Murder is Objectively Immoral

Observations OBV 1 - The sole burden of proof rests on my opponent to present me with an objective metaethical philosophy. Therefore, in order for my opponent to win their arguments must remain standing by the end of the debate. In order for me to win, I must successfully negate my opponent’s arguments. Since my opponent has the sole burden of proof I will not need to provide a case I will simply be refuting my opponent’s arguments stated. If my opponent does not contest with this then judges out to be viewing this debate as Pro having the burden of proof to prove that morality is objective, and ultimately prove that murder is objectively wrong. OBV 2 - My opponent types out their argument in the form of a syllogism using the premise and conclusion structure. Therefore, even if one of my opponent’s premises do not stand by the end of the debate then you ought to vote Con. If one premise does not stand then the conclusion cannot be met. Definitions and Clarification I agree to all of the definitions that my opponent provides. I also agree regarding the clarification and I was planning on making one myself but my opponent does one in his round. Just to expand upon that, I do not believe that murder is moral and I do view murder as immoral. The factor that me and my opponent disagree on here is whether or not it is objectively immoral or not. Morality is Objective My opponent introduces a framework of normative ethics based on utilitarianism [1]. The fact that it is based on normative ethics [1] is highly problematic though. My opponent needs to provide a metaethical system of to show me what morality actually is and to ultimately prove why murder is wrong under this moral standard. Normative ethics are problematic in this scenario for 2 reasons: 1 - Normative ethics are highly subjective provide no base definition of what morality is. This debate is on objectivity rather than subjectivity. 2 - If my opponent does not have a clear framework on what morality actually is (beyond the definitions), then he cannot say that murder is objectively wrong. 3 - Normative ethics depends on metaethics and my opponent does not have a metaethical framework. This ultimately means that you ought not to buy his normative ethics based framework because it has no metethical foundation to support it. Regardless of these problems, my opponent will probably enforce a metaethical framework next round so I will now refute my opponent’s contention on utilitarianism. John Torek raises major concerns regarding the concept of utilitarianism that I agree with. Utilitarianism is founded on the principle that happiness can be measured. My opponent correctly defines utilitarianism the concept that ‘the right thing to do is the thing that produces the most happiness”. Torek raises the following concern, “But in virtue of what should we take five people's pain or sorrow (all else being equal) as worse if no single person experiences that pain or sorrow?” He continues, “Each person's potential loss has the same significance to me, only as a loss to that person alone. because, by hypothesis, I have an equal concern for each person involved, I am moved to give each of them an equal chance to be spared his loss.” [2]. The question here that is being begged is, how do we measure happiness? And, can we measure happiness? It is completely under my opponent’s burden to prove this. Murder is Immoral Since I have negated utilitarianism we ought to view this contention as invalid because we have no objective metaethical framework. However, even if we accept the principle of utility the argument is still flawed. By agreeing to debate this topic my opponent takes on a large burden. They must prove that murder is ALWAYS wrong due to it being objectively immoral. If this is the case then they need to do more than just state that under the normative ethics based framework murder is wrong because this is not the case. There are scenarios in which murder can benefit the majority. This is why my opponent needs to present a metaethical framework. Without one then I am able to bring up scenarios and specific instances where under the framework murder is not immoral. This means that murder is not objectively immoral if I am able to do this. The scenario of revenge murder is not uncommon. There are many incidents regarding revenge murder, for example, Alam Khan killed his father’s murderer (who was a serial killer) as an act of revenge. Under utilitarianism this murder would be justified because he killed a serial killer who was likely to kill more people. This means that murder cannot be considered objectively immoral under utilitarian standards because there are many instances like this in which murder is viewed as moral under utilitarianism. My opponent’s burden requires him to prove that murder is objectively immoral. If his framework has instances where murder is moral then it cannot be considered objectively immoral. Conclusion My opponent introduces normative ethics which is something that will rarely work in a debate regarding objective morals. This is evidently proven in my objection to the claim that murder is immoral since under utilitarianism there are exceptions. The resolution states that murder is objectively immoral. Under my opponent’s definitions we can interpret the resolution as, to slaughter barbarously is, based on facts, not conforming to the rules of right conduct. My example provided (regarding revenge) is justified and it coincides with the resolution. Therefore, you ought to vote Con. My opponent’s arguments are negated and they hold the full burden of proof. You ought to negate based on the premise that my opponent fails to provide a metaethical framework which is necessary in order to prove objective morals to be true. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...