Humans Should Discontinue Space Travel in order to Prevent Harm to Extraterrestrials

PrefaceSince this is such a specific resolution that hasn’t been done before, there are not many arguments I will be bringing up. I am arguing that humans should discontinue exploring space in order to prevent harming alien life. Since this is a normative topic, both sides share the BoP. In order to win, I have to convince the judges that we should discontinue space exploration in order to prevent harm to extraterrestrials, in spite of Con’s reasons against this notion.I would also like to note that this is a debate on the present. This means that Con and I are arguing in modern day. Therefore any arguments that bring up future technology, advances, programs, etc. have no impact for they do not exist in the modern day. My opponent has politely expressed the wish for this to be an ethical debate, and therefore of the topic of philosophy. My following arguments will therefore be ethical based. Harm PrincipleGovernments are inherently utilitarian: they exist to maximize benefit and minimize harm. Anything a government does in order to achieve this cause (in our case a governmental program) is justified unless it causes suffering. This concept is represented by the “harm principle”. If a government makes a law or program that in any way causes harm to any living entity, it has violated the harm principle and become unjust in that program or law. All space entities (with the exclusion of SpaceX, but this is irrelevant because they do not explore space yet, merely deliver supplies) are government programs. For the reason that space exploration has the potential to cause harm to extraterrestrial creatures, space exploration is unjust (because of harm principle) and should be discontinued. Ethical JustificationIf we find alien life, what will happen then? Will we attempt to communicate? Will we take them against their will and study them? Two completely different worlds are coming together to understand one another. The chance that the extraterrestrial party will be put into a position that they do not want to be in is a reasonable expectation. Humans have no moral justification on which to potentially cause harm to an unwilling party. To win the debate, Con needs to provide an objective justification that makes harming an alien organism morally permissible in order to win this debate.The Argument from Marginal CasesIn this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc. 1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no extraterrestrials deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) extraterrestrials would have as well.4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status. [1]5) Humans have equal moral status to extraterrestrials.6) Any harm to extraterrestrials would have no moral justification. 7) Humans should discontinue space exploration to prevent harming extraterrestrials (and thus becoming morally corrupt). This entire argument assumes that extraterrestrial beings would be sentient. So I will run this argument to prove such. 1) In order to be sentient, an organism has to have the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. (Definition)2) If an organism is to be considered alive, it has to hold these characteristics: respond to their environment, adapt to their environment (among other classifications, but those are irrelevant to the argument).3) In order to respond or adapt to the environment, a living thing must have the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.Therefore, all living things are sentient. ConclusionI have proven that space exploration is not morally permissible and therefore unjustified through the Harm Principle and The Argument from Marginal Cases. I look forward to seeing what arguments Con brings up and look forward to the rest of the debate. Thank you![1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...