Murder is Objectively Immoral

I accept both observations given by Famous. P1: Morality is Objective. I demonstrated in my opening argument that Utilitarianism operates under the premise that morality is objective. This means it is not based on personal preference or belief. I even provided a source to affirm this fact of objectivity. (1) Famous’ first contention is that normative ethics are subjective and thus cannot be used to affirm objectivity. This is entirely untrue. It is worth noting that he provides no source to back this claim up. Likely because no such sources exists. Normative ethics “rest on principles that determine whether an action is right or wrong.” (2) Utilitarianism is an objective moral theory. The second contention raised against this premise was that I have not provided a clear framework. I am beginning to wonder if famous really read my arguments. I provided a clear framework of what morality is i.e. the greatest happiness principle. I am not sure what my opponent finds unclear as he did not offer any indication or detail to this contention. To be thorough I will expound the happiness principle. John Stuart Mill in his book “Utilitarianism” explained it like this. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” (3) Next Famous’ third contention was that normative ethics is dependent on Meta ethics. Famous does not demonstrated why he thinks a meta ethical framework is necessary, he merely states it is. This is also misguided. “Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language…”(2) I have no need to present a meta ethical framework. Finally Famous’ final contention and perhaps his best is really a question. He asked “how do we measure happiness? And, can we measure happiness?” I have a few thoughts to share on this. The first being that I do believe there are limits to what we can know, that is to say that there is epistemological limitations. This does not however eliminate the objective nature of truth. For example, a ten year old may be able to do basic arithmetic but not be able to do college algebra. Does this mean there is no truth or objective answer to algebra? Of course not! The same is true of this question. Can we measure happiness, yes! Perfectly, and in all circumstances, no. Consider what Mill had to say; “If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.”(3) Now, this does sound subjective. Complex circumstances are harder to apply objective moral reasoning to, not because there is no objective answer but rather due to our inadequacies of comprehension and application as people. Murder, however is like simple addition. It is as clear as can be. This leads into the next Premise. P2: murder is immoral Famous made the following statement in his opening argument. “I do not believe that murder is moral and I do view murder as immoral.” Despite this perhaps accidental concession of this premise I will demonstrate how it is immoral due to utilitarianism. In my opening argument I presented that “utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else.)” (1) It is clear that murder does cause pain or suffering. Thus we can conclude that Murder is immoral. Even in Con’s example does not show otherwise. Alam Khan could have had his father’s murderer arrested and removed from society without killing him. This would have provided the same utility without the same pain or harm. Thus, the action that is likely to produce the most happiness overall is non inclusive of murder. It objectively never will. Aside from this basic view of utility, I will argue specifically for what is called “Rule Utilitarianism.” This view holds “that we can produce more beneficial results by following rules than by always performing individual actions whose results are as beneficial as possible.” (4) They “claim that our knowledge of human behavior shows that there are many cases in which general rules or practices are more likely to promote good effects than simply telling people to do whatever they think is best in each individual case.”(4) As we are imperfect beings, incapable of knowing all the ends, it becomes clear that while objective moral law does exist, our ability to know it may be questionable. In the case of Murder however there is no such confusion. We see then under Utilitarianism, murder is immoral. Even if my opponent does not buy this, Rule Utilitarian’s would institute murder as immoral as a rule. As both premises stand, the conclusion is affirmed. Murder is objectively immoral. (1) http://www.ucs.mun.ca... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.utilitarianism.com... (4) http://www.iep.utm.edu...