New Members Tournament: Murder is Never Morally Permissible.

Resolution AnalysisThe resolution states that murder is never morally permissible. If an action is deemed not moral or immoral then you are unable to attribute moral permissibility to it, thus it is a reason to affirm. You must prove that an action is undeniably morally permissible.OverviewAs clarification, whilst there are many theories of morality, only one can be taken as objectively true. We come to the conclusion as to which that is through the evaluation of metaethics. I would like to note that my opponent provides no metaethical justifications for any of his theories of morality. My third Korsgaard card attempts to establish a metaethical justification for deontology. It attributes normative value to human life as a reason for action. The first Korsgaard card is also a metaethical justification. It explains why the categorical imperative is the only moral mechanism that allows the expression of free will. Ever other moral system denies this fundamental aspect of being human, where they require you to give up your free will in moral decision-making in favor of efficiency logic. With all of this being said, my opponent will obviously try to refute these arguments in round two, but remember that only one side of he debate has metaethical justifications, and that is myself.Furthermore, morality serves as a guide for action. If a claimed moral theory cannot proscribe action in all situations, then it is not a moral theory at all.Utilitarianism1. Utilitarianism is circular.The reason we want to maximize the greater good is to maximize happiness. This is the end goal of all utilitarian impact-calculi. Why do we want to save lives? To maximize the happiness in the global system. Why do we want economic welfare? To maximize happiness by allowing people to buy food and to pay for shelter. However, it is here that we find the fundamental flaw in utilitarian views. Utilitarianism is unable to proscribe reason to happiness. That is to say, we desire to be happy, but we cannot provide a reason as to why we want to be happy other than the fact that this desire for happiness exists. Thus, utilitarianism justifies itself through circular logic.2. Morality is binary.A. Either an action is moral or it isn't, there is no middle ground. One action cannot be "more" or "less" moral than another. To determine the comparative morality of an action, morality weighs effects in specific contexts. However, rules of morality must be independent of context. If norms fluctuate with context, then our norms would be determined by those contexts and would merely describe what we do, rather than what we ought to do, collapsing the difference between is and ought. Without this distinction, morality no longer has meaning as a guide for action.B. If we can call an act moral even if it only has some of the qualities of being a moral action, then morality becomes meaningless. Without this distinction, concepts will start collapsing into each other. For example, even though apples and oranges share some properties like being spherical fruits, we maintain this distinction to avoid making the words meaningless. Similarly, morality must be absolute for it to have meaning.3. Utilitarianism cannot prescribe action in all cases.Buridan's Azz (Hereafter mule to avoid the profanity filter) Paradox: If a mule is precisely the same difference between a stack of hay and a pail of water, with nothing else around as far as the eye can see, it will be unable to rationally make a decision through utilitarian logic. It needs both hay and water to survive, and both resources are an equal distance away, but utilitarianism only allows for you to choose the most efficient option. Thus the mule will never choose either and will die of both hunger and thirst. As utilitarianism is unable to prescribe action to the mule, it is not a guide for action in all cases and thus should be rejected.4. Utilitarianism is self-defeating.If utilitarianism always saves the most lives possible then it will lead to an overpopulated world that cannot agriculturally sustain itself. Once this happens people will start dying and as it will be impossible to save them, you will have created a society that functions as a utilitarian dystopia through your use of utilitarian-logic.Retributive Justice1. This is a theory of justice, not morality.The resolution states that murder is never morally permissible, not that it is never justified. Thus, any arguments under retributive justice cannot negate.2. A retributive morality cannot be objective.A retributive morality, to prescribe action, relies on the knowledge that somebody deserves punishment. Whether somebody deserves punishment, or how much of it they deserve cannot be objectively identified. We would have to arbitrarily decide what morality dictates us to do. In that case, once again the difference between is and ought is collapsed as what we call morality would describe what we do, not what we ought to do.3. A retributive morality cannot prescribe action in all cases.If a murder was committed, but there are 3 equally likely suspects with no way to determine who committed the crime, and only one of them could be responsible, then it would be impossible to exact punishment based on desert. You could either punish all three equally, in which two suspects will receive punishment that they do not deserve, contradicting the basis of retributive justice. Alternatively, you could not punish any of them, in which case one suspect will not receive the punishment that they deserve, reiterating the contradiction previously mentioned. Either way, a retributive morality cannot prescribe action without contradicting itself.Self Defense1. Self defense is not a moral theory, it is a social principle.There's not much to say here, self defense isn't a moral theory. If my opponent wants to justify it as such, I give him explicit permission to do so in his round 2 speech so that I can refute it in round 3.2. Self defense is not objective.Self defense must take into account whether or not the victim's life is at stake. To do this we must arbitrarily attribute threat levels to the situation. Again, this destroys the objectivity of morality by collapsing the difference between is and ought.3. Self defense cannot prescribe action in all cases.It would be impossible for self defense to serve as a guide for action in a situation where self defense in not involved. Even though the resolution is murder-specific, a moral theory must objectively be justified on a universal level to be justified at all. This must be true to prevent committing a fallacy of composition. On that note, self defense cannot tell me whether or not it is morally permissible to cheat on a test or refuse to pay my taxes. Thus, self defense cannot serve as a guide for action in all possible cases.UnderviewIf I disprove a moral theory, then all of the arguments that link back to that theory should be disregarded. That is to say, I do not need to refute the Hitler argument if my opponent only links it to utilitarianism and I show that utilitarianism is logically inconsistent. As only one objective moral theory exists, you are going to prefer deontology with the metaethical justifications for actions that I have provided. Thus, I urge a Pro ballot.