Murder is Objectively Immoral

It is my second. Please bear with me, I am still learning the nuances of debate and this website. Glossary Due to terms not being defined in round one, these are up for debate. That stated, I simply found what I think are sufficient definitions. Murder: “to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. ” (1) Objective: “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:”(2) Morality: “conforming to the rules of right conduct. ” (3) This effectively makes the resolution “To slaughter barbarously is, based on facts, not conforming to the rules of right conduct. ” Clarification There is an important difference between saying something is objectively immoral and saying that something is absolutely immoral. Objectivity is in reference to the status of moral rules, absoluteness has to do with stringency. For example it is objectively true that some people need shots of insulin to survive, but it is not absolutely true since not everyone is diabetic. In like manner, it may be objectively wrong to break promises but that does not mean it is absolutely wrong. This is important to understand in this debate because a claim can be objective and non-relative without being absolute. I have included this as people often confuse these two concepts and I want to avoid this confusion if possible. Affirmative Case In my first debate, I wrote my argument in essay format. It was mentioned to me that it is helpful to readers if I present my case in the form of a syllogism. I thought I would try that for this debate. Here it is; Premise 1: morality is objective Premise 2: Murder is immoral Conclusion: Murder is objectively immoral We see that the syllogism is valid, now all that I have to do is provide warrant to my premises and the conclusion follows logically. Premise 1: Morality is Objective There are many ethical theories that fall under moral objectivism. By moral objectivism is meant “The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. ”(4) Utilitarianism is one such theory. “Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else. )”(4) The determining factor is not personal preference or belief, rather, it is happiness. Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it. .. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. " (5) Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy. I have presented Utilitarianism as a true moral philosophy. It is an objective moral philosophy. Thus premise 1 is shown true. Premise 2: Murder is immoral The mechanism by which we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; Jeremy Bentham explains “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. ” (6) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment happiness. They are impermissible as they cause pain or suffering. My opponent would be hard pressed to argue that Murder augments happiness or pleasure. It is clear that murder does however cause pain or suffering. Thus we can conclude that Murder is immoral. Premise two is shown true. Conclusion: Murder is objectively immoral As both premises have been shown true, the conclusion follows logically. I affirm that Murder is objectively immoral. (1) . http://www.dictionary.com... (2) . http://www.dictionary.com... (3) . http://www.dictionary.com... (4) . http://www.ucs.mun.ca... (5) . http://www.utilitarianism.com... (6) . http://plato.stanford.edu...