Vigilantism *Official Tier Tournament: Round 1*

Framework: I fear that Pro is trying to spike out of having any debate at all through semantic gymnastics. Pro must do more than simply show that arguments can be created to support the Resolution, he must show that those arguments succeed in being true, i.e. are superior to mine. able - 1a) having sufficient power, skill, or resources to accomplish an object right- 3) Conforming to facts or truth: correct http://www.merriam-webster.com... Justifiability therefore requires that Pro show the Resolution has the power to be shown true or correct. If Pro’s arguments are inferior to mine, they lack the sufficient power to defend the resolution. Additionally, a “moral point of view” does not equate to any point of view within a moral system. Per R1, it is a point of view “concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct…” i.e. we must evaluate the resolution from the perspective of the principles of right conduct rather than the perspective of expediency or some other criteria. We wouldn't say gravity can be disproven from a scientific view because some scientist thinks gravity is wrong- we would evaluate gravity from a scientific perspective. Prefer my interpretations because it offers both sides fair ground and will generate a more educational debate by actually testing how both side’s arguments stack up. This is supposed to be a debate, not a game of whether Pro was clever enough to write loopholes into the Resolution. My interpretation is straightforward and fair. Finally, the Resolution requires a defense of the universal justifiability of vigilantism in all cases where the government has failed to enforce the law. The Resolution provides a class of cases, “when the government has failed to enforce the law,” and asks whether vigilantism is able to be justified in that class of cases. If justifiability of vigilantism is dependent on a subjective perspective, then there are cases where vigilantism is unjustifiable when the government fails to enforce the law. Essentially, Pro must defend the entirety of the Resolution; and at best Pro’s argument only defends that vigilantism is justifiable for some people while saying nothing about the rest of the Resolution. Prefer my interpretation because it tests the entirety of the Resolution.The bottom line is Pro is trying to reduce the Resolution to triviality by arguing around the topic of this debate. This is a clear case of Pro creating a misleading Resolution and sniping a semantic victory without addressing the topic. There's nothing about the Resolution that points to Pro's interpretation, my reading is grammatically better and is more fair. I wanted to argue about vigilantes and justice, but I guess I have to argue meta-ethics now... Case1) Subjectivism fails to justify ANY moral claim Subjectivism violates the law of non-contradiction. Different moral systems will yield conflicting claims- if moral systems yielded identical claims they would have no discernible difference. Conflicting claims cannot simultaneously be right. A claim is shown to by right by its reasonable justification, so any sound justification will result in a right conclusion. From this we see that if a claim is not correct, then it cannot have a reasonable justification. Since Subjectivism yields conflicting claims, we know that at least some of the claims are not correct. From this we see that the justification for at least some subjectivist claims is not reasonable. But Pro’s argument reveals that all subjectivist claims share the same justification- an individual’s preconceived notions. Thus the justification provided by moral claims is not justified. Pro may say that hedonism relies on hedonist justification while pragmatists rely on pragmatic justification- but we can just what justifies those fundamental justifications. Ultimately subjectivism relies on the argument that any contingent facts are sufficient justification for a moral claim, or as Pro says, our preconceived notions etc. justify our moral claims.Subjectivism fails to present a successful argument justifying any moral claims, including the Resolution.2) Moral statements cannot be justified because they are not truth-apt, i.e. they cannot be true or falsea) Moral statements are not propositions- they do not make claims which are either true or false. Moral statements are expressions of non-cognitive attitudes towards norms and systems of behavior. This account of morality better captures Pro’s observation that morality is based on “preconceived notions, upbringing, environment, religion, etc.” and is inherently subjective. These subjective factors all play into our non-cognitive attitudes toward norms. Note that this is an explanatory account of moral statements- it explains what is happening when we say “vigilantism is right when the law fails.” We are not making statements which can be correct or incorrect but only expressing our approval of certain norms.b) The Open Question argument shows that good and bad cannot be identified with natural properties. I summarize it here as it is presented on wikipedia: Premise 1: If X is (analytically equivalent to) good, then the question "Is it true that X is good?" is meaningless. Premise 2: The question "Is it true that X is good?" is not meaningless (i.e. it is an open question). Conclusion: X is not (analytically equivalent to) good. This argument shows that any theory that equates the good (or an equivalent term for morally justified) with a naturalistic explanation will fail. For example, if we say that the good is “what is pleasurable” we can replace all claims about “the good” with “what is pleasurable.” This reduces our original claim to “what is pleasurable is what is pleasurable,” an uninformative tautology that is uninformative about the myriad of ways we talk about what is good. Moreover, if we ask the question “Is it true that what is pleasurable is good?” the answer cannot be determined based on our understanding of the terms involved. This question is “open” because one of the terms- “good”- has no satisfactory definition that can settle the question. Any answer to the question "Is X good" will require elaboration, explanation, and argument incapable of arriving on a settled conclusion. Contrast this to the question “Is it true that bulldogs are canines?” The terms are sufficiently well defined that any competent speaker of the English language can answer this question based on the terms involved- the question is closed. Thus any natural property will fail if substituted for “X.” The good cannot be identical to a natural property. Note that this argument shows that all of Pro’s moral examples are unjustified, since they all are naturalistic.c) There is no satisfactory account of what it means for moral statements to be true. Morality does not exist “out there” in the natural world, there are no moral particles that make moral claims true or false. We can say that it is true that iron is magnetic because iron exists and it responds to magnetic fields. Pro must account for how what it means for moral claims to be correct to win this debate. A Pro response that “moral claims are true if I say they are true” is a non-starter- this just explodes Pro’s moral subjectivism into a broader truth subjectivism. Pro would need to explain in what sense something is true if the only requirement for truth is my declaration. Any justification Pro gives will be applicable to other non-moral claims. I am ready to refute this, but if Pro wants to advocate truth subjectivism I encourage all voters to vote Con and leave the RFD “Con won because I say he did” purely out of spite and malice.Moral Systems First, to prove that these moral systems justify vigilantism Pro must justify the moral system itself. If the system is unjustified, then so are all its claims. Pro has the BOP in putting forward these systems and as yet has not justified them. Second, he must actually win that these systems justifies vigilantism. If he can’t do this then he hasn’t shown it to be justifiable. He can't just wave his hands and say "I'm sure that there's SOME system that justifies it," he needs to actually show that the system does so. Third, all of these systems are incompatible with subjectivism. They each make claims about the objective nature of ethics and none of them support Pro’s contention that morality is based on subjective bias. All of his subjectivist arguments disprove the claims of Hedonism etc, thus all the systems are unjustified. Pragmatism The results of vigilantism are not identical law enforcement. Vigilantism necessarily bypasses the safeguards of the state such as due process and trial by jury. Vigilantes also lack the ability to carry out the same punishments that the states does- vigilantes do not have the resources needs to carry out long term incarceration. Since the trial and error of society has resulted in widespread state based law enforcement rather than vigilantism, Pragmatist ethics does not support vigilantism. Naturalism Pro doesn’t specify what sort of naturalist system he is arguing for, so his argument is incomplete and inconclusive. A naturalist may believe murder to be wrong but I maintain they will also hold other beliefs that will find vigilantism to be unjustifiable. In the absence of Pro actually constructing a naturalist case for vigilantism my assertion is just as valid as any assertion Pro makes. Hedonism Pro doesn’t explain how vigilantism is pleasurable. Vigilantism encourages individuals to take the law into their own hands. This results in a break down of rule of law and a loss of the security that systematic justice begins. Additionally, the victim of vigilantism suffers much more than any pleasure the practicers will feel. Also, people feel sad when they hear about vigilantes killing people. This results in less pleasure, thus Hedonism fails to justify vigilantism. Really there's so much happiness and sadness in vigilantes its impossible to say what Hedonism would say about he matter.