The concept of good and evil should ideally be abandoned in order to create a more just world

My opponent's first assertion is that part of being moral is being just. His second assertion then contradicts this by stating that even when the justice system is not fair and just, and is instead based on morality (which shows he agrees that the two are separate entities) you can just replace morality with justice. But here he has agreed with my argument which is that the concept of morality (good and evil) should be abandoned in order to create a more just world. My opponent then makes a second argument. This one is slightly different. He still states that part of being moral is being just howeverand as I have shown the two are not intertwined. You can be moral without being just (for example by following some of the more unfair/unjust laws that God has been quoted as having wished for in the bible, like not educating women). My opponent then states that morality was invented. This entirely contradicts his earlier argument that morality was not 'made up' (invented), but is merely an observation of deeds people do. [1] To be fair to con, however, his earlier argument was incorrect and he is allowed to change his mind. In fact, I encourage the changing of ideas in the face of evidence. So let's pull Con's argument into its constituent bits:Con asserts that morality was created to help people get along better in society. In other words, to reduce conflict between individuals in society. Con then states that therefore murder is immoral, because, in his words, 'we cannot get along together if you kill me or I kill you.' But this is not actually true do to the fact that con's morality was about getting along 'better in society.' And even if it had been simply about 'getting along' then killing somebody would at its worst be considered neither moral nor immoral as it has destroyed any possibility for us to get along or not, and therefore has taken away the capacity for a moral (gain in how well we get along) or immoral (loss in how well we get along) action. Allow me to explain in more basic terms. The problem with con's definition of morality is that, taking it to its logical conclusion, murder can easily be moral. Allow me to explain. Con's morality is all based around how well individuals get along with each other, and therefore morality can be measured via relationships. If I have not met a person then my relationship with them is 0 or neutral because there is no net gain or loss in conflict. If I am friends with an individual we shall say that my relationship with them is +1 and therefore good. However, if I dislike somebody then my relationship must be -1 with them as we are not getting along and that is immoral in Con's philosophy. Con states that what is moral must be what helps us get along better. Therefore, one of the ways to get along better with somebody is to return the -1 to a 0 or neutral. One of the ways to do this would, in fact, be to kill them. As this is helping us get along better by changing the value of our relationship from -1 to 0, the fact that I have just murdered this person whom I dislike would have to be considered morally good under Con's system. I would ask you how this can be judged to be in any way 'just.'There are more problems than this, however. At a less drastic level, Con's morality prohibits anything that could cause two individuals to get along less well. A possible reason for getting along less well is to have a disagreement about ideas. Con's morality would thus prevent people from being allowed to disagree with anybody else just in case they offended the other person and therefore performed an immoral action, but preventing somebody from airing a dissenting view is against freedom of speech and it is unjust to prevent people who are being harmed by a system to speak out against it. Although that may cause conflict, which Con's morality system demonizes, sometimes conflict can have just results. Preventing conflict I have shown limits freedom which Con even states to be good when he began to quote Aristotle's virtues.So I have shown that, although Con states that his way of morality is more just than my System of Just Laws, it is, in reality, not just at all.Con also states that 'a person would call the same thing good and just or evil and unjust because justice is part of being good.' I wouldn't and if a person did state that he would be wrong for all the reasons I have formerly mentioned primarily that not teaching women is morally good according to various Gods yet it is unjust as it is unequal.Con talks about Jesus and Confucius stating 'Do unto others what you wish they do unto you' and 'love your neighbour as yourself.' These two statements are themselves unjust as, firstly, people have the right to choose what they want for themselves and they may not wish you to treat them the same way that you wish they would treat you. It is just to give people freedom in how they wish to be treated instead of self-centeredly treating them the way you 'think' that they 'should' wish to be treated. Secondly, loving your neighbour as yourself has nothing to do with justice. If you love your neighbour, there is no reason they should feel the need to love you, and therefore your feeling of 'love' for your neighbour is not returned and there is no reason that you should feel the need to give a part of yourself to somebody who doesn't feel the same. It is a ridiculous notion. Let your neighbour do what they want and if they don't like you let it go.As far as I can see Con's point about the objectivity of the current law system is irrelevant as to whether we should replace it and the system of morality with a System of Just Laws. He is essentially saying 'the law system is flawed but that's the governments fault' when I previously stated that my System of Just Laws would have nothing to do with the government and everything to do with independent philosophers who would not be pressured by the government.Con's next point had me confused for awhile but it's actually an interesting point. He asks: If good and evil did not exist, what would be the motive for philanthropy? A system built entirely upon what is just would not satisfy any motives for the philanthropy of the rich as a just world would not require rich people to give money to poor people. This is a good point. However, whilst it is true that the poor do not justly deserve the money earned by the rich man, that does not mean that the poor deserve to die for being poor. Charity is only necessary when the government do not do enough to ensure that poverty is reduced as much as it can be. In my System of Just Laws, poverty would not exist as poverty is entirely unjust, as it is unjust to punish an individual for being born poor. Therefore the philosophers would enact laws which ensured that the poor were treated justly, and philanthropy would not be necessary. This does not necessarily mean they would be given money that was taxed from the rich, but that they were given food, water and warmth. I do not know what the exact nature of the Just Laws would be as I am not a philosopher nor am I arguing that I am one, I am simply arguing for the System of Just Laws itself.Con essentially argues that if we replace goodness for justice, we hinder people's abilities to feel better about themselves by giving to charities. However, in my system these charities would not exist because they would have no aim as things like poverty would be eliminated. Therefore, it is not a real issue that the rich cannot spend their money on the poor.In conclusion, Con has not been able to come up with a moral system which does not lead to injustices, whereas my System of Just Laws has proved to be impenetrable to Con as he has not found a way to prove that it would lead to a less just world than moral systems have produced. Although he got close with the philanthropy argument, philanthropy in itself is not just and we are not debating about whether morality does lessen suffering in the world in some circumstances, but whether it can produce an overall more just system than my System of Just Laws. I have sufficiently proven that it cannot.Sources:[1] Con's round 2 argument 5th paragraph 2nd sentence.