The Instigator
Nathaniel2840
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Taylor-Magnuson
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,897 times Debate No: 38016
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Nathaniel2840

Pro

Does the United States of America have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts? My opinion is yes. I would like to look at this through three main issues, or contentions.
Contention 1
A person has a moral obligation to help someone in need of aid. If I was walking down the street, and I saw a small child getting abused on the side of the street, I have an impulse, a little voice in my head, telling me I need to help. Let us say that I was too weak to help the kid, so I decided to refrain from helping him. Does that all of a sudden stop the impulse in my head shouting at me to help? of course not. this is very simple. Lets say I wanted to go to Disneyland, but I didn't have enough money to go. does that stop me from wanting to go to disneyland? no it does not. it is simply not arguable that there is a voice shouting at me to help the kid getting abused on the street.
Contention 2. The united states has a moral obligation to help people in need of aid. The same thing can be applied to countries. Multiple philosophers have said, a country is of one mind, one body. Because we are a completely unified body, the same argument can be applied to countries as well as people. So the United States has a moral obligation, an impulse that urges the United States to take action. it is for this reason that the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international affairs.
Contention 3. This is the side for you
Whether you believe that the United States should or shouldn't get involved in international affairs, this is the side for you. Again, the resolution doesn't state what the US should do, it just says the United States has a moral obligation. The key is this, the united states has a moral obligation to help any country. that is not deniable. however, the us also has a moral obligation to keep its people safe. No matter which obligation outweighs the other. both are there
in summary, the united states, just like a person, has a moral obligation to help countries. it doesn't matter whether the US should, or how big the obligation is, it just matters that they do. Thanks!
Taylor-Magnuson

Con

Yes. A person does have a moral obligation to help someone in need of aid. but individuals and a whole country are to completely different things. As individuals we can decide weather or not to help someone in need of aid, but as a country we all have separate minds, and separate ideas of what is right and what is wrong. What is right to one person might not be considered right to some one else, for example:

Jack: Mom can i go to a party at Marks house, even though i have school tomorrow?

Mom: sure Jack.

Jacks mom didn't have any problem with him staying out late on a school night.

Jason: hey mom, Jack is going to Marks party tonight, may i go with him even though it is a school night?

Jason's mom: No Jason. That would not be a very smart thing to do, you have school tomorrow and if you stay out late you wont be able to wake up in the morning.

Jason's mother didn't agree with Jacks mother about what was right.

This is the same with countries. Not every one would agree that we need to go and help out France. (Just a random example)

The United States (depending on the situation) has a moral obligation to help people in need of aid, but it is not our responsibility to go out and try to solve every problem that happens between two other countries (or more). We need to think about our own obligations to our own people. If you were walking down the street, and one of your children walked out into the middle of the road and a car was coming, and a few yards away a different kid was being abused, which would you choose? to save your own child? Or rescue a kid that was not yours and let your own child die? This is the same with our country now. the United States does not have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. For example if Russia wanted to go to war with Iraq that doesn't mean we have to help them, but it doesn't mean that have to help Iraq either. I think most of us would have a clear continence about that. In world War I we didn't join in the war until we were attacked, we were simply helping ourselves, we didn't join the war to help out anybody else. Instead of worrying about every other countries problems, why don't we try to mitigated our own? There are a lot of things that we could fix right here in our own back yard. The United States has a moral obligation to help its self before it helps any other country. Thank You!
Debate Round No. 1
Nathaniel2840

Pro

So what you are saying, is, we have a moral obligation to mitigate some conflicts, while others we need to be thinking about our people more. I understand your point. However, whether we should, or should not mitigate international conflicts is irrelevant to this resolution. The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate conflicts, it is just sometimes the moral obligation of the United States to protect their own people is stronger than the moral obligation to mitigate the conflict. That does not all of a sudden erase the moral obligation the United States has to mitigate in the international conflict. Lets say I was going to Disney Land, but I was too sick and couldn't go, does that stop me from wanting to go to Disney Land? No it simply means I can't go. Its the same with this resolution. No matter what, the United States, even if it be a small one, has a moral obligation to mitigate conflicts. Its just that sometimes the moral obligation to protect their people is stronger. Your random example of France, lets say we wanted to help them with their Syrian engagement. If they are in trouble, just like a person, the United States has an instinct or obligation to help. If we decide that our moral obligation to keep our people safe is stronger than the obligation to mitigate, than we would obviously refrain from attacking. However, that does not stop the US from having a moral obligation to help.
Taylor-Magnuson

Con

I understand completely. I am not debating weather we should go and mitigate international conflicts, this is a rather interesting topic to have to debate against. but what i am saying as individuals we all have our own mind set, like the example with Jack and Jason, their mothers did not agree on what they thought was right. it is the same with the United states. Everyone has their own idea on what they think is right and wrong. Not everyone believes that there is a God who created the universe, so the people who believe that we were created by random chance have their own opinion on what is right. Some people have a blank continence. which means that even if they see someone who needs help, they feel like they have no obligation to help them. for example; you are driving down the road and you see a man on the side of the street with a sign that says he needs money to buy food, you have two main options, to believe he really does need help, or he is just lazy and doesn't want to get a job ( not with all cases, this is just an example), so assuming that the person was lazy and just didn't want to get a job, you feel you have no obligation to help them because they don't try to help themselves. When you do that you have a clear continence, you have nothing inside of you that says you should give him money. The United States could be thought of in the same way. Say that Italy was totally bankrupt they had no money what so ever because they spent it all on useless things. The U.S doesn't feel like they need to help Italy, because they were unwise about the decisions they made. they have no voice in their head saying they need to help. This could be said about any other country. ( I'm sure that some people would disagree and say that we need to help Italy, but this is a majority based decision) So to sum it up. The United States does Not have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts! We are not the big brother that tries to butt into the arguments of our siblings, because for one the big brother might get into trouble as well if he tries to solve the problems of his siblings, so by him staying out of the argument he has a clear continence. So the U.S does Not have a moral obligation to help.
Debate Round No. 2
Nathaniel2840

Pro

I see where you are coming at. However the points you made are flawed. First of all, if I was walking down the street and saw a man with no money, I have a small thought that runs through my head saying I MUST help him. I also have a thought that says you shouldn't. Both thoughts are there, its just the ladder is stronger than the former. Just because the ladder is stronger than the former, does not mean the former isn't still there. Sure he may be too lazy to get a job, but we still have a tiny impulse to help him. This is unarguable. It is the same with countries. The United States sees France in a bind, and yes, they do have a moral obligation to help him, even if France did waste their money, its just that our moral obligation to not do it is stronger than our moral obligation to take action. Again, just because the ladder is stronger than the former, does not mean that the former is not present. I would like to clarify also that having that impulse to help someone and having an "obligation" to help them are the same thing. If we feel like me must help someone, we feel like we should, otherwise known as an obligation. Now that we are in rebuttals you can not bring up the new argument of " a country and a person are not the same thing" so that should be disregarded. The U.S. does have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts
Taylor-Magnuson

Con

Taylor-Magnuson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.