SECTION 4: SAMPLE AFFIRMATIVE CASE AND EXTENSION

SECTION 4: SAMPLE AFFIRMATIVE CASE AND EXTENSION

Much has been written on corporate bailouts lately. While taxpayers decry the $700 billion package earmarked for failing financial markets, government officials and economic experts tell a different story. These financial markets alone represent a cornerstone of the U.S. economy. In an era of global economic interdependence, a collapse of the U.S. economy would be disastrous for the entire world.

Life is the precondition for all other values, like democracy and justice. In preserving life as a moral compass, we can ascertain the just path. Protecting life is the fundamental precondition to realizing all other values

Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, both Professors of Philosophy at Bellarmine College and St. John’s University, 1981.

READING NOZICK, p. 245.

In so far as one chooses, regardless of the choice, one chooses (value) man's life. It makes no sense to value some X without also valuing that which makes the valuing of X possible—: notice that this is different from saying "that which makes X possible"). If one lets X be equivalent to "death" or "the greatest happiness for the greatest number," one is able to have such a valuation only because of the precondition of being a living being. Given that life is a necessary condition for valuation, there is no other way we can value something without also (implicitly at least) valuing that which makes valuation possible.

CRITERION: Consequentialism

In evaluating actions as morally just, we should employ a utilitarian/consequentialist calculus. While these terms can mean different things under small distinctions, I generally refer to these schema here as the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” I would extend “people” to all life as well. Corporate bailouts inherently involve a public sacrifice for the protection of society and life. Only a consequentialist approach encompasses this inevitability of sacrifice necessary for justice

Joseph Nye, Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, 1986.

NUCLEAR ETHICS, p. 24.

Whether one accepts the broad consequentialist approach or chooses some other, more eclectic way to include and reconcile the three dimensions of complex moral issues, there will often be a sense of uneasiness about the answers, not just because of the complexity of the problems “but simply that there is no satisfactory solution to these issues – at least none that appears to avoid in practice what most men would still regard as an intolerable sacrifice of value.” When value is sacrificed, there is often the problem of “dirty hands.” Not all ethical decisions are pure ones. The absolutist may avoid the problem of dirty hands, but often at the cost of having no hands at all. Moral theory cannot be “rounded off and made complete and tidy.” That is part of the modern human condition. But that does not exempt us from making difficult moral choices.
Therefore, I stand Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.
OBSERVATION ONE: CORPORATE BAILOUTS ARE JUST

A. CORPORATE BAILOUTS ARE COMMON THROUGHOUT AMERICAN HISTORY

John Tozzi, Staff Writer, September 28, 2008.

“Corporate Bailouts Through History,” BUSINESS WEEK, , Accessed 12-10-2008.

The government's $700 billion plan to buy troubled assets from financial insitutions marks a stunning federal intervention in the marketplace. But the bailout, intended to avoid further shocks to the economy stemming from failing mortgage securities and other financial instruments, isn't entirely unprecedented. Even before the recent efforts to save AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the bailout has a long history in finance: J.P. Morgan himself spearheaded efforts to stave off bank runs in 1907. Indeed, whether it's the chance to make some money or the need to stave off a financial crisis, zero-hour cash infusions appear whenever someone sees something worth saving from an entity on the brink of failure.

SAMPLE AFFIRMATIVE
B. PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE UNSATISFIED WITH GOVERNMENT. BAILOUTS ARE NO DIFFERENT

Heather Whipps, LiveScience's History Columnist with an Anthropology degree from McGill University in Montreal, December 8, 2008.

“The Big Bailout: Product of a Flawed Democracy,” LiveScience, . Accessed 12-10-2008.

The bailout then, as uncertain as its outcome remains, may be unpopular but is still a part of the democratic process as intended by the Founding Fathers, many experts argue. Ultimately it means that the government will sometimes get it wrong, tick people off and make decisions that don’t seem to make sense at the time. They will also get some things right. The Founders simply hoped that the latter would happen more often.

Robert Goodin, Philosopher at the Research School of the Social Sciences at the Australian National Defense University, 1990.

“Utilitarian Ethics and Democratic Government,” THE UTILITARIAN RESPONSE: ESSAYS ON THE CONTEMPORARY VIABILITY OF UTILITARIAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, p. 142.

All choices – public and private alike – are made under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more complete information on the peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, are relatively poorly informed as to the effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do know are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people as a result of their various possible choices, but that is all. That is enough to allow public policy-makers to use the utilitarian calculus – assuming they want to use it at all – to chose general rules or conduct.

Robert W. McGee, Director, Center for Accounting, Auditing and Tax Studies at Florida International University, November 20, 2008.

.

The most frequently given justification for providing government assistance to corporations or industries in distress is that doing so will prevent an even greater calamity. Bailing out the mortgage industry will prevent a total collapse of the credit markets. Bailing out banks will prevent a depression. Bailing out the auto or steel industry will save jobs. The underlying theory behind these arguments is utilitarian ethics – the greatest good for the greatest number or some variation of that concept. Bailing out this industry or that will prevent an even greater tragedy. There would be more negative effects if the government did not come to the assistance of whatever industry was in trouble.

E. IT IS ETHICAL TO VIOLATE NOTIONS OF MORALITY TO PREVENT EXTINCTION

Nick Bostrom, Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Yale University, March 2002.

“Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards,” JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY, vol. 9, p. 23.

A preemptive strike on a sovereign nation is not a move to be taken lightly, but in the extreme case we have outlined - where a failure to act would with high probability lead to existential catastrophe - it is a responsibility that must not be abrogated. Whatever moral prohibition there normally is against violating national sovereignty is overridden in this case by the necessity to prevent the destruction of humankind.

SAMPLE AFFIRMATIVE
OBSERVATION TWO: THE WALL STREET BAILOUT PREVENTED GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

A. THE $700 BILLION BAILOUT WAS BETTER THAN LETTING THE ECONOMY CRASH

Martin Crutsinger, Staff Writer, September 20, 2008.

“Economists see financial bailout as necessary,” HUFFINGTON POST, Accessed 12-13-2008,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/economists-see-financial-_n_128029.html>

The economy could suffer a massive hangover from the government's efforts to rescue the financial system in the form of a soaring debt burden. But the alternatives look infinitely worse. The $700 billion the administration is seeking from Congress as the upper bounds of what it will need to take a mountain of bad loans off the books of financial firms is certainly an eye-popping figure.

B. THE BAILOUT RESTORED CONFIDENCE IN U.S. FINANCIAL MARKETS

Thomas Hartley of Buffalo Business First, September 29, 2008

“Bailout deemed 'necessary in short run',” NEW MEXICO BUSINESS WEEKLY, Accessed 12-13-2008, .

Patrick Heraty, professor of business administration at Hilbert College in Hamburg, N.Y., said Congress has few good options other than to enact the controversial legislation. “A lot of smart people have been working on this, so it is likely that what will emerge will be the best solution available. The biggest fears are the unintended consequences that surface with something this complex and unique,” he said. “It will provide some reassurance to both domestic and global markets.”

C. ABSENT THE BAILOUT, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN

MSNBC News, September 21, 2008.

“Bush seeking $700 billion for financial bailout,” MSNBC.com, , Accessed 12-13-2008.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “We cannot allow ourselves to be in denial about the threat now facing the world economy. From all indications, that threat is real, and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. Every single American has a stake in preventing a global financial meltdown.” The proposal would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to make room for the massive rescue.

“The American people are furious that we’re in this situation, and so am I,” the House’s top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, said in a statement. “We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington.
D. A COLLAPSE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY WOULD DESTROY THE BIOSPHERE THROUGH NUCLEAR WAR

T.E Bearden, Retired Lt. Colonel, Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists, Fellow Emeritus at the Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study, June 24, 2000.

“The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” Seapower.com, Access 12-13-2008, .

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released.  As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly.

SAMPLE AFFIRMATIVE
E. ONCE THIS STARTS, THE “MAD” EFFECT WILL GUARANTEE THAT NO LIFE ON EARTH SURVIVES

T.E Bearden, Retired Lt. Colonel, Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists, Fellow Emeritus at the Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study, June 24, 2000.

“The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” Seapower.com, Access 12-13-2008, .

The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Download 343.42 Kb.

Share with your friends: