When in conflict, an individual's FoS ought to be valued above a community's moral standards.

Preface: - I should remind the voters that the BOP is on Pro to prove that FoS should take precedence when conflicting with a community’s moral standards. - It should also be noted that Pro’s entire case rests on no grounds, as he provided no sources to support it. Thus, until proper support is presented, all Pro’s contentions should be consider bare assertions. Case: - To negate Pro’s affirmative case I need only to show at least one instance where FoS is limited by other communal moral standards. FoS is not an objective value: - FoS is not in itself an objective value, for it is sanctioned to prevent injustice to basic human rights [1]. Thus, should itself serve the purpose of preventing injustice to human rights at large, at the risk of undermining itself. FoS is itself a communal moral standard: - Unlike Justice, which is a moral standard shared by all communities, for it is the base of all Laws ; FoS on the other hand is a moral standard shared by not necessarily all communities. Among which it holds, furthermore, varying degrees of importance. The question remains thus, why should FoS (being so a subjective value) be valued above all other values of all communities, many of which may very well consider other moral standards intrinsically more valuable than FoS?! An affirmative answer to this question (that is, Pro’s resolution) clearly leads to a contradiction. FoS should not be unrestricted: - It has thus been established that FoS should serves the basis on which it is founded, that is preventing injustice. So, as John Stuart Miller argues, the Harm Principal [2] should overrule the right of FoS [3], for "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” [4]. FoS can not be unrestricted: - Protecting the right to FoS without restriction necessarily leads to its restriction. That is, the right to FoS should also incorporate the right to speak against FoS, or, more broadly, the right to promote ideologies restricting FoS (namely, Communism), which may consequently lead to an actual restriction of FoS. In this circumstance, either FoS should be upheld throughout, thus leading to its loss, or should be restricted to prevent such consequence. In both cases, protecting the right to FoS boundlessly leads to its restriction. Example: - The right of privacy is a good example of restricted FoS [5]. Rebuttals: - As stated in the preface, Pro’s case is entirely bare assertions. Thus, leaving me with nothing substantial to refute. Conclusion: - It has been established that FoS: 1. Is not an objective value. 2. Should not necessarily be valued more than other communal moral standards. 3. Can not be valued above other communal moral standards, if the latter are considered more valuable by the community. 4. Should not be unrestricted, even among communities that value it a basic human right. 5. Can not be unrestricted. => Therefore, Pro’s resolution has been systematically negated in the fact that, when in conflict, FoS neither ought to be valued, nor could be valued above a community’s other necessarily higher moral standard. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://plato.stanford.edu... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...