LD Debates

I will first refute my own case, and then I'll move on to my opponent's Consequence: The result of an action. I will add more later in my Round 2 argument My opponent accepts my value. "What Kant also included in his theory however was that it was a good will, or good intention that justified an action. This contradicts his observation, so you either must drop his observation, or you have to drop his criterion." Intention: A course of action that a person intends to follow. --> My opponent's observation is false. Kant's theory doesn't contradict my observation. This is because the person has to intend to kill the innocent first. He may intend on saving but he also intends to kill. Killing is unquestionably not morally permissible and since the person in question intends to kill, this makes the action morally impermissible. Therefore my opponent should be the one drop the observation. --> Also, my opponent only attacked the issues conserning Kant, but he fails to do so in the case of deontology, that is in fact the ACTUAL criterion and not Kantianism. Contention 1: "Killing is immoral according to Kant, yes. But the key is your intention was not to kill, but to save many innocent lives. " --> This claim has already been addressed in the defence of my Value Criterion "The death of the one innocent person was a consequence of your act of saving lives. To illustrate this, imagine you are a doctor, and you are running a hospital. In one room there are five innocent patients, unfortunately in the air duct above that room there was a carbon monoxide leak. You can either let the five die, or save them by redirecting the gas. Kantianism would maintain that you redirect the gas. Unfortunately, as a consequence, the redirected gas kills one patient in another room. You killed one innocent person to save more innocent people, but even Kantianism justifies this action, because the death was a CONSEQUENCE, and consequences do not affect morality. My opponent contradicts himself." --> To prove my opponent wrong, I will grammatically analyse the resolution: Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. The word "to", is used instead of "in order to" (E.g. Shoot to kill --> Shoot in order to kill) Therefore the resolution can also be written, without changing its meaning: Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person [in order] to save more innocent people. In order to [do something]: The purpose or INTENTION of an action (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary) In the affirmative's case: Kill [In order] to save more people: We can understand that since word "to" ("in order to") is in front of the phrase "save more people", this (according to the definition I provided) immediately gives it the meaning of an INTENTION. If you complete an action with a certain intention, the intention becomes a CONSEQUENCE. For example: ‘Shoot to kill a rabbit' (your intention is killing the rabbit) if you shoot (completing the action) the consequence (result of the action as I explained in my definition) is the killing of the rabbit, which is at the same time the intention of your action. Therefore the intention of saving innocents becomes a consequence once the action (killing an innocent) is carried out. In conclusion, the case of the affirmative is like this: Action: killing an innocent, Intention: To kill an innocent and save many lives Consequences: Many lives are saved. Therefore the killing of an innocent is the ACTION, in the case of the affirmative and not the consequence, also, the resolution asks for an action or inaction that is morally permissible (killing or not killing an innocent in order to save the lives of many others) and saving is not the action, killing is and according to deontology it is not morally. My opponent grammatically misinterprets the resolution and should therefore drop the point. --> In the example my opponent offers you do not know for sure if you are going to kill a person and is therefore irrelevant. In the case of the affirmative of the resolution you are killing to save, while in my opponent's example you are saving and in the process killing. Moving on to my opponent's case My opponent tries to put a turn on my criterion by claiming that Kant would not accept the act of killing an innocent. I agree, but as I showed earlier, Kant would not judge an action because of its consequences. He would judge it on my intention to attempt to save lives, which unfortunately resulted in the death of one person. Kant would accept this. The intention matters. I already read the quote, but I'll read it again "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found." He basically says the consequences don't matter, but my intention to do good and follow the Categorical Imperative to save lives was good, so my action is moral, even though it has a bad consequence" --> My opponent bases his argument on his attack on my Value Criterion I have already responded to my opponent's claim about Kant's theory: "The person has to intend to kill the innocent first. He may intend on saving but he also intends to kill. Killing is unquestionably not morally permissible and since the person in question intends to kill, this makes the action morally impermissible." Therefore the intentions are not ‘good', because you fully intend to kill Therefore my opponent should drop this point --> My opponent continues to quote Kant, whose philosophy (deontology) contradicts the affirmative. He does so because as I explained above, he misinterprets the resolution. He falsely believes that saving is the action and killing is the consequence, while simple grammar and syntax show the exact opposite. Kant believes that the consequence, the result of an action (killing an innocent) that in the case of the affirmative is saving of many innocent lives, should not be taken into consideration when in a moral dilemma and the intention (course of action intended) that in the case of the affirmative is KILLING in order to save innocents is what that makes an action morally permissible and according to deontology (Kant's philosophy) is equivalent to killing for no reason because it is still killing. In conclusion, my opponent's choice of value criterion is mistaken because it contradicts the affirmative of moral permissibily that my opponent values, but he has the right to drop it. Contention 1: My opponent has based his contention, on points that have been proven false. He once again ignores the fact that in the case of the affirmative, you fully INTEND (through following a course of action) to kill which is an immoral act in order to save. He also ignores the fact that killing the innocent is the action and the saving of people is the consequence that Kant says should not be taken into consideration when judging an action as moral or immoral. Therefore I urge negation, Thank you very much.