Letting someone die is just as bad as killing them.

I think this debate has come down to a very general question: Should morality be interpreted in a consequentialist or deontological manner? I feel that, since the burden of proof is on my opponent, that he has not demonstrated that a consequentalist interpertations of morals is somehow better than a deontological interpretation. African Kid Contention: It is not my role to demonstrate why deontological is better than consequentalist view. It is your role, as the affirmative, to advocate why your interpretation is better than mine. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, NOT ME. Secondly, the deontological vs. consequentalist problem has been argued before, and I will argue it further later on. Thirdly, yes, in both cases he was responsible for the african kid's death. But how much responsibility should he be allowed to take? Is killing him by shooting him on the head deserves more of a punishment rather than letting him die by himself? Let me stress this. My opponent has talked about "responsibility" as a judge of moral correctness. The key difference is that there are differing degrees of responsibility for differing actions. Obviously, my opponent has refused to consider this fact. In fact, almost all legal system takes this into account. That's why there is manslaughter and there is capital murder, and that's why punishments dealt with each inherently differs. In both manslaughter and capital murder, a person dies. But the RESPONSIBILITY of the person involved in the death DIFFERS, thus the degree of punishment differs. For someone to say that they disagree completely with deontological view of morals would be repudiating almost all human legal systems set forth since Hammurabi. Lrn4n6ftw4eva, if you're actually reading this, do you consider differing degrees of punishment inherently unfair in our legal system? Is statutory rape and rape different? Is murder and manslaughter different? If you agree to any of these questions, you have contradicted your point of view. Quiet simply, empiricism has proven my opponent wrong. Contention 1: action =/= inaction, cheating ex. Same argument again - Consequentalist > Deontological. Let me make a new point. Consequentalist points of view cannot be fully devoid of deontological interpetations. For example, every consequence is caused by an action (i.e every action has an equal and opposite reaction). Thus, is it not right to question the impact of the action on the consequence? Do consequentalist points of view necessarily forbid this kind of introspective thinking? I think not. The key is, my opponent has confined consequentalistism into a very narrow definition that he is using for his purposes. In real life, the best kind of moral system is one that mixes deontological and consequentalist views. Contention 2: no action to judge My opponent claims that Hitler and Darfur are somehow involved in such "inaction" moral calculus. My opponent over reaches his claims. He first claims a consequentalist moral system, then he suggests that we over expand it to inaction. The simple fact is, strictly speaking, that conseqeuntalistism assesses the consequences of an action, and since inaction is not an action, we cannot assess the consequences. My opponent is simply clouding this fact by using examples are not really examples of inaction, but rather examples of action. He claims we can judge non-action i.e Hitler and Darfur. But the fact is, actions have been taking against those massacres. In both cases, there WAS ACTION (i.e we stopped hitler from killing all the Jews, there is an African Union peace-keeping force along with a 20,000+ men UN contigent in Sudan right now) COntention 3: Consequentalist = bad My opponent says this in response to the fact that consequentalist can be justified in killing 90% of the world's population: "You just used consequentialist morals to determine that the death of 1 is better than the death of 5.4 billion. If killing 90% of the world caused more good than harm, (which it wouldn't) it would be moral, as not doing so would cause even more harm." Yet, there is the possibility it could be justified, isn't there? I mean Malthusian arguments sounds like a good argument, especially considering Global Warming and Desertification in the world. If this is morally justified, then what isn't it? Anything can be justified using a consequentalist system. My opponent has already said that it would be moral to kill 90% of the world's population if situations justified it. THIS IS WHY WE NEED A DEONTOLOGICAL SYSTEM. My opponent has admitted a clear shortfall in consequentalist theory. ii) Murder at the door You used Kantian ethics, the man used Kantian ethics to justify lying to the murderer, what's wrong about it? Kantian ethics includes broad overviews of what is right and wrong. Most importantly, the key principle of Kantian ethics (paraphrasing) is the pursuit of a "greater good", and such concepts justify lying to the murderer. iii) Yes, but you can stretch the lines substantially (see killing 90% of the world example) Contention 4: Moral correctness does not justify action My opponent said this to my arguments: "Average society doesn't accept most moral systems besides there own intuition. That doesn't mean that we should determine morality with our intuition. Average society is often wrong." Yet we all adhere to social rules do we not? Like it or not, we adhere to society's rules concerning morals too. We have court systems and laws that we must all obey in order to stay in society. Sure, average society is often wrong, but what about our intuitions? Aren't the intuitions of the majority of society better than the intuition of one person? Humans are social animals, we are inclined to a conformist system of morals. How is conformism wrong? You have said nothing but old examples of NOW incorrect moral thinking. As humans society evolve, so do morals. To step outside the box is often risking one's position in society. Contention 5: 10 die and 1 die is a profound difference in terms of morality. Yet in this case, my opponent does not condemn you not throwing yourself in the grenade, even when in a consequentalist world, you would be held morally accountable if you did not throw yourself on the grenade. However, my opponent contradicts himself in this case, showing us that conequentalistism is inherently confusing and thus should not be followed. In conclusion, I believe I have shown that my opponent has not shown consequentalism is better than a deontological interpretation, even though the burden of proof is on him. I encourage all voters to read through all the arguments before making a decision, instead of on one's own whim.