Resolved: When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
I gather that Camp WTF-a-Mucka has chosen this resolution for their first session. If their choice is predicated on likelihood of selection, it’s a good one, as I can’t imagine this one not getting voted in. If their choice is predicated on value for education, again, I’m with them, as there’s a lot of background one can discuss. There’s only one flaw with the rez, which is that, simply put, the answer, Real World speaking, trends seriously towards No. I’m not sure how that will affect rounds, however, and it’s not as if there’s no aff ground, but whereas the negative has the logic and literature of countless generations to guide it, the aff has to be clever. That could be difficult.
The thing is, governments exist to support their constituents. Even putting aside the whole social contract business—as I’ve discussed in the past, there are plenty of things for governments to do, based on their size and aggregation of the populace versus the capabilities of individuals that have nothing to do with rights protection—there are no governments that exist for the benefit of someone other than their own citizens. That would be the logical analog of forming a bicycle league for trout. The operation of, and the benefits of, government, are by and for the polity. When Lincoln said government of the people, by the people and for the people, he wasn’t just whistling Dixie. (Come to think of it, if there was anyone who was never just whistling Dixie, it was Abraham Lincoln!) Implicit in that sentence is the people of that polity. He was not talking about government by and of one people but for all people.
A just government is, inherently, one that organizes the most fairly the needs and rights of its citizens. That is, it does its best to work for the people, to wit, the people who are its “by” and “of.” (So I have never grokked the famous JFK quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” although I can see its rhetorical benefit for its conclusion of working together with other nations. My country is supposed to do stuff for me, which is why it exists. I will pay taxes and whatnot, and perhaps even claim a cultural stake, but the doing seems to be in its hands, not mine.)
Now, one can say that human rights precede any other consideration, and this could be true. A regard for human rights is a moral tendency on the part of an individual (however that morality is derived, e.g. through religion or intellect or whatever). We ascribe to others what we like to call human worth, or human dignity, and we value them for this essential quality, disregarding any other qualities an individual might have. In other words, our basic dealings with all other humans prioritizes the human worth of all; everything else is secondary.
Governments, of course, operate in the sphere of international politics. That is, governments deal with other governments, and, in fact, one reason they exist is to do that dealing. What the resolution seems to be asking is, when governments are operating in that sphere, they place the moral worth of individuals above their own political interests. Given the rationale of governments in the first place, why the hell would they do this (if they even can)? Well, let’s say this, for one thing: Any government that doesn’t value human worth is inherently immoral. And since human worth is the prioritized human value, valuing human worth, and hence UHR, is prioritized by any government acting morally.
One could argue that a government acting morally is acting justly, which is another kettle of fish altogether, and where I see a lot of potential confusion in rounds, because there is no logical link between the two. I can be fair and I can be bad: the two are not mutually exclusive, and all the talk in the world won’t make them otherwise. So perhaps it behooves affirmatives to remove the justice angle from the discourse, on the assumption that neg’s arguments won’t necessarily concentrate on justice per se. And of course you can indeed be both moral and just at the same time, as long as you remember that the two are not necessarily automatically linked.
Still, while there will be plenty of traditional literature for the neg on how to structure governments, the aff is not totally helpless. The subject of human rights is not lacking commentators. I’m thinking of my favorite P.A.P. blog by Filip Spagnoli which I’m always quoting in the Coachean Feed, and which contains a wide variety of data on rights with statistical links to just about everything under the sun. And that’s just one source. And of course, the idea that a government is not doing its job by its citizens unless it’s screwing some other citizens is pretty nasty. If a government is dedicated to rights protection in the first place (e.g, the USA), at what point can it be doing its job if it ignores the rights of people outside of its borders? Extrapolating this thought to any country trying to be good guys gives you some sense of what the aff is all about. But as I say, the path to getting there is tougher.
Personally, I see this as a topic for either Sept-Oct or Districts or even NatNats. I think it will be too sloppy for the long term of Jan-Feb. I could be wrong though. At least it is a topic of interest and, for that matter, a topic that applies to the world we live in, while still being deeply philosophical. This, to me, is very LD.
No comments:
Post a Comment