Domestic Violence

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary. The evil it does is permanent.” In this statement from Mohatma Ghandi, he puts into question if good brought about by violence, is really good. This statement will be important in this round as we decide what is good when it comes to domestic violence. I negate the resolved as stated by the pro. I will begin by constructing my own case and then attacking that of my opponents. Immanuel Kant believed in the sanctity of the individual, and respected individual choices. His theory of justice establishes that what is just, moral, and ethical should be based off of if we are able to respect individuals rights while exercising our own. When our individual choices infringe upon anothers rights, they receive their "just desserts", or what is fair to the individual based off of the original infraction. It is this theory of justice that i value in todays round. In pertinence to this round, we may look at it from this angle: I am committing an infraction against another through domestic violence, whether it be physical or phycological. The question is: "Is my decision to kill my abuser following what is just? Is my own biased, emotionally influenced decision what is truly deserved? The rest of my case will answer these questions. In order to achieve this form of justice in todays round, i once again turn to Kant. I will use his Categorical Imperative as my criterion. In his Imperative, Kant argues that while we all have our own motivations, the only thing that ties us together as the human race is our humanity. Because of this unique link, Kant believed in respecting humanity, and condemns the taking of life regardless of the circumstances, placing suicide on the same level of moral wrongdoing as murdering the innocent. He also believed that we must look to an individuals intentions when deciding if their actions are moral and just. While an abuser may have different phycological problems, or is just looking to fell like he/she has more control, those intentions vary immensely from a deliberate attempt at disrespecting humanity and taking anothers life. I agree with my opponents definitions and will clarify any future problems with them in the future if necessary. Contention 1- Problems with deadly force.A) First off, we must return to the questions asked when i was establishing my value of justice. If my immediate decision while under the influence of my current desires and emotions is the same decisions that i would be making if thinking about a situation rationally. For example, if you are thinking about somebody that you dislike, you most likely would not ever make a sure decision to harm them and then act upon that decision. However that situation may drastically change if confronted by that individual in an unfriendly manner. Because affirming this resolution encourages poor decision making on the part of the victim, it cannot be said to be morally permissible. B) When looking at justice under this resolution, both myself and my opponent have agreed that victimizers should recieve their dues, however what is due to an offender? With this resolution, it universalizes all cases where somebody has been in more than one abusive encounter, including those who are not even being physically abused. We cannot universally say that all offenders deserve to die just because they have committed more than one abusive crime in their lifetime. The reason that the justice system is structured to have trials for every case is because no two cases are the same. We cant attempt to universalize punishment in this instance any more than we can with other crimes. Look to Kants categorical imperative, not only is affirming this disrespecting humanity as a whole, but it also does not take into account personal intentions when evaluating what is moral and just. With that, i shall now move on to my opponents case. First on her value of justice, she defines it by using Plato's interpretation. However the so called quote that she offeres from plato is not in fact his interpretation. She actually uses an interpretation given by Polemarchus, an interpretation of which plato was extremely critical of. Plato believed that doing evil at all was moral wrong, regardless of previous circumstances with that individual. Because she fails to define justice correctly and improperly uses plato in this round, we must prefer my definition and version of justice. She then gives her criterion of Due punishment and giving each their due. However look to the argument that i make in my own case. What is each person due? She uses the criterion of giving criminals what they deserve, however she provides no way to decide what these individuals actually deserve. Rather than giving each their due, the resolution universalizes punishment, automatically assuming that each is due the exact same punishment of death. As each individual case is different, only one case where one does not deserve to die is enough to destroy the entire structure of her case. However the only way to decide that one case, we need a justice system that decides, something that the pro cannot provide, leaving us without a weighing mechanism on her side. Prefer my weighing mechanism of the categorical imperative. I establish humanity and the intentions behind decisions as a way to achieve justice and a way we can use to weigh the round. On her contention 1, she paints a sad story of a child who stands by as he is abused by a member of his family. She states at the beginning all of the potential harms that can come of this story, however we need to look to the other side of the story. Say we affirm the resolution and this child finds a way to kill his abuser. The child has successfully saved himself from a future broken nose, however the damage that taking a human life may be much worse than any abuse ever inflicted upon the child. Grown men who are trained solders have trouble sleeping at night and keeping control of their mind because they took the life of somebody unknown to them. Image the negative impacts to a child who grows up with the knowledge that he has taken the life of a family member, that he cannot escape the consequences of the situation because he chose to act on his emotions at the current time. When considering damages alone to the victim as her contention one does, the effects are equally as damaging, if not more, than if they were to stay succumbed to the abuse.On the contention 2, she points out first that it is legal to use deadly force in the United States. However the fact that it is legal in a single nation does not make an action right any more than the fact that taxation without representation is legal in other nations. We need to look to the moral situation and examine it alongside justice, rather than assume that a law made in a very corrupt washington is the ultimate deciding factor. Moral philosopher Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy once stated that,“To sin is a human business, to justify sins is a devilish business.” My opponent here attempts to justify the taking of human life, something that is not morally permissible. She once again references due punishment, however cross apply my argument against this from before. She then states that the person may hunt down their victims. However she once again places somebody's temporary wellbeing over a human life, in the A-typical case that they are hunted down in the first place.Finally on the third contention, she basically makes a defense on a presumed attack that i will eventually make. While she says that a lull in abuse is no reason to assume that anything will change, however this is a large assumption that cannot be made when we are talking about life. If the action is not currently occuring, the victim is simply action off of fear of it happening again. The simple fear of an action is not enough to constitute the taking of a human life.