New Members Tournament: Murder is Never Morally Permissible.

On Utilitarianism: Cannot prescribe action in all casesMy Opponent brings up a paradox about a mule and hay and water. He argues that utilitarianism cannot make the mule drink the water or eat the hay, because the mule needs tem both equally. Therefore, theoretically, the mule would die from inaction. This however, is a fallacious argument, partially because it would not be in the mules best interest (and therefore not Utilitarian) to die, so some action would still happen. Furthermore, such a situation would never truly exist so you can't consider a strictly theoretical argument when I've given specific real life examples. On Retributive JusticeJustice, not MoralityThis objection clearly falls. Just is defined as "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair: "a just society". " So everything that is just is also, by definition, moral. Cannot be objectivePro's objection falls because Retributive Justice is objective. It is the kind of justice that is an eye for an eye. Pro has not even tried to refute the morality of this, so it stands. Cannot perscribe actionMy Opponent argues "If a murder was committed, but there are 3 equally likely suspects with no way to determine who committed the crime, and only one of them could be responsible, then it would be impossible to exact punishment based on desert. You could either punish all three equally, in which two suspects will receive punishment that they do not deserve, contradicting the basis of retributive justice. "The problem with this objection is that it's based off of a situation that is impossible to happen (as opposed to my real life examples) and since a just society embraces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" his scenario cannot be applied. Remember that the retribution takes place after the guilt has been established, so this argument bears no relevance. My point stands, and since the resolution states "never" you cannot affirm. On Self DefenseNot a moral theoryIt was never argued that it was a moral principle in and of itself, rather that an act of true self defense is always justified. Not ObjectiveSo what? The fact of the matter is that it is my burden to show examples where unlawful killing can be permissable, not to give a moral system where unlawful killing is always permissable. So my examples still stand as justified and the resolution is negated. Cannot perscribe actionMy Opponent arugued "It would be impossible for self defense to serve as a guide for action in a situation where self defense in not involved. " My response: who cares? My Burden is to show a gray area, where murder cannot always be condemned, not to argue that it's always justified. The rest of his objections fall under the same grounds. Recall that he has not even attempted to refute the examples I gave, rather he's trying to shift the burden of proof for me to show where murder could be justified in ALL cases, however that is not what I have to do. Overview:Affirm if you want a world where killing Hitler would be considered unjust. Affirm only if killing is wrong in every single case, because my opponents argument works against War, Executions, and Self Defense. Affirm if you believe that allowing things such as the Holocaust to continue when you have the ability to stop it would be unjust. In any other case, please negate.