- Argument1 of 3›
Trump has no responsibility to the rest of the world
In an ideal world perhaps we'd all do the best for everyone else. Unfortunately, that isn't how politics works, nor world leaders operate. The President's only loyalty is to his citizens, and making sure they're protected is his only job.
The argument
The argument rests on a claim about what governments are for. On this view a government's job is ultimately to protect the people it governs, and President Trump's attempt to purchase the rights to a COVID-19 vaccine is that duty being discharged under conditions of scarcity. Supporters do not deny that the welfare of people elsewhere matters; they treat assisting all the citizens of the world as a legitimate aspiration. What they deny is that it can function as an obligation. A leader who tried to weigh every population equally would be acting on a standard too idealistic to be met, so the workable standard, on this account, is for each leader to pursue what is in their own country's best interest, which, aggregated across governments, is held to be the only arrangement that actually assigns responsibility for anyone. Scarcity is what gives the claim its force here. Where supply is limited, securing a vaccine for one population is not presented as hostility towards others but as the ordinary consequence of a leader having a particular constituency rather than a universal one. Proponents add a constitutional argument specific to the United States. They read the Fourteenth Amendment as establishing not only citizenship for those born in the country but a corresponding entitlement to protection of life, liberty and property, and they infer that protecting American lives is a duty the office already carries rather than a preference its holder may indulge. On that reading Trump's actions were in accordance with the constitution, and required no further justification by reference to the rest of the world. The constitutional reading offered here is the proponents' own: the amendment's scope is itself contested, and the wider claim that leaders owe nothing beyond their borders is a normative position rather than a settled one.
Premises
Counter-arguments
As an international leader, Trump certainly does have a responsibility to all citizens of the world. Nationalities are simply titles, we are all part of a bigger human collective. And due to such a reality. we should have each other's best interests in mind. It is through this understanding that peace and harmony between countries can be established. In other words, as the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the World, President Trump should promote and protect all human rights, not just human rights as they pertain to America, and not just when it is convenient. Trump should actively protect these rights throughout his presidency. What is the point of even proclaiming human rights if no world leader will follow them or call out their peers for failing to?
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] That a government's primary duty runs to its own citizens is widely accepted and does not establish the stronger claim of no responsibility to anyone else; the premise moves from a priority to an exclusion without argument. [Rejecting P2] The Fourteenth Amendment constrains how government treats persons within its jurisdiction; it does not authorise any particular foreign purchase, so citing it shows at most that the action was not prohibited — while the position needs it to have been required.