The ends justify the means

The resolution still stands, and I will set out to prove that in this round. This round is going to be a self-contained argument. To adequately prove that 'The ends justify the means,' I must first dispel an unjustified misconception about what this phrase entails. As defined in the opening round, 'The ends justify the means' : "A good outcome excuses wrongs committed to attain it. ' The 'outcome' of an action i. e, the thing that is supposed to excuse the means in the resolution, includes the means to get there when it is defined as 'good'. This necessarily means if an action's results are morally preferable to the alternative, it can be deduced that the end must be so morally preferable that the 'immoral' actions of the means are excused if it is to be defined as 'good,' if 'good' is referring to the end result. 'The ends justify the means,' would not condone, for instance, someone driving someone with a gunshot wound to the hopital slightly more quickly if it meant on the way that they ran down and killed twenty pedestrians; for the 'means' ended up being the ends i. e. , the consequence and outcome. Now that I have shown that the 'ends' of an action's morality are a package deal, -- including all consequences of the action-- I will move on to address the more immediate issue. The moral ethics of my opponent is illogical, unjustified, and most importantly mystical i. e. , beyond human reason and understanding. If murder is to be defined as something that is intrinsically evil, one must ask himself, why. Why are any actions deemed as moral or immoral without reason and inquiry. According to my morality (including the resolution), murder without reason is defined as evil for the ramifications and intentions behind the action (loss of human life and evil intentions, respectively). An action cannot be defined as immoral if the action does not have immoral intentions (Necessarily meaning the offender is a human or intelligent being) and that the ramifications are evil and immoral. For instance, it wouldn’t be immoral if an asteroid wiped out the human race without notice (for a rock cannot be deemed as immoral), and it wouldn’t be immoral to ‘kill’ someone if it meant they’d respawn within a second, untouched, and the ‘murderer’ knew these results ahead of time (if you think this is still wrong, ask yourself why. If it’s because you think murder is wrong, ask yourself why) . Murder is defined as immoral in human society because of the consequences, but I argue once those consequences are nonexistent, murder cannot be reasonably qualified as immoral. How could it? According to whom? And most importantly, the question that has rendered illegitimate philosophies through the ages illegitimate: why? You might be asking yourself, “How does this relate to the resolution. ” The answer to that question lies in the morality of ramifications. As I have already addressed, murder is only immoral for the immoral results and immoral intentions. If the latter is nonexistent, it wouldn’t be murder by definition. And if the former is non existent, why is it immoral? Let me provide a more concrete example : according to my opponent’s philosophy, it would be immoral to kill someone if it was necessary to save one hundred others even if you knew they’d be saved (also let’s assume not acting would result in everyone, including the lone person, perishing). If an action’s morality is defined by its ramifications and intentions, killing one to save a hundred is obviously justified (according to those parameters of morality). According to my opponent's morality, however, it wouldn’t be moral, and therefore, by definition, one should not kill the lone person to save the hundred. This is a mystical notion -- to assume it is immoral to ever kill anyone --because it doesn’t really have an answer as to why. If it is immoral to kill someone because human life is a value, it would, assuming the correct philosophy is being utilized, be moral to act in the way that preserves the most human life. How can morality be intrinsic without concern for the results? How is this justified? With what logic is this concluded? The answer to these questions are: it’s not, it’s isn’t, none. Everywhere one looks, moral and immoral actions are defined as such as if the results (ramifications), are the sole thing being considered. Just because action’s and their corresponding moralities have become woven into our cultures is not to say that they are intrinsically moral or immoral, without regard to consequences. For I argue, the consequences are the fountainhead for an action’s morality, and to argue otherwise lacks appropriate justification. Along with my opponent's philosophy being mystical, it is also arbitrary; defining actions as immoral for simply the sake of the action. Let’s go back to my example of the ‘saving one vs hundred. ’ Let’s change the rules a bit, and assume that you don’t have to actually kill the lone person to save the hundred. Rather, you must choose one group to save, and by doing so, the other group will be killed in the same manner as you would have had to in the original scenario. If you do not choose a group to save, both groups will die. My opponent’s philosophy here breaks down into an arbitrary mess that does not correspond to reality. I would expect my opponent to claim that it is now not immoral to save the hundred, for you are not the one doing the killing. If he claims that this is still immoral (he might), he must answer as to why. I have my reasons (human life is valuable), he better have his. But wait, didn’t we already conclude that an action’s morality rests in its ramifications? Choosing to kill the lone person in both scenarios produce exactly the same results i. e. one person dead, and intentions are the same i. e. , trying to preserve human life. Why would my opponent claim that one scenario is different than the other in terms of morality? By what right? By what logic? Denying the fact that the ‘Ends justify the means,’ is to deny the morals of saving someone’s life should they need an amputation, and you have no medical supplies save a carving knife. If inflicting pain on another is an intrinsically immoral act (is torture okay if we don’t care about consequences, as you have demonstrated) , then according to the philosophy ‘the ends do not justify the means,’ it would be immoral to help. If my opponent claims that it would be moral to help, he will be in effect arguing for the resolution. In conclusion, the ends justify the means because it is an extension of morality, an advanced philosophy, that looks into the future, not at mystical intrinsics nor the arbitrary. If the ends justifiy the means. .. ever, then they always will if the ends truly are morally preferable to the alternative. The ends justify the means is the correct philosophy to live by. You claim it's not? Why not?