Infanticide is morally permissible.

Setting the stage Firstly, I will not be addressing anything Con said in this round, this is my opening round. So I will talk about my views but also if my views challenge Con's arguments, he must address them. The belief humans have a 'right to life' is simply a null statement. It is an assertion that holds no weight because it in itself is just a strongly held cultural belief stemming from the more general term humanity has a 'right to life' or 'sanctity of human right'. The existence of laws and codes which confirm a hypothesis of 'right to life' is again not a moral justification, so the fact humans are alive does not confer the concept of a moral 'right' to that life. So, the primary argument for a right to life, is simply that a right to life has been a cultural and religious belief, I say that in reference to the Christian religion of life being 'sacred'. I reject this notion, we are not in any way 'sacred' or 'holy' which elevates us to a level of 'right' to life. The human species is as most people know, a product of evolutionary theory. We are exactly like all other animals, there exists no real moral difference in terms of 'holiness' between us and animals . So how do we approach the ethical principles of normative ethics. I want to support the theory of Peter Singer, the moral philosopher and Ethicist. Philosophical ethical principles Under Singer's views, we have a justified reason to talk about 'third person objective equality for all interests'. For Singer and also a moral philosopher called R.M Hare. A moral statement cannot be justified unless it can be objectified by a third party statement. An example is 1. It is wrong of my friends to not give me money. This is an unacceptable moral principle because it (a) is too personalised and (b) it unless objectified displays a lack of regard for 'equal respect for all interests'. A better way to form this is 2. It is morally wrong for someone to not give another person money. Now pick apart the example all you like, it is not relevant in terms of context but rather in terms of form. So with this principle let us look at what it means, it means all animals have invested interests that cannot be divided or isolated for what Singer calls 'morally insignificant qualities'. That is qualities which violate the principle of 'equal respect for all interests'. Two examples will explain this. 1. It is morally wrong to discriminate based on skin colour. 2. It is morally wrong to discriminate based on species. The second is intuitively objectionable, at least based on conventional elevation of human interest over animals, but this violates the third party objective view and also violates the principle of 'equal respect for all interests'. So combined with knowledge of humans being morally equal to all others and the fact that humans are morally 'un-divine', they are evolved primates, we can base our ethical theories on sound reasonable concepts and reject very questionable assertions of 'rights' or 'innate importance or superiority' over animals, but also against 'morally insignificant qualities'. This includes a 'right to life'. Preference Utilitarianism Now, I am a preference Utilitarian, the previous two main concepts are compatible and strengthen the normative ethical theory. A Utilitarian as the father of Utilitarianism puts it ' The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but rather, 'Can they suffer?'. The principle of Utilitarianism is to act in a manner in which out of all possible circumstances it is morally right to act in a way in which you increase happiness or pleasure while lowering or reducing all suffering. So we can combine the two new principles and say. 1. All beings that are capable of suffering have an interest in not suffering, therefore any action which violates their right is morally wrong. I will detail my views on 'rights'. Now in this respect we must note that Infanticide does not mean the being must suffer. An action that causes suffering is morally wrong, so we can firstly put that in front of our ethical views, if by the end of the logic we find a morally acceptable act, that can only be actualised through violence or suffering, we must reject the action. So a Utilitarian now has a solid basis to move onto actual ethical problems. Let us move onto the point of 'the life of a human being'. We have already shown that referencing human life over others is unethical, it is also an assertion that humans have an innate right to life. What is an infant therefore? I can fully accept the view that an infant is an innocent human being. If by human being as Singer notes we mean a being belonging to the species Homo sapiens. So we accept the view that an infant is an innocent human being, is there a reason we should not kill it? Well no, the preference Utilitarian is struggling to find valid reasons so far, now let us look at why it is morally wrong to kill human adults, and see if the criterion can be applied to our new born infant. Tooley's desires/rights The moral philosopher Michael Tooley, describes what I would call a rights/desires thesis, which I think perfectly combines the concepts of human rights to life, if we mean Tooley's definition and also a good justification for Infanticide. Tooley argues that for any right to be violated, a conscious desire has to exist in the being which the right is being violated. Let us take an example to show this view. I go and buy a car. The car has been paid for by me and this gives me a justified right to keep the car. I desire to keep this car and my desire is both justified and also it would cause immense unhappiness to steal the car. Now if you do steal the car, under preference Utilitarianism, which as the name sounds values justified preferences of beings, you do a morally condemnable thing. You violate my right or desire to the car. Now what happens if I do not desire the car anymore? Let us say that I reject the car a year later. I give up my justified right or desire to own the car. If you then come along and take the car, you have not violated any right or desire or harmed or caused me unhappiness for two reasons. 1. I gave up the justified desire or right. 2. My desire was not violated therefore I cannot be said to be wronged. This general view should be kept in mind in reference to later points on the rights to life of an infant. Locke's personhood theory John Locke the philosopher proposed the view that a 'person' is a being which can consider itself as living and existing. It has an awareness of itself and existing both in the past and future. A being which can do that is a 'person'. We see that a baby cannot be a person, no more than a plant or fetus can be a person. A new born infant lacks all ability to know itself as existing as an individual entity, with hopes, desires and needs. I mean needs in the sense of conceptual needs or wants or plans, not needs as in hunger and thirst. So we have two conclusions from this reasonable view of personhood. 1. Infants are not persons. 2 Many non-human animals are persons. This alone is simply an acknowledgement of the logic of the argument. Conclusion The conclusion therefore is under Tooley's rights/desires arguments and Locke's personhood views, an infant does not have the capabilities to desire. The infant has no self-conscious awareness of existing in any form so it is holds no desire to continue living. It is therefore morally permissible to kill an infant in the desires of the parents are so because the infant has no right to life as logically seen nor does the infant have any interest in existing into the future. Anticipated refutation. If you were to say 'the infant has the potential to be a self conscious being', the response would be 'I have the potential to become the president' but that does not mean I therefore get the rights of the president. So this type of argument would fail to refute the above argument. Sources Singer, Peter 'Practical Ethics 2nd Edition' Tooley, Michael 'Abortion and Infanticide' article Locke, John 'theory of personal Identity' Bentham, Jeremy (1789). The Principles of Morals and Legislation