Affirmative on Resolved: The Actions of Corporations Ought to Be Held to The Same Moral Standard as The Actions of Individuals.

Noble motives cannot justify a policy that consistently fails to deliver what it promises or that creates greater long-term problems than it solves Walter A. McDougall

Currently it is to easy for corporations to find loopholes in corporate laws that are Set in place to try and protect people and other companys from the immoral actions of these corporations

Solution! Affirm

now before we continue I must provide the following resolution all analysis of this resolution

1. as the affirmative i must prove that the actions of corporations ought to be, held, to the same moral standards as the actions of individuals

2.My second point is that the negative either must say that one corporation must not be held to moral standards or two the actions of corporations ought to be held to different moral standards than the actions of individuals what I have to say on this is that corporations at the status quo find it all too easy to bend the law without actually breaking it

Whereas both negative possible responses do not improve the current situation

to show why I affirm this resolution I will argue the Value of Equality to best persuade you, and give reasons to you, the judge, why the moral standards of corporations ought be the same as any individual first I want to point out that according to blacks law dictionary a corporation is legally considered an individual entity containing the same rights and consequences as far as the government is concerned. and throughout my case I will refer to corporations as such

since this is the case I will prove that corporations, because they are acting as individuals and claim these rights, have legally entered into the social contract we all entered when we were born, so to elaborate on this I will use John Locke's Theory of the Social Contract to help you understand why equality is parmount in this round and how it very much applies to this topic I will do so in three main arguments, 1st a corporations entrance into the social contract, 2Nd application of the social contract to the corporations, and finally as individuals in the social contract.

contention one

I: a corporations entrance into the social contract

as I said blacks law dictionary considers a corporation to be a single entity, in the SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT by JOHN LOCKE Locke basically says that all individuals are born in a state of nature and most people are in and I quote "a state of perfect equality" but the reason we as people create and enter into a government is to protect us, those who disrupt this perfect equality, the irrational and immoral people that are corrupt in the state of nature and strive to have us under control, by protecting our three unalienable Rights the rights of: life, liberty and owning of property by joining into the social contract corporations agree to maintain the moral standards that are in society not ones made up for better businesses. corporations that are not moral and do not follow any ethics of business are trying to control us and our trade, that is why we set up a government to protect from acts like that. thus entering us into as what john Locke calls the state of war with the corporation. this is the simplest reason why they should be held to the same moral standards as those of individuals

with this we get inside my 2Nd contention

II: application of the social contract to the corporations

by litteraly signing the social contract for the corporation to become a person the individuals that make up the corporation must stay held to the moral standards they are held to SO If It is not morally acceptable for an individual to steal from his children then It is not morally acceptable for an company