March Beginners Tournament Round 2: Targeted Killing

Now it is true that this debate is about morality, and I don't think anyone could argue that it isn't. Now then going to my main case of Utilitarianism, a major moral theory, I can definitely say that Targeted Killing is morally permissible.Before I begin, there are some major things I need to bring up. First of all, con says that society thinks that targeted killing is immoral. In this poll by the Washington Post, the poll is not unanimous, nor is it even close to saying it is immoral. On question 14, the answers is majorly positive. [1] It is drone attacks, but that is the main choice of target kill. With the poll results, the majority is approving of the target kills, thus society is in fact, not in agreement of targeted killing being immoral.First of all, there is the con's definition of moral realism. My opponent claims that moral realism is more or less deontology, another type of moral theory that argues that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. He argues that moral realism is about the action, not the outcome. Moral realism is just objective moral facts, that most of society accepts. I have already proved that society isn't unanimous of the issue or even is against it. My opponents definition is incorrect and didn't prove that society thinks targeted killing is immoral. Now then, on to the rebuttals to con's points.We know now that moral realism is an objective morality issue. Utilitarianism is the same thing. Utilitarianism does whatever it can to help the majority, regardless of personal feelings, thus it is an objective moral issue as well. Both are the same thing so there is no conflict.With utilitarianism, the moral argument deals with the outcome of the situation, which causes the action to become moral. With the example of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, it is moral. The majority of people are in fact not rich and no matter the action, it would be considered moral. Using utilitarianism makes this easy to see. With the people stealing from the minority and giving it to a majority, even though in moral realism it would be considered immoral, the action would be moral because of the outcome. Targeted killing would save a majority of people, even if some would have to die. The majorities outcome of surviving would be moral, and thus the action would be moral.Con's framework view would make it so anything that societies accepts is moral. The outcomes doesn't matter to moral realism, only the action and if society accepts it. Mine is the opposite. The outcome of targeted killing as said, is a majority surviving. My framework makes the issue moral and not doing it would be immoral. Would society accept it if the government didn't target kill someone to protect the majority of people?It is true that it would be hypocritical for the government to ignore the moral values it enforces, and I won't be arguing that. However, targeted killing is different then what it would seem to be. The military usually has to go above what is considered accepted to protect not only the United States, but the majority of the people world wide. Take the dropping of the Atomic Bomb. While it is true we could have done the conventual way of invading Japan, it would have been a foolish route. For, both sides would have lost countless more lives, as noted by this site. [2] For either side, the majority of people would want to live and to cause more death would be extremely immoral. Society would most likely want less death so even if dropping a Atomic Bomb would seem immoral, it would be moral to both sides.Before I end this there is one more thing I need to bring up. Another variation of utilitarianism deals with pleasure and maximizing it for most people, or mainly the majority. Any type of harm against pleasure would go against a moral action. If the United States didn't target kill a terrorist who then goes and kills other people, our pleasure would be harmed. Keeping the people's pleasure against harm, would be the greatest act of morality, and it would justify it. Thus, Targeted Killing is in fact, justified.1. http://www.washingtonpost.com...2. http://thediplomat.com...