Ethical Egoism and Ethical Altruism are two other good places to start when it comes to moral frameworks. I have personally used the two of these many times in multiple cases for multiple resolutions and argued the both with astounding success. 

Ethical Egoism is the belief that agents ought to do what is in their own best interests. Essentially, it holds that ones obligations are first to himself. Egoism, however, does not necessitate a position that one should be selfish. There is a fundamental difference between Egoism and Selfishness. In a world where we are selfish, we only seek to benefit ourselves, sometimes to the point where we are so entrenched in self interest that we become blind to the rest of the world, and are clouded by lust, or self appeasement. Egoism, on the other hand, says that agents first must be in the interest of themselves, because it is their duty to fulfill their own needs and to first look to their own well-being. In a way, we are all egoist. We all eat food, and perform other actions which our bodies and minds require to survive. Egoism states that we can do the bidding of others, but only after we half self-fulfillment and satisfaction. Upon gaining such, we can look to the wellbeing of others.

Ethical Altruism, however, is precisely the opposite. It states that agents should maximize the interest of others in order to achieve happiness, because it is morally right to do so. It places an emphasis on our humanly nature which subjects us to being so interdependent on society, claiming that we function best when we are in essence one with our environment, and others interests should become our interests.

Both of these are suitable criteria for foreign policy cases. Subjects such as Free Trade and Protectionism, American Exceptionalism, and other topics geared toward what the state ought to do in order to maximize stability or happiness on either a global or societal level.

Evidence can be found easily through the Free Online Encyclopedia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophical sources. Cards and Evidence to come soon.

Morality

Morality as a value premise is a state in which we do something for a certain reason, because we ought to do so. It seems like a very nebulous subject, because ethics often is a nebulous subject. Morality has the issue of being without a static, making it what we call an elastic value. There are often several forms of morality in which are all inherently linked to a code of conduct as per behavioral norms that are good or bad, right or wrong, virtuous or not so. In forensics, specifically LD, we call upon morality to be our compass for lifestyles, to help us determine what is or is not right. Ultimately, it is a moving target. Argumentation is easy on this subject because of this flaw.

For criteria, you may look to the very basic principles of Utilitarianism and Deontology, to ethical principles which differ profusely in their attempts to create moral justice. Utilitarianism is the ethical position that the right or moral thing to do is that which maximizes the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, or otherwise known as the greatest happiness principle.

            Manuel Velasquez with Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University declared[1]

Utilitarianism offers a relatively straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any particular situation we may find ourselves in. To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account.

Utilitarianism is a useful tool for governments because their sole purpose is to look after the welfare of citizens.

David Braybooke, Professor of Government and Philosophy at Dalhousie University, 04 [Utilitarianism: restorations, repairs, renovations p.7]

Theoretical attention to the process of making policies and with it to the Revisionary Process is wholly utilitarian, even if few utilitarian writers have seen the importance of giving it prime attention. For I suppose that champions of utilitarianism would never have denied that applications of their theory would take place in the midst of a social process of dispute and deliberation and that in the application the theory would have to make the best of the advantages and disadvantages of the process. In the process, as it carried on in the real world, the theory had to come to terms with the claims of human needs; with the census-notion in hand, it can deal with these claims effectively.  In the absence of a practical calculus of utility, that is the way, through the surrogates for questions about utility supplied by questions about needs and questions about other matters less basic, that utilitarianism has had whatever effect it has had on real-world policy-making. So I do not go outside of utilitarianism when I shift, in practical applications, from utilities to needs. Moreover, I treat priority for meeting needs as a foundation on which utilitarianism can superimpose provisions for matters less basic. Throughout my restorations, repairs, and renovations, I present a utilitarianism that remains true to Bentham’s Master-Idea, that moral disputes about social policy should be settled by statistical evidence about the consequences for human beings.

See the next post for information on Deontology, and attack against both Deontology and Utilitarianism. Evidence and Analysis to come soon.

---

[1] Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University), “Calculating Consequences:
The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics,” Issues in Ethics V2 N1 (Winter 1989), http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html