LD Sept/Oct

Observation 1: The affirmative must affirm the resolution for all or most cases. A conditional affirmation is a prima facie reason to vote negative. Value: Moral Permissibility Justification: I choose moral permissibility because it is expressly stated in the resolution. The resolution asks for the morally permissible solution to this dilemma. Obviously it must be our value. Criterion: Minority Rights Justification: It is a fundamental principle of morality that rights are universal, and belong to everyone. Furthermore, it is generally agreed that as a general rule, we should act in such a way that benefits the majority. However, simply doing this leads to a tyranny of the majority. If we only act to benefit the majority, we will oppress the minority. Clearly, some sort of side constraint must be placed on such a moral system. The most obvious side constraint is minority rights. So we ought to act to benefit the majority, but we must not infringe on minority rights in doing so. Contention 1: The resolution oppresses a minority in order to benefit a majority. When we kill the innocent person, we violate their right to life. Even though we act to benefit the majority, we are committing an atrocity. For example, affirming this resolution would justify atrocities. For example, in the famous movie, Monty Python and the Meaning of Life, a man who innocuously signs up as an organ donor on his driver's license is unpleasantly surprised when two men come to his door to harvest his organs—while he's still alive. This is an obvious example of how infringing on minority rights to benefit the majority is ridiculous. The rights of the minority are not upheld by the resolution. Contention 2: Utilitarian ethics infringe on minority rights. Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number infringes on minority rights. For example, it justifies slavery. Slavery oppressed a minority, but it enriched the white majority and increased their quality of living. It was the greatest good for the greatest number. Obviously, slavery is horribly wrong and infringes on minority rights. Moving on to my opponent's case... I accept his value and definitions, however, I attack his criterion. Pure consequentialism, also known as utilitarianism, infringes on minority rights, and as I pointed out, this is bad. Contention One: Utilitarian ethics violates minority rights, as I have shown, you cannot accept a moral system that violates minority rights. Contention 2: Affirming the resolution does not minimize right violations. By not saving the innocents, I do not violate their rights, I did not cause their deaths. This point is irrelevant. Contention 3: In this contention my opponent contend killing and letting die are equivalent. I disagree, because if they were, I would be responsible for the deaths of many starving children in Africa because I have not donated all my money and time towards saving their lives. I let them die because I did not want to devote my entire life to charities, but does that make me a bad person? Of course not. Therefore this contention fails. Conclusion: As affirming the resolution infringes on minority rights, it must be negated. A just and moral society does not oppress the minority, regardless of the benefit to the majority. Vote negative, protect minority rights.