Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

"A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world." Albert Camus Because I agree with this quote, I negate the resolution, Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. I accept my opponent's definitions except two: Vigilante- Self appointed administrator of punishment. Because "justice" is a vague term, I simply qualify that the vigilante is punishing people that are, because of governmental failure, not being punished for crimes they commit. Justified – In accordance with morality. In this instance, we are not talking about law, if you look to the resolution, the law is failing, and we are asking if, in this situation, vigilantism is MORAL, not lawful, since it does not specify any country, we would have absolutely no basis to judge law. RA: The resolution is a moral dilemma; the affirmative must provide a moral backing to their justification of this action. Value: Humanity A.Defn. Each person is seen as his/her own character, people cannot be used as means to an end. B.Because we are human before all else, we must look to our humanity. C.Humanity only exists on the neg I will show through my case how the neg upholds humanity, but the aff cannot because it violates my Criterion Criterion: Categorical Imperative A. Defn: According to Kant: We ought to "act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" To simplify: According to Kant, a maxim is the reason we act, or our motivation. (For example: "we ought to protect life") So, the categorical imperative states that we should only act in a way that our motivation would be beneficial as a law for all people. (For example: all people ought to protect life) An action that is in agreement with the categorical imperative is deemed right, all others, wrong. Furthermore, because it tells us what we ‘ought' to do, it gives us a moral duty to uphold those actions that are found to be in agreement with it. B. Must look to CI The main reason we must look only to the categorical imperative to judge this round is because ends based frameworks fail. Take, for example, any theory that looks to what the actions cause to judge morality. You can have all the evidence in the world, but still cannot accurately predict the future. For example: I'm at a lake, I see a child drowning. Naturally, I act to save the child, and jump in. However, I couldn't see that there was another child under me. I end up landing on that child, and he drowns. Furthermore, he hinders me so that the original child drowns as well. By any consequentialist framework, my action of jumping into the lake was very much wrong. However, the action of jumping in was, in itself, a moral and good thing to do, however unfortunate the outcome. Because we can never know if there is a child under us, using a consequentialist or ends based framework, we cannot know if our action was just until we've already done it. For this reason, we must look to a framework that looks at the motivation behind the action, which I supply. It is clear that vigilantes punish people, and, even if they were to follow the guidelines of the justice system, they would still be wrong, for support, I offer: I) Punishment Violates Humanity A. Deterrence violates humanity Deterrence is based on the principle that if we punish someone for doing something, that others will be afraid to do the same thing. In this case, the criminal is being USED to prevent further crimes; this violates the value of humanity because we are using a criminal as a means to an end. Therefore it is wrong. B. Retributive Justice violates Humanity The only purpose of retributive justice is to avenge the victim and in many cases to satiate the victims families. This clearly violates humanity because we are using the criminal to make the victim and those closest to them feel better. Again, we are using a person as a means to an end. C. Restorative Justice violates Humanity According to the U.S Dept. of Justice's guiding principles of restorative justice: "The First priority is to assist victims", "The second priority is to restore the community, to the degree possible" We aren't looking to the criminal here, but the victim. We are USING the criminal to assist the victim and to "restore" the community. THIS IS WRONG. The entire premise of punishment is wrong, and although it may be prudent to holding society together, that does NOT make it moral. By using people as a means to an end, affirming also violates my criterion, leading me to: II) Affirming is Wrong A. The maxim we are looking to is "we ought to value humanity" (in the sense that it has value) Because my value is people as ends, the best maxim to operate under this value would be "we ought to value humanity" or "we ought not to use people as means to an end" B. If upheld universally, would bring good. If everyone were to act on this maxim, there would be no crimes against humanity, and no one would have such pain brought upon them. C. this creates a moral duty Because this maxim would be beneficial when upheld universally, it becomes our moral duty to act on it regardless of the actions of others. D. Morality is objective The morality of your actions is not affected by the actions of others. Yes, there are people who act wrongly; this does not mean we should act wrongly in return. Because I have shown punishment is inherently wrong, and we are debating whether or not having punishment when the gov fails is good/bad, you must negate. On to the Affirmative Case: I would first like to bring the judges attention to the glaring contradiction that is the aff case: My opponent claims that civil disobedience is a good thing, and that, by disobeying the laws, we will make society better. VIGILANTES UPHOLD THE LAW, THEY PUNISH PEOPLE WHO DONT. Vigilantes do the opposite of what the affirmative says should happen. Because of this alone, you should vote neg. Value: Hedonism 1.no link to case My opponent claims that happiness is good, but does not at any point in their case, show that they produce any happiness at all. 2.Hedonism justifies immorality Because all we're trying to do is to increase happiness or pleasure, if I get a lot of pleasure from having slaves, then, as long as the pleasure is positive (I gain more than they loose) it's completely justified. 3.humanity best Humanity respects the fact that each person is a person, that each person actually matters. We are human before all else, because of this, humanity is the best value. Criterion: Civil Disobedience 1.No link to case Look to my argument against my opponents case, just before the value debate, simply, the affirmative cannot achieve this value because vigilantes stop civil disobedience. 2.Not a moral framework. This criterion is disobeying the laws. Now, I would agree that some laws should be disobeyed at some points, but some shouldn't. Because this criterion does not tell us how to act, and because it justifies disobeying all law (murder, rape etc) it falls. 3.cannot know future We can never know if our civil disobedience will, in the end produce happy or painful results, because of this, it is impossible on the affirmative to truly judge what the proper action should be. Therefore must look to neg. 4.Categorical Imperative Best The categorical imperative clearly states a moral framework and does not allow for wrong action within its bounds. Because of this, the categorical imperative is the best criterion and must be looked to in the round. Group all aff contentions. These all flow neg. the aff cannot uphold these through their case because vigilantism prevents civil disobedience. Look to II, they are prosecuting crimes; preventing disobedience, destroying the entire affirmative side of the case. with this, you MUST negate.