March Beginners Tournament Round 2: Targeted Killing

Burden of Proof This is a debate about morality. Since the resolution is worded this way, neither side can run moral nihilism in an attempt to dismiss moral arguments. Concerning BoP, my opponent needs to prove that targeted killing (as a foreign policy tool) is morally justifiable and permissible, while I will attempt to prove that it is not. However, given that the term 'morality' is perceived differently by different people, my and my opponents arguments will also be somewhat forced to establish their desired definition or perception of morality under some sort of framework. Framework The main issue in this debate is that each side is going to need to push their own framework (which I feel is going to be the main topic of this debate), and attempt to persuade the voters that their moral framework is desirable over that of their opponent's. For this debate, my arguments will run through the metaethical framework of moral realism. Moral realism primarily evaluates the action of individual(s) or of a collective group, and judges it based on the objective moral standards that are set in society. [1] If we can agree, or at least conclude, that society has developed a rather objective moral consensus on some issues (specifically those related to targeted killings), then the debate will mostly be directed towards applying those moral standards toward government, in which case my opponent would have to provide a really strong reason why they shouldn't. (1) Concerning Objective Morality To prove that targeted killing is not morally permissible, there needs to first be an established argument for the existence of objective moral principles. Since moral realism concerns itself with the morality of the action itself, and not the outcome of the action(s), no double standard is produced – everyone is treated equally based on those objective moral values. However, in some alternative metaethical frameworks a double standard may exist, especially if that framework values the outcome of the action when judging its morality, rather than the action itself. For example, someone 'stealing' from the rich and giving to the poor, would be considered immoral in this framework. It may sound absurd to some, but the framework does not produce double standards. Likewise, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich is also immoral under this framework, under the same set of rules. (2) The Immorality of Targeted Killing Society also views targeted killing as immoral. Applying the framework of moral realism to this specific issue, it becomes clear that the action itself is immoral in all cases, regardless of outcome. Again, if my opponent decides to argue that objective morality does not exist, and argues for an outcome-based view of morality, or moral subjectivism, he will need to explain how he is judging the morality of the action, and where his framework draws the line between the action being immoral, and the action as being moral, as he will then be arguing for a double standard. (3) Objective moral Principles Apply to Government Since Government is sometimes considered a 'special case' when it comes to moral values, it also needs to be established that Government should follow the same moral values that it enforces in society. It would be hypocritical to believe that Government can ignore the moral values that it enforces, so there are two solutions that Government can follow to end the hypocrisy: a) disregard those moral values as a whole, and end the enforcement of those moral values b) abide by those moral values If option a) is chosen, the result is unclear, and most likely detrimental. If murder, for example, is not prohibited by Government, criminals would have no reason to abide by the moral principles set by society. If option b) is chosen, then Government will need to follow the same moral principles followed by society, making it clear that Government should accept that targeted killing is not morally permissible as a foreign policy tool, as it is also not permitted in society. Conclusion: Targeted Killing as a Foreign Policy tool is not morally permissible If it is accepted that objective moral standards (especially about murder and killing) do exist in society, then there is not much reason to believe that those moral standards do not apply to Government. Therefore, the Government would not be justified (morally speaking) to use targeted killing as a foreign policy tool. Again, in the metaethical framework of moral realism, the outcome is not considered when judging the morality of an action, therefore, the morality of Targeted Killing cannot be judged based on its outcome.Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...