Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Thank you CiRK, for your class and for your excellent arguments. Moving on, Let's start with his first observation: Targeted killing is generally aimed at one person, this is true. However, keep in mind that that isn't the only person affected. Refer back to my case. Ob 2: This is fine, and very creative. But I think we can also agree that when something is immoral, it isn't morally permissible. Ob 3: Yes, I agree it isn't the only method. But as my opponent agreed in cross ex (the comments section), we can't view targeted killing in an idealistic manner. We have to talk about it realistically in the general context that it happens. (Also note that the resolution uses the word "is" implying that we are talking about it's current state.) On his value structure: First, understand that justice is the ultimate goal of morality (and moral permissibility), so we are nearly in line here, I just take it a step further. Second, he brings up excellent support for the right of self defense. But perhaps he overlooks the context of the situation and what the right of self-defense entails. Under this, understand that killing in self-defense is justified only if—among other conditions—it achieves its primary objective, which is defense. If the killing increases the threat and danger to the side carrying it out, it is unjustified from both a moral and pragmatic perspective. This is key. (I will post some more on this after this section) Understand here further, that targeted killing attempts to achieve self defense without due process. At that point, like I explained in my case, rights lose their meaning. It further means that there is a higher possibility for error. Further understand, that there has to be a pressing and sure threat for such harsh methods to be justified. Moreover, as we are evaluating targeted killing in the way it generally occurs, it so often happens without utilizing other forms of self-defense. At that point, you have the act of killing not only the civilians (refer to my casualty point), but also all the harms I talked about. When the other methods have less moral conflict, it is morally permissible to use those, and immoral to use targeted killing. This can solve his state of war issues that he talks about without such moral harms. If to this he says, "well we are using this as a last resort" understand that it couldn't be morally permissible unilaterally. Which is unfortunately how it happens (how we evaluate it). Like I said, I would post more about the need for achieving defense after the previous section. My claim here is that it doesn't actually increase safety; the defense is inadequate and only brings further problems. The only thing accomplished by a targeted killing is retribution. They don't promote peace, in fact, they only set the stage for further attacks. Look at the report by Blumand and Heymann of Harvard Law School showing the ineffectiveness of targeted killings at eliminating terrorism. In fact, it also creates a less desirable world. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Kant 1993: 30) Kant's words outline the first test of morality. Targeted Killing fails the first maxim because the universalization of it is undesirable. For instance, the affirmative may claim it is moral because it increases safety. Yet that assumes that only their nation would use it. Gary Solis, Professor of Law at Georgetown, explains: a targeted killing by the United States makes every American official both here and in the Middle East a target of opportunity. If an expanded interpretation of who constitutes a legitimate civilian candidate for targeted killing is accepted, we must accept that our own non-uniformed leaders and weapons specialists will become legitimate targets. His 9/11 point: If he wins one instance, that doesn't prove it as a whole. Furthermore, the US did this with less civilian casualties than usual with targeted killings. It isn't representative of the usual context of targeted killing. Another issue I see with his case in general is that it overlooks the rights of all the civilians. Let's look at the magnitude here and why this is bad: Between January 2006 and April 2009, of sixty Predator strikes in Pakistan, "only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians." THe autonomy of these civilians is disregarded. With the amount of due care that is due to civilians being not precise, it would appear that this does not pass the test of justice. Another issue is the unilateral action of targeted killing, which is the way that it happens (how we evaluate it once again) Fernando Teson, in the morality of targeted killing, (2011), writes, "The state cannot unilaterally repeal the strict moral and legal restrictions on state killing by just declaring war on terrorists. The reason is that the power of the state to kill is the heaviest weapon in the state's coercive arsenal, and it seems wrong to allow the very entity thus constrained to repeal the restrictions by a unilateral statement. On the facts, the choice of the war paradigm may or may not be justified, but certainly it cannot be established by a mere statement from the government. Otherwise, the government could declare war on the Mafia, compile a list of Mafiosi, and announce that from now on the government will shoot them on sight. Sexual predators are especially repulsive. Why not allow the government to declare war on known sexual predators, compile a list, and start killing them? The prohibition of intentionally killing persons cannot magically disappear by the government's unilaterally declaring war on the persons it intends to kill." Thank you.