LD Debates

I accept the definitions provided by my opponent and negate to the resolution. >The resolution does not ask for an action or inaction that has better intentions, effect or consequences; it asks for a morally permissible action or inaction. : Moral Permissibility I value moral permissibility, because it is the only value that is clearly stated in the resolution. : Deontology (also known as deontological ethics) The value of Moral Permissibility is upheld by the Criterion of Deontology. Deontology is defined as: "The approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions." (Wikipedia) Kant, whom my opponent uses to support his own argument, was a deontologist. Kant and all other deontologists (as explained in my definition) supported that when faced with a moral dilemma, such as the one described in the resolution, we should focus on the rightness or wrongness of the action, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences to determine if an action is morally permissible or not. Contention 1: Immoral Actions are not Morally Permissible One of Kant's most famous quotes is: "it is always wrong to lie – even if a murderer is asking for the location of a potential victim". I remind you that the resolution doesn't ask for an action or inaction that has better consequences or intentions. It asks for a morally permissible action or inaction. Killing according to Kant and deontology is NOT morally permissible, under any circumstances. So, in the case of the resolution [a moral dilemma], affirmation is NOT morally permissible. Therefore, I urge negation. Now I will refute my opponent's case: Value: Moral permissibility I agree with my opponent's choice of Moral Permissibility as an appropriate value. Value Criterion: Kantianism My opponent made many mistakes by choosing Kantianism as his Value Criterion and I will not ignore them First of all, my opponent quotes Kant and in this quote Kant says that if an act cannot be universalised than it should be rejected. Killing can not be universalised because a.) It is generally immoral and b.)No one would want to be killed (Do unto others as you will have them do unto you). My opponent also posses the point of view that "The means justify the ends" but when the mean is a human life, according to Kant, this cannot be universalised and is therefore rejected as immoral. Finally, my opponent ignores that Kant was deontologist, and believed in what I explained in the definition of deontology. So Kant (whom my opponent quotes and indirectly praises for his beliefs) believed that actions such as the one described in the resolution are NOT morally permissible. Contention 1: Our good intention in affirming the resolution justifies the action. My opponent in this contention explains that affirming the resolution is done with good intentions and I agree with him. Despite that, as I explained in my Topical observations, the resolution does not ask for an action with good intention, it asks for a morally permissible one and according to our "common friend" Kant killing is not morally permissible, despite the intention and the consequences. So his claim is irrelevant My opponent continues with a quote from Kant: "The moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found." > Here, Kant explains one the basic principles of deontology. That morality lies in the action, not its consequences. So, as I already explained, the action of killing is not morally permissible, under any circumstances, despite the fact that it is done with good intentions and consequences. Finally, I have proven my opponent's value criterion and contention to have serious faults, his contention is irrelevant from the resolution and doesn't uphold his value criterion. In fact, in his contention he states views that are completely opposite to the ones in his value criterion: The Means Justify the Ends [Consequentialism] (explained in my opponent's value criterion) is completely opposite to Kant's beliefs about morality [Deontology] (explained in his contention). Thank you very much.