Experts' Debate Competition R2: Just Societies and War

Framework If killing is wrong then it is wrong. It doesn't make any sense to say that killing is wrong, then show examples where it is right. That would be like refuting your claim as soon as you make it. Pro says, "if it is determined that war is not "morally right" then a J.S. would never initiate war." However, by his own argument, just people sometimes should do immoral things. The just person would kill 1 person to save 5 instead of killing 1 person with no such benefit. Thus, Pro's done nothing to show that a just society should never initiate war even if war is morally wrong. If persons sometimes possess the obligation to do an immoral thing, as Pro states, there is no reason to exempt societies from this possibility.More importantly we could conceive of possible worlds, or futures, where this happens all the time, and then Pro's "rule of thumb" would not be adopted since it would have to be continually broken. Pro misunderstands the axiom that I came up with. In fact, when understood, there is very little reason for any person who believes in morality to deny it. In a moral scenario we could theoretically, write down every single sound moral principle and value; then look at every possible outcome of the situation and judge which one best corresponds to the moral principles in values we have before us. The best scenario can be determined by how it corresponds to the many principles and values of morality. Thus, the scenario which best serves the interest of the values of morality is the best possible scenario. Furthermore, it is not utilitarianism and far from subjectivism. It's an objective statement that leaves room for no exception. Utilitarianism is the antithesis of Kantianism or deontology, but the statement would still be true under those theories. I would like to stress very firmly that rights are perfectly compatible with it. The value and principles of rights are simply part of the equation regarding whether an outcome is morally good or not. The interests and values of morality includes the concept of rights. Deontology Pro's case falls down on the fact that it assumes the coherency of having a moral obligation to do something immoral--of having a moral obligation to kill an innocent, yet the killing still be considered immoral. Anytime someone acts in line with his moral obligations, he is acting morally. It is therefore incoherent to claim that someone can do as his moral obligations entail, yet still be acting immorally. By killing an innocent, you are committing the act that best serves moral principles and thus it is right. If he did what was most morally best, you would find it impossible to condemn him but if he was doing something immoral, you should. That presents a paradox with Pro's case. I am utterly confused on why Pro claims I must show "this is the case in a majority of instances of deliberately initiated war". The resolution states war should "never" be initiated, not "usually not". Pro's bending the burden of proof in the opposite direction. He must show justification in positing the rule to never initiate war. I must merely show the justification in sometimes initiating wars. I have yet to see any argument for why the killing of innocents is always inherently wrong (more to the opposite) so I will not attempt to answer any. Utility Pro presents one unexplained counter-argument. He states that rights would be obliterated under my refutation. There is a large lack of explanation to why this would be the case at all. I strongly urge the recognition of individual rights. In fact it is a major part of my second contention. All my refutation implies is that rights cannot be so broadly stated, such as "the right to life". Most humans possess the right to life, the right to seek happiness and the rights to privacy but sometimes their life may be put in danger, their happiness compromised and their privacy invaded, all for the sake of better goods, such as the protection of others rights. Pro never responds to my analysis of the breaking down of general rules. General rules such as "never deliberately initiate wars", are broad and contain exceptions. A rule-utilitarian should say something like, "never initiate war unless peaceful solutions are viable", but to say, "never initiate war period" is too close-minded. Sub-A The lines between offensive and defensive weapons are often blurred. There are times when we can delineate the two, but mentioning one country, does not refute the point. There is no guarantee at all that countries will not build up an offensive weaponry in anticipation of war. Moreover just because a society holds to the principle not to start wars, does not mean they cannot participate, and thus there is little reason they would not build up offensive weapons. I agree that weapons may serve a deterrent purpose. Pro seems to be contradicting his original argument so as to create a new one. (1) it is good to create deterrence for starting wars, but that does not mean wars should never be initiated; (2) the deterrent effect is mainly in keeping other countries to start wars against you and not about just societies themselves starting wars. So, as stated last round, moral societies should make sure their weapons stay ahead of all more questionable nations and sometimes initiate wars to stop the relentless power seeking that Pro mentions. All I said was, "without war, people like Hitler would not be stopped." I never stated Germany did not initiate war. If Hitler, or someone like him, sought after the genocide of the Jewish people, without actually going to war with anyone else, Pro's society would be powerless to stop him as minor skirmishes and peaceful measures would not be adequate to put it to an end and immediate action would be required. Sub-B War and the aggrandizement of power will take place whether or not the resolution is sound or unsound. The "relentless pursuit of power", the "ultimate negation of all morality" as Pro puts it, is itself sometimes best answered by war. The world is an endless cycle of conflict and fighting, but there is nothing to change that, and in occasions, entering in the conflict will help set events down the right course. It is utterly pointless to argue against a necessary part of nature. The world would be better off if everyone would try to solve things peacefully, but since that is far from the case just societies should step in to the conflict at times. C.1 Preemptive Defence I did not drop anything Pro said I have. The standards for preemption need not be nearly so low as Pro implies and global cooperation becomes irrelevant when societies are unwilling to be peaceful law abiding societies. The first quote is unimportant as it mentions only one example. The second was conclusive to the point, but since Pro still declines to cite it, and since a Google search only comes up with this debate[1] we can ignore the argument almost entirely. Besides, I have already given an example where the evidence was quite substantial for preemption. By presenting just one example we could say, in times similar to the conditions involving Israel and Egypt, just societies are usually justified to initiate preemptive war. Pro agrees that if we had known about Japan's planned attack on Pearl Harbor, we should have attacked Japan first. I'm at a loss here since he seems to be agreeing with preemption in this case. Pro is correct that "incontrovertible" is a high standard for preemption. The definition was given solely to answer Pro's S-D point, but I would not keep to those standards myself. Even if that is the correct definition, I would merely amend my contention to preemption plus times that are closer, but do not match the exact standards. The potential for war itself helps global cooperation. Mutual trust is good but so is mutual fear.As Pro notes, the definition of war agreed upon would exclude limited military actions imposed on a country. While he takes this as support for his side, it can be brought to support for my case; for what it means is that if a hostile country is imposing limited military attacks on a moral country without actually starting a war, the just society would not be allowed to strike back with war--according to Pro. The only counter option available would be small counter-strikes, which limits a society in times when it needs to deal with the enemy instead of carrying a long and drawn out series of confrontations. It should be an option to offer threat of war, and if the threat is ignored, for it to be initiated. When war is already inevitable, it becomes useless to refrain from starting war so as to protect innocent lives. If a war is on the verge of starting, sometimes it is better to be the one who starts it, rather than letting the other nation strike first. Either way, war is going to happen. The example I gave last round was if there was proof Iran were compiling nuclear weapons to attack with. Either let them strike, or strike first. The former could guarantee annihilation. C.2 Protection of Rights and Well-being Pro barely provides a counter argument. I did not support utilitarianism, as shown, and my case fully allows the existence of rights. Moreover this contentions is more than just "rights" as Pro fails to note. War is sometimes necessary for self defense. In the American Revolutionary War, war was initiated for the sole purpose of defending the rights, liberty and well-being of the colonies against the unfair impositions of the British. If a society is seeking to enslave another or violate its basic rights, then that society is at right to start a war. Moreover, if a society is already enslaved, perhaps because of a previous war fought and lost, then that society has a right to try to escape its shackles. Finally, if societies are imposing obvious acts of human right violation, such as the Rwandan genocide, other nations may step in to stop them. [1] http://goo.gl...