{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Stock AC revised - Stock AC I affirm Thihan Nyun defines...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Stock AC I affirm: Thihan Nyun defines economic sanctions. Economic sanctions can be defined, depending on the particular role one would like sanctions to play in international affairs, in two different ways. Economic sanctions can either encompass every measure designed to inflict economic deprivation oconsideration only the economic deprivation inflicted upon a target country, and not the means employed to bring about that deprivation. As a result, any measure - economic or military - that disrupts the economic activity of an adversary would qualify as an economic sanction. Conversely, a definition based on the means, which is commonly accepted today, narrows the scope of what constitutes economic sanctions by focusing only on trade-disrupting measures . Hufbauer and colleagues define economic sanctions as "the deliberate, government-inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of customary trade or financial relations." A further synthesis of the literature reveals the following definition, which will be used for this Article: economic sanctions are the actual or threatened withdrawal of normal trade or financial relations , imposed by the sender against the target, for foreign policy purposes. Under this approach, economic sanctions are limited to restrictions on trade, investment, and other cross-border economic activity that reduce[s] the target country's revenues, thereby facilitating the desired change without resorting to military action. Economic sanctions therefore do not entail freezing assets because they do not affect the entire economy. This definition is preferable because it takes into account the literature. And, as the affirmative, I should be allowed to define the evaluative terms of the debate as a strategic tradeoff for the clear Aff/Neg time skew absent clear abuse. According to Walter Sinott-Armstrong 1 , claims That 'ought' implies 'permitted .' (4.12) follows from the standard definition of 'permitted' as 'not ought not.' (4.14) is a theorem in classical and intuitionist logic. The resolution implicates some form of moral obligation due to the word ought. Thus, the value is morality. Ought – used to express obligation (Merriam Webster) The value of objects is conditional on a rational will conferring that value; no object is “naturally” valuable. This necessitates treating those with a will as ends in themselves. Christine Korsgaard writes, 2 1 1 Moral Dilemmas and ‘Ought and Ought Not’ ( Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Vol. 17, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 127-139 2 Christine Korsgaard, “Two Distinctions in Goodness,” The Philosophical Review, Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), 182.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In order for there to be objectively good ends, however, [T]here must be something that is unconditionally good and so can serve as a sufficient condition of the ir goodness [of things] . Kant considers what this might be : [I]t cannot be an object of inclination, for those have only a conditional worth, “for if the inclinations and the needs founded on them did not exist, their object would be without worth” (G 46/428). It cannot be the inclinations themselves because a rational being would rather be free from them.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}