New Members Tournament: Murder is Never Morally Permissible.

Thanks again Mestari. I will refute my opponents system of morality, and if characters permit I will address the concerns brought up against mine. Please note that if I fail to address all of his attacks it is due to lack of space and should not be treated as a concession. Also let it be noted that Pro has not even attempted to refute my specific examples, so if they stand under a seperate system of morals than you must vote Con.My Opponent argues that choosing not to act is always morally permissable. If we accept this to be true, than how do we ever intend to stop the forces of evil? Refer to the rape example I brought up in my case, are we really trying to argue that if I knew my sister was about to be raped it would be morally permissable for me to not act? That is absolutely and totally absurd. When considering the soundness of this argument imagine losing a family member to a preventable cause just because someone didn't feel a moral obligation to act. That's the kind of world you get with the Pro. Furthermore, we must consider what exactly an "action" means. When we assess a situation and decide not to act, the decision is itself an action. So my Opponents position that inaction is always just is self refuting, because deciding to not act is an action. Just for that the resolution is negated, because my Opponent has failed to justify his claim with a coherent moral system.It's been argued that "letting somebody die is not morally equivalent to murder". My question: Why not? Both cases lead to an innocent death that we could've stopped. If we accept that in general death is a bad thing and we also accept that there are cases in which we could have saved a life at little or no cost to ourselves or our safety, than we have a moral obligation to act. Recall the wise words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Silence in the face of evil is evil iself. Murder always immoral?An initial critique of this argument can be immediately seen in the idea that nothing distinguishes murder from justified killing save for the legal aspects and a desire to do harm. If murder is always immoral because of a rights violation, then where do things like killing in warfare, self defense, or executions lie? If we do not act based on the collective best interest and to minimalize harms, why do we act at all? I do wonder if my opponent would hesitate to defend a family member because he would be violating the attackers rights. Take as an example the famous "Trolley Problem"[1] criticism to Deontological ethics (essentially the system my Oppoent is arguing for). "A trolly is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"The rational decision would be to flip the switch and save the five innocent lives, as opposed to the one. My Opponent must show that either lives are not of intrinsic value, thus negating the resolution, or concede that his system is flawed and affirming Utilitarianism, which again negates the resolution. Just for fun, we'll add the the scenario that the five people trapped are the five people trapped are the five people most important to my opponent (or most important to you as a voter) and the one person is just a random person. If my Opponent still claims that he would not flip the switch and save his loved ones, he's either lying or insane and either way it doesn't matter. When judging the round think of what YOU would do and vote on that.My Opponent further argues that "Murder is not moral because you cannot rationally will that other people repeat the action of murder onto yourself" What? So everything we don't wish to happen to us is immoral for others to do? I don't want someone to kill me in self defense, yet under this principle even such a just action would be viewed as immoral. How about something simpler. Imagine that I love Brocolli and always have from a very young age and my Opponent has always hated it. When we were children being spoonfed by our mothers would it be immoral for my mother to feed my brocolli even though my Opponet could not rationally wish "others to repat the action" onto himself? Of course not. You can see through these examples how inherently flawed my Opponets system of moality truly is.My Opponent argues that "Furthermore, actions that lead to the death of human beings undermine everything's value." You can vote Con. He recognizes that we should not end life if we can prevent it, so his position of refusing to save someone falls becase we have a moral obligation to protect the value of, as my opponent admits, everything! Conclusion: The Resolution is negated. My Opponent has not presented a coherent moral system to condemn murder in all cases. In fact he has present a self refuting one. Remember that since he's the one making a positive claim, the resolution is negated even if all of my arguments fall.=Defense=There is absolutely no way that I can fully respond to my Opponents 8000 character rebuttal in 2500 characters, so please note that dropped arguments should not yet be treated as concessions.My Opponent opens with "If an action is deemed not moral or immoral then you are unable to attribute moral permissibility to it, thus it is a reason to affirm." False, is an action is deemed not moral or immoral you negate. Remember, the Pro is the one making the positive claim. It is his Burden of Proof to show murder to not be morally permissable always.On Utilitarianism1. CircularMy Opponent argues that the main goal of Utilitarianism is to "maximize happiness". However that's false, the actual goal is to maximize what is good, which is not always happiness. Recall that it is not my burden of proof to show what needs to be valued, but since my Opponent is arguing that murder is never permissable, it is a fact in this round that human life needs to be valued. Thus my system attempts to maximalize this value, where as my Opponents belittles it. Utilitarianism stands.2. Morality is binaryA. My opponent argues that all moral actions are of the same value. Essentially arguing that picking up a piece of litter is the moral equivalent of pulling a baby out of a burning building. How absurd. He argues that there is no middle ground, however if there is, at the end of this round, still reasonable doubt on what is or isn't moral than you negate. Remember that my Opponents system is flawed to say that least.B. It is argued that "If we can call an act moral even if it only has some of the qualities of being a moral action, then morality becomes meaningless." This can so easily be turned to the Con side. Recall the trolly example against my Opponents morality. It is immoral to kill, thus some acts (including the decision to do nothing) that lead to the death of others have immoral aspects. My Opponent has contradicted himself, which collapses his entire system of morality. A Con vote must be cast.3. Cannot prescribe actionI am running out of characters, so I will respond to this objection later.4. Self defeating"If utilitarianism always saves the most lives possible then it will lead to an overpopulated world that cannot agriculturally sustain itself." The problem with this objection is that Utilitarianism is about producing the most intrinsic good. It is a fact in this round that human life is an intrinsic good, so Utiliarianism would try to protect the most of that, even if it means letting some starve so that others can live. Please Vote Con.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...