These two resolutions may be the one's I fear the most.
The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.
The United States ought to adopt carbon pricing.
They are interesting and timely. They may even have value components. The devil, as the cliche reminds, is in the details, however.
How the U.S. promotes democracy in the Middle East is as important as the decision to promote it. The plan matters as much as the values underlying the plan that implements the pricing. Should the US invade Syria, reject the Iranian Nuclear Deal, accept the Iranian nuclear deal, buy more oil, buy less oil, increase aid to Israel, eliminate aid to Israel, none of the above, or all of the above? One could compose a similar list for carbon pricing.
Granted, a policy resolution would specify "The United States Federal Government" not merely the "United States" but that difference is minimal. The resolutions still demand the United States Government act and debaters show that US promotion of democracy in the Middle East or US adoption of carbon pricing will produce positive results. In short, whatever value premises are proposed each round will default to a consequential framework and I don't want to spend two months arguing only consequentialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment