people transferred certain limited sovereign powers to the federal government from their states" (3)

"The United States of America consists of fifty states with limited autonomy" (4)

Likewise, the state, through entry to the union and ratification of the Constitution relinquished INDIVIDUAL sovereignty over itself to form one united sovereign. Secession takes away the plank (sovereignty) from the house (The United States) when that sovereignty was not theirs for the taking. This is not to mean that the state has no sovereignty, it is just that the DEGREE of sovereignty that would permit it to secede was handed to the United States. There is no expiration date on the Constitution, and there is no mention of this Union even having to ever end. Therefore, the default policy is that the Union is perpetual until there is consensus on secession.


Sources

1. http://www.bartleby.com...
2. http://www.nytimes.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.wordiq.com...

Mestari

Pro

I am sorry that I cannot respect your wish of avoiding an in-depth discussion of morality. It is a central issue within the debate as we are discussion moral justifications.

My opponent did not state whether he wanted me to start rebuttals in round 2, or round 3. Therefore, I will present my case this round and procede to start rebuttals in round 3 in order to allow for an equal number of rebuttal speeches and to preserve fairness. My opponent obviously is allowed to rebut my round 3 arguments with new refutation in round 4 as that will be his first opportunity to do so. Allow all new arguments he brings up in round 4 to stand, insofar as they are responses to my rebuttal.

Case

Framework

Morality demands obligations. Kant explains (1),

We not only have an unavoidable interest in our own happiness and welfare, we also have an obligatory interest in what morality requires of us. Because these two interests can and do conflict, we often find ourselves reluctant to do what is right, and that is why morality appears to us, not as what is right, but also as white is our duty. In adopting the moral incentive as our motive for acting, therefore, we must commit ourselves to the maxim always to try with all our might to "act in conformity with dutyfrom duty."

The significance of Kant's argument is that we have an obligation of upholding morality. Therefore, whenever a violation of morality exists, there also exists a reciprocal obligation to remedy this violation.

For morality to exist, we must respect our nature as moral beings, and thus our moral autonomy, Christine M. Korsgaard elaborates (2),

[W]e must value our moral nature as what I call a form of practical identity, a description under which we value ourselves and find our lives worth living. I claimed that our moral identity, which I took to be equivalent to our human identity, is the ultimate source of reasons, because the moral law is the ultimate source of justification - a consideration must be capable of being embodied in a universalizable maxim if it is to count as a reason at all. So if we are to have any reasons, or to see anything as being valuable, we must value and identify with our nature as moral beings.

If we disregard autonomy, then we disregard morality altogether. When we cross-apply Kant's argument we see that we have a moral obligaton to respect autonomy. To be logically consistent we must assume that anything which is manifested in a moral obligation is also morally justified.

Contention 1: The moral obligation to respect autonomy justifies secession

G. A. Cohen argues (3),

[E]ach person is the morally rightful owner of his own person and powers, and, consequently, that each is free (morally speaking) to use those powers as he wishes, provided that he does not deploy them aggressively against others.

Denying secession denies individual states the autonomy to leave the union, and thus violates morality. Therefore we have a moral obligation to allow for secession, and secession is thus morally justified.

In short:

1. Morality requires us to respect autonomy.
2. Peaceful secession allows for state autonomy.
Thus, peaceful secession is morally justified.
Therefore I urge a Pro ballot.

Sources

1. Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysics of Morals. 1785.
2. Valuing Our Humanty. Korgaard, Christine M.
3. Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. G. A. Cohen. Cambridge UP 1995
Debate Round No. 2
000ike

Con

I apologize for some of the block text you may see. The ideas could not be logically separated at times.

Rebuttals

My opponent mentions as his opening argument that " the moral obligation to respect autonomy justifies secession." However, the unanswered question is, to what degree must we respect autonomy? There are parameters on autonomous rule because of the necessity for government. I will show in my ensuing rebuttals that secession of a U.S state exists outside these parameters, and can therefore not be respected under moral obligation or be justified.


The Parameters of Autonomous Rule

Limitation 1: Only sentient beings can be OWED morality. An inanimate THING/CONCEPT cannot be owed morality.

A GROUP of humans can be owed rights. However, the state is not a group of humans. The state is a political structure manifested in a mass of land with very limited sovereignty. The state is a THING. THINGS are not owed morality.

The United States federal government is not the proxy and embodiment of Americans. Likewise, the state is not the proxy and embodiment of its citizens. The state is a political entity, existing only on a political map. The state therefore, being independent of the people, cannot hold the same rights as the people. Can a state government bear arms? Can a state government have free speech? Can state governments rally and protest against its federal superior? No. These are rights exclusive to human beings. Likewise, autonomy, under the assumption that this is a right to begin with, cannot be MORALLY obligated to a being that is not human. Autonomy is therefore not a RIGHT to which can be morally enforced when regarding secession.

The notion that the state is the manifestation of the people simply does not carry. The state is a vacuous entity that HOUSES the people. The people may leave their nation at will in a hypothetical spontaneous mass exodus, but the state itself must always stay. The sovereignty of the land to which the state resides is a plank in the house. The state, essentially, gave out its sovereignty AND total autonomy when signing the Constitution and forming this house. How can it, without proper conditions such as successful revolution or consensus, reclaim something it relinquished? It cannot.

50 people used their own 50 planks to build a house for all of them to live in. Anyone of those PEOPLE can leave the house forever if they wish, but they cannot ever take back the plank, because it is no longer theirs. That plank is STATE SOVEREIGNTY & AUTONOMY, and that house is the United States.


Limitation 2: Anarchy

My opponent stated: "The significance of Kant's argument is that we have an obligation of upholding morality.Therefore, whenever a violation of morality exists, there also exists a reciprocal obligation to remedy this violation."

It is the requirement, using deontological ethics, that we must uphold and enforce morality, and punish its transgressors. However, how can one enforce anything if he does not have the power to do so?

If people are to uphold a moral norm, what would stop individuals from seceding and rejecting that morality, free from persecution? The idea of secession is destructive of the establishment of any morality. Entities would simply leave when they disagree or are dissatisfied with that moral code.

If we look at the secession of Southern America prior to the civil war, we see that it left primarily to escape the moral impositions of the federal government. South Carolina's "Declaration of Immediate Causes" reads:

"[The federal government] encroachments upon

the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to 
the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time,
these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue." (1)



They merely left when the federal government and northern faction of the nation tried to enforce a moral rule. If we have an obligation to enforce morality, like my opponent interprets Kant's words, then we have an obligation against secession.

How can an authority excercise its power if the bodies it governs may disempower them at any point? Lets look at this on a more minute scale. When my town passes a law that I dislike, I would suddenly be able to reclaim sovereignty over my private property and declare independence from America, on my 20 by 20 yard patch of land? This is anarchy in its purest form.


Conclusion

We see that autonomy has two primary limitations that constitutes its parameters. One is the fact that THINGS, CONCEPTS, non-sentient objects, cannot have natural rights or be owed morality. The other is that secession is anarchy, and hence self-destructive of any moral code that endorses it. It simply has no moral bearing in a society that requires government, law, and authority. I therefore encourage you to vote CON.


Source

Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. 24 December 1860. Constitutional Convention (1860-1862). S 131055. South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, South Carolina. (http://www.teachingushistory.org...;)

Mestari

Pro

Mestari forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
000ike

Con

My opponent had his argument written, but ran out of time by just a few seconds to post it. To keep up the debate, I would like if you, readers and voters, could read his rebuttal in this link: http://www.mediafire.com...

If you could, please disregard the forfeit and vote as usual.

Rebuttals

Contradiction in the argument for Kantian Ethics

"When I explained that we have an obligation to remedying violations of morality, I never justified positive obligations."

My opponent is basically saying that Kantian ethics does not require us to do something, it only requires us to not do something. He however still maintains that we have "an obligation to remedying violations of morality." This is a flat contradiction.

The obligation to rememdy is a positive obligation in and of itself, as it requires us to do something. There is no such thing as a negative obligation to remedy because remedying is an action, not an inaction.


Natural Rights for THINGS that are not natural?

"
However, organizations are prescribed natural rights, and thus may still secede. Organizations are moral agents. Wilmot (4) explains,

"[W]e can find cognitive attributes such as perception, reasoning, co-ordination and implementation; and moral elements such as rationality and respect in many organisations; and that organisations on that basis [can] be treated as moral actors with moral dispositions."

Thus, states are moral actors and can have natural rights."

The quote my opponent presents attempts to put sentient qualities to inanimate things! Organizations cannot rationalize. Organizations cannot respect. Organizations cannot perceive. Organizations cannot reason. The PEOPLE in organizations are the one's who do those things. My opponent conceded that states/organizations are inanimate entities that exist independently of the people who run them. Yet, he turns around and mistakes the moral qualities OF those people as the qualities for these non-sentient political concepts. In short, pro essentially asserted a non-conscious THING the ability to think.

In light of the fact that an organization such as a U.S State is mutually agreed to be a THING, I maintain the argument that things cannot think or act in moral manners. An organization/state merely projects the morality of the sentient beings that drive them. It does not mean that the organization itself has somehow become sentient. Therefore, it does not mean that the organization/state can be owed morality or natural rights.

Hence, a state cannot be owed a right. ----> A state of America has no "right" to autonomy.


Relinquished Sovereignty Argument Defended

"Now, my opponent's final limitation on autonomy is the relinquishment of sovereignty. This represents a legal occurance, and what is legally true. However, what is implicated legally is not what ought to be implicated morally"

From what I proved in the last argument, the only FORM of obligation that can exist to a THING is a legal form. Objects cannot wield morality or be owed morality. Therefore, the only kind of rule that exists over a concept like the state is a legal one. Now, I am aware that the state must be moral to the people it governs, but I stress that it is actually the PEOPLE of the state that must be moral. If our secession argument was about the right of the PEOPLE of the government to leave America, then I would be fine with that. However, this is about the object, the state itself, the organization itself, being able to secede.

The object of the state is only bound by legal inclinations. It is the people that run and operate these entities that are bound by moral inclinations. Therefore, if I can prove it is not legal to secede, I prove that secession is not justified in any form, as legality is the only remaining form that exists for such an object.

Extend my relinquished sovereignty argument which proves that secession is illegal. My opponent would have to refute this legal argument to get anywhere.


Anarchy

"
I agree that this is legally true. However, as we can see through Kant's argument, while we are not morally obligated to secede, we are morally obligated to protect our own autonomy and refin from violating that of others. Thus, secession is morally justified, as if we secede, we remove these limitations from our autonomy. If it leads to anarchy, even better. If there is no government, there can be no limitations on autonomy as nobody has legally seceded autonomy to any other body."

Pro's entire argument was centered around the assertion that states are moral agents. Having disproved that, I suppose that destroys the foundation of his other contentions. This argument he provides here is also invalidated due to the fact that states are not owed morality. So even if anarchy is good and in line with Kantian ethics, such does not apply to the state which is only bound by legal inclinations.

The fact is:

1. States are things (both Pro and Con have agreed on this)

2. Things are not owed morality

3. States cannot be owed a moral right to auonomy

Hence the resolution is negated. I urge you to vote CON. Thank you.

Mestari

Pro

Overview

My opponent and I have agreed that morality is deontic in nature. To win this debate I must prove that Kantian ethics does not prescribe positive obligations and that states are moral agents.

Relinquished Sovereignty

“From what I proved in the last argument, the only FORM of obligation that can exist to a THING is a legal form. Objects cannot wield morality or be owed morality. Therefore, the only kind of rule that exists over a concept like the state is a legal one.”

The entire legality argument presented by my opponent is predicated on him winning that states are not moral agents. I am going to prove that states are moral agents later in the round, and thus affirm the resolution by proving that secession is justified morally, as the resolution demands. As a resolutional burden to prove that secession is legal does not exist, you can disregard his legality argument right now.

Furthermore, I would like to extend the Is-Ought Fallacy from last round that my opponent has not addressed. 000ike seems to believe that copying and pasting the first line of my argument constitutes refutation, however he fails to reject that “what is implicated legally is not what ought to be implicated morally” and that “A legal concession of rights doe[s] not justify a moral concession of them. I may legally sell my life, but I may not morally be deprived of my right to life. Even if my life is not in my control does not mean that it had not ought to be.” Relinquished sovereignty has been refuted on both the legal and moral level, do not vote for my opponent on it.

Kantian Ethics

The crux of my opponent’s supposed contradiction has collapsed to “The obligation to rememdy is a positive obligation in and of itself, as it requires us to do something. There is no such thing as a negative obligation to remedy because remedying is an action, not an inaction.”

My opponent decided to ignore my arguments from last round hoping that you would too, so I’m just going to copy and paste my argument for you to read over again.

“My opponent completely misrepresents Kant's argument. The implication of the Kant evidence is that we have obligations to uphold morality, not to enforce it. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary makes the distinction between the two quite clear for us:

Uphold (1): to give support to
Enforce (2): to give force to

As we can see, we must give support to morality by acting in conformity with moral maxims, but nowhere does Kant say that we must proactively enforce it upon others. In fact, that would contradict Kantian ethics by violating the autonomy of others. Don't buy into my opponent's attempt to put words into Kant's mouth by reconstructing the evidence presented in this debate in order to fabricate flaws that he could capitalize on.”

For further evidence that I am not proposing a positive obligation to secede, “Positive obligations demand proactive action that is owed to others, and negative obligations require inaction or action that is owed to yourself. My argument is not that we should never act. Rather, it states that if morality required us to take positive actions, enforce morality itself in this scenario, then we would have unlimited positive obligations to do so, and it would be impossible to prescribe that we fulfill a specific positive obligation as it will always result in not fulfilling and unlimited amount of alternative positive obligations. We can prescribe negative actions however, such as a refusal to allow your autonomy to be limited, because you are always in control of your own actions, and of inaction.”

I am going to win that the action prescribed is a negative obligation in two ways. First, a refusal to let your autonomy being violated is inaction. However, even if you reject this argument, negative obligations include action that is owed to yourself.

What does this mean for the round?

My opponent’s strategy on the moral level is first and foremost to prove that we need governments to enforce positive moral obligations. I’ve proven that positive obligations do not exist under deontology, indicating that my opponent’s argument is as I’ve stated before a misrepresentation of what Kant argues. The only moral obligation we have is to ourselves, which is a negative obligation that does not require governmental action. Thus, even if secession results in anarchy, it is still morally justified.

Status of States’ Moral Agency

My opponent does not reject that states are organizations. The Wilmot evidence that I presented last round argues that organizations have cognitive attributes and thus are moral agents. My opponents refutation is three-fold:

1. “The quote my opponent presents attempts to put sentient qualities to inanimate things!”

Yes, 000ike, that is exactly what Wilmot argues. Thank you for pointing that out. However, stating my argument does not refute it. My opponent goes on to say that states do not possess a variety of cognitive qualities, however he does not prove that organizations lack any of them. I provide evidence that organizations have these qualities. If organizations could not reason then they would never make decisions and action would never be taken. We obviously see that states take action constantly.

2. “My opponent conceded that states/organizations are inanimate entities that exist independently of the people who run them. Yet, he turns around and mistakes the moral qualities OF those people as the qualities for these non-sentient political concepts.”

No, that is not my argument. I agree that states are independent of those who live in them. The argument that I am making is that a state is an organization, which my opponent concedes, and that organizations have cognitive qualities, which my opponent did not properly refute.

3. “In light of the fact that an organization such as a U.S State is mutually agreed to be a THING, I maintain the argument that things cannot think or act in moral manners.”

My opponent’s central, and perhaps strongest, argument against agency is what I call “The Argument of the THING.” My opponent consistently believes that calling States THINGs is a justification for them not being moral agents. I would like to note that I, a human and sentient being, am a THING. I, however, have moral agency. Labeling something as a THING is not a warrant, don’t vote on the argument of the THING.

The fact that the argument of the THING does not disprove moral agency also destroys his final manifestation of his anarchy argument.

Underview

I have proven that:

1. Morality is deontic.
2. Kantian Ethics does not prescribe positive actions.
3. States are organizations. Organizations are moral agents.
4. I am not resolutionally obligated to prove that secession is legal.

My opponent has proven:

1. States are THINGs.

As THINGs are not definitionally denied moral agency as organizations have cognitive attributes, my opponent's argument carries no weight in ths round. I think it is clear that you must affirm.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
000ike deserved 4 conduct points not 2
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
RFD:
Debate came down to whether states are moral agents. Really I thought the debate on this point was lacking. Both sides just sort of assert they do or they dont without much warrant. The Wilmot card is pretty weak- its all claim with no warrant. Con does an ok job on the issue in his R3, but follows it up with a very weak R4. It was Pro's R4 that made up my mind, as this was the most substantial development of the position in round. Knowing both Ike and Mes I think this point could have been handled better.

Also, I am fairly certain Kant would not have thought states have a right of secession.
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
Thank you for another great RFD F-16. I really wish I had time to simplify the philosophy, I've just been so busy lately! Props for taking time to read the quotes though.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
I'm very grateful for the time and effort you spent reading the arguments, and the very in depth rfd. Thanks for the input F-16
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
In part 2, paragraph 3, I confused pro and Con saying "Con" instead of "Pro" twice. I meant to say:

He doesn't really address PRO's moral agent argument. This I believe is fundamental and is one the primary reasons I am giving the points to PRO.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD (Part 3):

Final thought: It would have been so much better if Mestari had paraphrased and explained what those philosophers were saying rather than quoting them directly. The quotes were hard to understand but since they were posted in-round, I did spend time reading them. I know you are very talented at simplifying complex moral issues as you did in the Murder is morally wrong debate.

SUMMARY
Overall, I believe that Con asserted that states are moral agents and must be given rights in Round 3. He doesn't actually explain WHY they are moral agents until round 4. However, Con instead of capitalizing on this and deny it, instead claims that Pro conceded that states are things which wasn't what Pro said. Pro only conceded that they are political entities. I held it against pro that he waited till the last round to explain it, and Con really could have won if he addressed the core of Pro's argument rather than claiming a cocession. It was in fact Con who conceded that states were organizations with moral claims.

I do believe that Pro was a bit disrespectful towards Con. Saying that Con was "Hoping (the voters) would forget it too" among other things which of course Pro doesn't know. That and the good sportsmanship during the forfeit gives the conduct to Con. To both of you, WELL DONE!
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD (Part 2):

Interesting to note that Con does not contest Pro's syllogism instead attempting to show that secession exists outside the parameters of autonomy because of the necessity for government. His main point is that the land was relinquished to the US Federal government so while the everyone in the state could leave, they cannot take the land with them, which is essentially what secession is. That was actually a very strong point backed up with an excellent example.

Pro calls this an is-ought fallacy and says that relinquishment of sovereignty is a legal occurence not a moral one. That fails to refute Con's example about the house. Pro essentially says that the people in the house can take the plank with them whenever they want because any contracts they signed are legal, not moral. I find that hard to believe. If a state signed away their rights, shouldn't they be morally held liable? Pro gives an okay answer to this question by saying that even if he legally signed away his body, the moral right remains.

Con unfortunately doesn't rebut so Pro's assertion stands. He instead talks about the only form of obligation existing to a THING is legal. He doesn't really address Con's moral agent argument. This
I believe is fundamental and is one the primary reasons I am giving the points to Con. Pro's argument that a negative obligation is one that is owed to yourself stands.

Con argues that since the state is a thing, the only obligation is a legal one, not a moral one. Since it is illegal, it is immoral as well. Obviously no one can deny that it is illegal so the counter rests on the assertion that the state is not just a thing or that things are owed more than just natural rights which Pro argued. It must be noted that Pro only conceded that states are organizations and that organizations are moral actors. He doesn't explicitly concede that States are "things" in Con's sense of the term. So Con never actually rebutted this argument in his closing.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD (Part 1):

This took me a while to read and understand. Another one of those high-quality debates. Couldn't decide the winner until late into my second reading.

Moral issues WERE considered for voting. For a debate titled "seccession is justified morally," I hardly think that they can be ignored.

Anarchy: Con's argument here is that "secession is a disempowerment of authority." They will no longer be able to command respect or enforce obedience. Con makes a great argument that there is nothing to stop people from seceding and disregarding that morality which they were supposed to uphold.

Relinquished Sovereignty: The example with the planks and the house was highly convincing. States that relinquished soveriegnty can't take it back unless both parties agree.

The core of Pro's argument is that if we disregard autonomy, we disregard morality altogether. Since we have an obligation to uphold morality, we then have an obligation to uphold autonomy as well. A well-thought out argument I must say. It is also dependent on the assertion that we must respect our nature as human beings.

Framework: Pro says that we are obligated to uphold (though not necessarily enforce) morality.
"Therefore, whenever a violation of morality exists, there also exists a reciprocal obligation to remedy this violation." Now my first thought here was: doesn't that contradict deontology which specifies that we cannot have positive obligations? Pro says that we must uphold morality but not pro-actively enforce it upon others. So the "reciprocal obligation to remedy this violation" is not a pro-active enforcement? Pro finally answers this in his round 3 argument when he says that the obligation to uphold autonomy is not a positive obligation. Con of course doesn't buy this and says that the
obligation to remedy is a positive one.
Posted by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
Then you need to make that argument clearer and you need to refute that organizations have moral dispositions, with warranted arguments.

Perhaps you're not clearly reading what I wrote.

Regardless, I'm not going to argue with you in the comments section any longer. Let the voters decide.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
Thats not the point. A state EXISTS independently of human beings, but it cannot act without them. A state is still a state even when people are not in it, but a state cannot pass legislation if there are no people in it.

Perhaps you're not clearly writing down what you're thinking because there is nothing in there that I did not address.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
000ikeMestariTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering bozotheclown
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
000ikeMestariTied
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: owned
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
000ikeMestariTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Thought the debate was close but could have been better.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
000ikeMestariTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: See the comments section.