Murder is Objectively Immoral

Clarification My opponent seems to understand the basic concept of normative ethics and metaethics, however he fails to understand their contingency on one another in order for my opponent’s burden to be met. My opponent’s fatal misunderstanding here may cost him the debate as, in essence, he has misunderstood my rebuttal completely. Morality is Objective I did state that normative ethics is subjective however my opponent gets the wrong idea. I meant that normative ethics cannot be determined objectively without a metaethical system of morality. You cannot say that we should be fulfilling human base desires unless you can prove that morality even begins to begin with. [1] Utilitarianism is a specific, objective moral theory. It is dependant on moral realism though. You cannot say what is moral (normative ethics) if morality doesn’t exist (metaethics) [2][3]. My opponent fails to show why the action that promotes the most happiness is the best action or the morally right action. Sometimes decisions that are unpopular are considered moral by the minority. They may not increase overall happiness but that doesn’t change the fact that some people view these actions as moral. So the question remains, why is doing something that makes most people happy the right thing to do. Since my opponent doesn’t realize why metaethics are necessary, I’ll explain. Normative ethics are about what actions are right and wrong (as my opponent defines it) and metaethics is the moral language (ie. what morality is). If morality does not exist then normative ethics cannot stand. Moral objectivism is the ideology that objective moral values exist. Unless my opponent can prove that morality exist and is objective then their burden cannot be fulfilled because there is no reason as to why judges ought to view morality as something that exists and if morality doesn’t exist then we cannot consider murder as immoral. My opponent is correct in stating that their method of analyzing happiness and measuring it is subjective. If an objective answer is “beyond our comprehension”, then how do we know that there is one. Just like people subjectively believe that murder is moral, this doesn’t mean that there is an objective solution. It works both ways. Basic psychology tells us that murder makes people feel good, satisfied and happy [4]. So even under my opponent’s framework of utilitarianism you ought to be voting Con. Murder is Immoral My opponent thinks that my claim that I believe that murder is immoral is a concession, however it isn’t. I don’t have to believe that murder is immoral to win because, as my opponent concedes by agreeing to the observations, my opponent must try to prove that murder is objectively immoral and I must refute his case. I can subjectively believe that murder is immoral and still negate - it is also crucial to note that I believe (subjectively) that murder is moral in some instances too. I concede that I believe that murder is immoral however the key thing to observe is that I never conceded that murder is OBJECTIVELY immoral which is what my opponent is affirming. I’m perfectly content with agreeing that murder is immoral, what I’m arguing is that it isn’t objectively the case which is sufficient for me to negate since Pro’s burden states that he must prove that murder is objectively immoral and if he can’t prove this then his burden is not met. In the instance regarding Alam Khan the situation isn’t as simple as my opponent sets it out to be. He waited 12 years for his father’s murderer to be arrested and the court did nothing (because he was in a poor area of India) [5]. He killed a serial killer who was free for 12 years - by doing so he prevented deaths, getting him arrested was not an option as he had already attempted this. My opponent shifts their advocacy from the general concept of utilitarianism to rule utilitarianism. This is a fallacy and voters should NOT buy this. My opponent is purposefully shifting their advocacy so that it negates my arguments. They begin with doing what produces the most happiness and now they introduce rule utilitarianism which states that murder is objectively immoral as a rule. Furthermore, if murder is objectively wrong under rule utilitarianism then rule utilitarianism is flawed for the very reason that murder does produce happiness as I showed and sourced above. The resolution is negated! Sources [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://www.quora.com... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...