Targeted Kiling is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

okay, let me lay this out clearly so everyone can understand. A government acts morally when it protects the safety of its citizens. This is how we reach governmental legitimacy as I said at the very beginning. This was never contested. Extend it. He didn't contest its effectiveness in promoting safety, thus we can agree that it does uphold safety. Therefore, the govt is morally permitted to use targeted killing. real quick clarifying the rebuttals violation: I meant round two, sorry if I mistyped. He can't talk about my case (rebutting it) in round two, it said in the rules. Please vote me conduct. Also vote me conduct because he said "people like you were idiots. " I would appreciate equal courtesy. On his objective morality thing: First of all, I read your case several times. That was a little offensive. Please vote me up for conduct. He basically said in his last speech that morality exists (I think? , I'm confused. .) and then he tries to tell us that moral permissibility doesn't exist because objective morality doesn't exist? I already said, morality is a universal thing. It doesn't change. Just because perceptions change, doesn't make anyone right in saying that an action is moral when it isn't. To this he would say: but there's still no objectional morality! Notice how this is his only objection (no pun intended). But furthermore, the govt legitimacy thing is very objectional. If the govt ensures national security/safety within reason, then they are morally permissible. There is no subjectivity to that. He asks what universal principles are that guide morality. Well, i could spend characters and characters explaining, but it isn't really necessary. Rarely do we ever have to ask if something is moral. It's pretty intuitive. Even 8 year olds have a general understanding of what is and isn't acceptable. And if you would like to see what is really universal, check out the link I put up last round (too long of an explanation to post here) "we all have different moral judgement capabilities" find me at least 10% of people who would think its morally impermissible for a govt to uphold national security and safety of its own people. Even with more basic stuff like earlier examples, everything falls pretty much in line. And even where it doesn't, an individual doesn't necessarily constitute morality. under his 4th layer point: I never said anything about legal permissibility. I'm talking about what a govt should and shouldn't do. him talking about all my apparent concessions: I'm attacking their logic. .. but if you want specifics okay On joyce: Joyce's own protests against moral objectivism are ironically circular. Joyce constantly reiterates that such theories have failed. We must ask: "Failed for who? " The answer is plainly moral relativists like Joyce who insinuates that no reasonable account can be given of what it takes for a moral judgment to be true. He also takes the view that those who attempt to demonstrate their current moral framework is more-or-less correct (which he takes only to be correct ‘for them') are guilty of grotesque hubris and evince a "felt need for reassurance. " Here Joyce is guilty of stereotypical, emotivist rhetoric. And what about Joyce's own hubris, effectively making himself the judge as to whether a judgment that something is morally wrong is a true judgment or not? also on his idea of subjectivity instead of objectivity: (so, like Koons) He may claim that in the absence of a possible objective morality, we must fall back on subjectivism. But that is unacceptable: in the absence of objective evidence for a proposition, we must remain silent. We must go to the extent that a rational evaluation of the evidence will take us, and no further. To do otherwise is to indulge in fantasy, which can be very good in art but a detriment in philosophy as well as in our daily experience. Then we move on towards logically proving the justification of the govt, which my opponent has not done. On subjective morality more: I think it is quite obvious what the result is of a subjective morality. When people are the victims of bad behavior, they have no trouble understanding that the behavior is absolutely wrong. While people may get morality wrong in complicated situations, they don't get it wrong on the basics. For example, everyone knows murder is wrong. Hitler knew it. That's why he had to dehumanize the Jews in order to rationalize killing them. Many of the Nazi's who followed Hitler were extremely pyscologicaly damaged and tormented by the things they were asked to do. When you are wronged you seek justice, when you are rewarded with something you do not deserve you feel guilt. There is a subconcious overwhelming sense of objective right and wrong that cannot be ignored. and on Nietzsche: I already discussed how just because perception of something may change (Even though basics generally stay the same), it doesn't change the morality of an action. You can have an entire city full of people raping and shooting each other, that doesn't mean that it is moral just because they do it or even consider it okay (rarely) sometimes. People can be wrong. Some would say that God judges morality (final judgement, anyone? ), others would say it is inherent, others may think that the truth comes from another source. But the change in human perception doesn't really matter. I put up a pretty basic framework on how to evaluate moral permissibility from a government actor. An objective one. him saying I am making a fallacious appeal to emotions by recognizing what is and isn't moral: Not true. There has to be some reason we are even having this debate and why it was chosen as a national LD topic. Morals guide our life, and it is important to understand morality. If people understood it or acted on it better, many bad things in the past could have been avoided. "findings of academic philosophers would outweigh dictionary definitions as they are more closely in line with the truth than the dictionary" ah, so you admit that there IS a truth and not just tons of subjectivity? And they are people too, right? Under your logic, they would be subject to everything that he claims all people are subject to. So what makes them so special at finding "truth" while others apparently can't? Where do you draw the line? Thank you. As so far, here is why you can vote pro. first, vote me conduct if nothing else. He told me I was an idiot, that I didn't read his case, other rude remarks, etc. I did none of this second, we live in a world with objective morality. We all understand what is right and wrong. Find an instance where we don't? And even if you did, how does that change what is and isn't a moral action? Wouldn't that be for God or the universe to decide? We all agree that a government providing for its citizens' security is morally permissible. AKA PERMITTED BY (any reasonable! ) moral standards. There is no reasonable moral standard that wouldn't permit that. You can vote off of that alone. At the end of the day, ask yourself: Would any government be acting morally permissible to allow terrorism to run amuck (he uncontested my arguments about how terrorism decreases, so don't let him bring that up now)? Would any government be morally permissible in risking the safety of their people? Clearly not, vote pro. I'm looking at a reasonable, easier to understand case attacking the real issues of this resolution. My opponent is dancing around the point. What this debate really should have focused on was duties of govt, effectiveness of targeted killing, preemptive force in some cases, etc.