Only
utilitarianism encompasses the usefulness of wellbeing or avoiding pain.
Governments must use util.
Goodin Robert, 1995, Philosopher of
Political Theory, Public Policy, and Applied Ethics. Utilitarianism as a Public
Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, pg. 26-27
Util … ensures … that policies are sensitive to … interests … The reason
public action is required … arises from the inability of … individual
action to achieve … desirable ends. … makes it morally incumbent upon individuals to organize … into collective
units … capable of
acting where … individuals are
not. …. Individuals … are … circumscribed in how they can operate, in their collective
mode. And those special
constraints characterizing the public sphere … give rise to … util…
Key
issues include the influence of wealthy individuals over government; “pay to
play” politics and the revolving doors between elected government office,
for-profit companies, and professional associations; and the abuse of the US
financial system by corrupt foreign kleptocrats and local
elites. … Nearly
six in ten people now say that the level of corruption has risen in the past
twelve months, up from around a third who said the same in January 2016. A new
survey by Transparency International, the US Corruption Barometer
2017, … shows that the US government and some
key institutions of power still have a long way to go to win back citizens’
trust. … Almost 7
out of 10 people believe the government is failing to fight corruption, … 55 per cent gave fear of retaliation as
the main reason not to report corruption, … 74 per cent said ordinary people can
make a difference in the fight against corruption. … Of these categories, government
institutions and officials in Washington are perceived to be the most corrupt
in the country. …
The
press can often be viewed as operating as a “watchdog” for the government … Numerous stories concerning
government malfeasance can be traced to anonymous government sources. … [i]n the years since
Watergate, literally thousands of stories concerning government corruption,
mismanagement, … have
resulted from information provided to reporters under promises of
confidentiality.”… some of
the “biggest” stories involving government corruption, … has resulted from information provided
by anonymous sources or “leaks” … Without reporter’s privilege
protection, it is unlikely that these stories would ever have seen the light of
day or received the amount of attention that they did. … If protection of their identity had not
been guaranteed, they might not have been as willing to share information and
expose government wrongdoing.
Corruption in the government affects the United States’ economy with long
lasting impacts.
Johnson, LaFountain, and Yamarik,
11 [Noel Johnson, Courtney LaFountain, and Steven Yamarik, Springer,
Vol.147, Issue 3-4, Corruption is bad for growth (even in the United States, Department
of Economics and Mercatus Center George Mason University, Center for Economics,
Applied Research and Methods Team US Government Accountability Office,
Department of Economics California State University,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-010-9634-5, pg. 39, 9/14/18]
It is often assumed in the United States that
corruption is somebody else's problem. … It
is unlikely that this belief stems from a mass self-delusion on the part of
American citizens that their public servants are angels. The evidence to the
contrary is all too apparent in the media. … the cost of corruption may be
underappreciated in the United States … we
assume that, even though a few officials may be bad, the "system" is
good. … Higher
conviction rates of public officials are strongly related to lower economic
growth. Our OLS results suggest that corruption plays at least as
great a role in explaining the growth experiences of U.S. states as other
macroeconomic determinants like population and education. … corruption becomes even more of a drag on growth. … Capital
markets in the United States are heavily integrated and capital flows are
highly elastic. When a
culture of corruption in a state raises uncertainty or the cost of doing
business, capital flows to more amenable institutional environments. … investment is reduced in
states with higher corruption rates … Identifying the causes of corruption
and implementing costly strategies to reduce it are justified…
Economic decline caused by corruption triggers uncertainty and national
security concerns – foreign rivals are emboldened to challenge American
instability and vulnerabilities trigger
loose nukes,
counterbalancing,
and
regional instability.
Mann ’14 (Eric Mann
is a special agent with a United States federal agency, with significant
domestic and international counterintelligence and counter-terrorism
experience. Worked as a special assistant for a U.S. Senator and served as a
presidential appointee for the U.S. Congress. He is currently responsible for
an internal security and vulnerability assessment program. Bachelors @
University of South Carolina, Graduate degree in Homeland Security @
Georgetown. “AUSTERITY, ECONOMIC DECLINE, AND FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF WAR: A NEW
PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL SECURITY,” May 2014,
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdf)
… economic considerations within states can figure prominently into the calculus for future
conflicts. … security issues
with economic or financial underpinnings will transcend classical determinants
of war and conflict, and change the manner by which rival states engage in
hostile acts toward one another. … security
concerns emanating from economic
uncertainty and the inherent vulnerabilities within global financial
markets will present new
challenges for national security, and provide developing states new asymmetric options for balancing against stronger states.¶ The security areas, … are likely
to mature into global
security threats in the immediate future. … the overlapping security issues associated with economic
decline and reduced military spending by the United States will affect
allied confidence in America’s security guarantees. … this outcome could cause regional
instability or realignments of strategic
partnerships in the Asia-pacific region with ramifications for U.S. national
security. Rival states and non-state groups may also become emboldened to challenge America’s
status … The potential risks
associated with stolen or loose WMD, resulting from poor security, can also pose a threat to U.S. national security. … financial constraints affect weapons security making
weapons vulnerable to theft, and how financial factors can influence WMD proliferation … inherent vulnerabilities within the global financial markets will provide terrorists’ organizations and other non-state groups, … with opportunities
to disrupt global finance and perhaps weaken America’s status. …
“Economic decline caused by corruption triggers uncertainty and national security concerns – foreign rivals are emboldened to challenge American instability and vulnerabilities trigger loose nukes...”
I’ll be honest, I lol’d.
GG EZ Dub
Snitches can be scumbags but sometimes you have to be a scumbag to take down bigger scumbags, life is not so simple.
If you agree to define "the right to protect confidential sources" as absolute (i.e. without exception), then I would take Con.
Definitions are half of any debate. And if you think there's no recourse to someone defining something in a way that makes the debate unfair then you're not thinking particularly hard. That being said, I dont plan on defining something unfairly.
I think it's only fair to your opponent that you provide crucial definitions. How one defines "right to protect the identity of confidential sources" is paramount to the nature of the debate. If you plan to merely argue it is a right that could have exceptions, then there is a serious burden on your opponent. If you instead plan to argue that it is an absolute right that has no exceptions, there is more of a burden on you.
There is a difference between deciding on exact arguments and making clear the position you intend to advocate for. As the debate is set up right now, there is not way to discern what exact position you will be arguing for.
I mean, I haven't decided on what my exact arguments will be. You can certainly argue the opposite.
For the purposes of this debate, is this "right" you speak of absolute? In other words, do you plan to argue there are no circumstances under which a reporter should be compelled to reveal a confidential source?