New Members Tournament: Murder is Never Morally Permissible.

As my Opponents round one states this to be for cases only, I will refute his arguments in the next round. Resolution analysis The resolution calls for me to show cases where murder is not immoral. Since it states "never", than if even a single example I show does stand than you vote Con. It is also not necessarily my burden of proof to show cases where murder is inherently moral, but rather that it might be unclear or unable to tell if it is moral or not. If a single one of my examples is, at the end of this round, not found to be either moral, or immoral, than the resolution is negated. We must also remember that although the word has a negative connotation, the only things differing murder from When presenting my arguments, I will show a variety of examples from different systems of morality. UtilitarianismUtilitarianism holds that actions are moral if they end up maximizing the greater good. That is to say, that if an action hurts more people than it harms, the action is immoral. A. Assassination of HitlerI'm sure we've all heard of the famous 20th of July plot to assassinate Hitler[1]. The conspirators knew of all the atrocities committed by Hitler and his Third Reich, and they wanted it to end. Surely murdering Hitler was A) Against the law, B) Premeditated and with Malice, and C) would've likely ended the war and the holocaust earlier, making it a moral action. The Malicious aspect of it may be disputed, and to pre-empt that I would like to present the following quote from one of the conspirators, Claus von Stauffenberg[2]: "We took this challenge before our Lord and our conscience, and it must be done, because this man, Hitler, he is the ultimate evil. " He believed (and rightfully so) that Hitler was an evil man and recall that malice has been defined as an inention to cause pain or distress on the victim, so this was malicious toward Hitler, even if it was, over all, for the greater good. Even if we accept that malice was not the primary motivator for this, it doesn't matter because the definition of murder we are debating does not specify malice to be the only or primary motivation behind the murder; it simply has to be there. Furthermore, a theoretical assassination of Hitler by the Jews could also be deemed moral. While the primary motivation behind the assassination would likely be a desire for self preservation, as the Grandson of a Jew who was in the second world war, I can assure you without a doubt that the malice would be very much there. So this as well meets the criteria in the resolution. B. Kill one to save a thousand? Utilitarianism holds that the moral answer to that question is to kill the one innocent person to save many more. If the actual killing of the one person is against the law, than this meets the criteria in the resolution. Immediately it will be objected that this is without malice. This objection, however, falls because the question doesn't specify whether or not the malice is there. Let's assume that it is. Say that the one person being killing is my mortal enemy, would that change the morality of the action? I certainly don't think so. Under utilitarianism, the action is still very moral, malice be damned; it's an irrelevant issue. C. PreventionAssume for a moment, that for whatever reason, I know for a fact that someone is going to attempt to rape my sister, and to keep that from happening, I kill the man before he can do it. I think we can all agree that it would be moral for me to kill a rapist if I walked in on him doing the action and killed him to stop it, so why is it differnent to pre-empt it? My Opponent may say to this: "well if you know shes going to be raped you can just call the police. " and sure, in todays society you can do that. However not only does that have 0 affect on the moral aspect of the killing, just the logical one, the resolution also does not specify right now, in fact it claims the very opposite. This would be against the law, because the "he was going to rape my sister, and I knew it" defense would not hold up in a court of law. It would be a malicious action because I know in my case at least (and remember I'm only obligated to negate the "never" part of the resolution) if anyone was going to rape my sister, I would want to kill the man not just out of a desire for her well-being, but out of hatred and disgust as well. Retributive theory of justiceThis holds that wrongdoers must be punished simply because they deserve to. It shows that punishing wrongdoers is a moral action[3]. A. VengeanceSay my father is murdered and my mother is raped by a mugger. In reaction to this I hunt the mugger down, and kill him. Surely we all agree that a killer/rapist must be punished, but why must it be by the government? What if we live in a failed state, and the government doesn't have the ability to punish this man? In that case, I contend that someone should. My opponent might argue that vengeance is generally immoral, but that doesn't matter. If a single hypothetical case can be found in which it is justified, than the resolution is negated. The objection that this would generally be morally wrong because I likely would've killed the wrong mugger falls under the same logic. My Opponent may argue that "an eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind" or "violence is never the answer", but when someone has just seen their family raped/murdered, such talk is laughable; particuarly when the Goverment doesn't have the power to intervene. B. Too light of a sentence imposedFor this example, let's take the example of the father in the movie "a time to kill". Two men brutally raped his daughter, however they were given absurdly light sentences. The father felt a moral obligation to see justice done, so he kills the men himself. If the government/courts fail to enforce justice, than how is it morally wrong for victims to seek it themselves? Self defenseA. Duty to retreatBelieve it or not, some states still have "duty to retreat" laws, which specify that when a person legally must, if at all possible, escape their home when it is under attack, rather than stand and fight to protect their family and property from the forces of evil. Such laws are, of course, absurd however they still show that unlawful killing can be morally permissable. Imagine I live in a state with a "duty to retreat" statute. I hear some rustling, and suddenly a window is shattered, and a family member of mine starts to scream! I grab a shotgun, run to the source of the noise, passing my screaming family member (who's running the opposite direction, away from the attacker) and when I find him, he's looking tearing apart a the room, looking for valuables. I open fire, strike him in the back, and he falls dead. My action then is against the law because we all could've escaped/"retreated". However from a moral perspective, the action was perfectly permissable, after all the man was ransacking my property and got what was coming to him (this also applies to utilitarianism as well, it's generally for the greater good when a theif was killed). The malice is very much there, again I can speak using myself as an example, as far as I'm concerned a theif trying to steal my property is an act of war. I would have a desire to harm them, especially if my family was also present. B. Incorrect self defense Perhaps I believe someone is attacking me, but really they aren't but I kill them. I have a mental disorder perhaps. Isn't it still permissable? While the killer would be locked up for the safety of others, what has he done wrong morally? Please vote Con.1. . http://bitURL.net...2. . http://bitURL.net...3. . http://bitURL.net...