The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.
Debate Rounds (3)
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!
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!
Taylor-Magnuson forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate