Morality should not be a deciding factor in American politics.

Re: Morality is Inconsistent and Unnecessary Pro notes that before the war, Christians used the Bible to justify the practice of slavery, and after the war used quotes from the Bible to condemn slavery. He argues that this proves an inconsistency in morality. However, here Pro has only indicated a shift in what was CONSIDERED moral; he did not prove that something was once moral and was no longer moral. Instead, he merely pointed out an instance in which people's attitudes changed as previous ideals were being revisited. A new interpretation of the Bible was brought to people's consciousness thereby changing their values. In a "democracy" like the U. S. , shouldn't their views of right and wrong, i. e. morality, be what is upheld, even if those views change and progress? Pro agrees, noting that our laws should be based off "what the people want. " If morality is not to be considered in law making, and instead only the "wants" of the people should be taken into consideration, Pro must defend the notion that a majority opinion is always sufficient in determining law making. For instance, if 90% of the population thinks it's "pragmatically sound" to spread around the wealth of the country's top 10% richest people, according to Pro's argument this would not only be acceptable but indeed the 'right' thing to do simply because "the people" want it. Consider Pro's argument that our laws are not based off of moral principles, but instead off of selfish values. For instance, murder and stealing are considered wrong not because they are inherently bad, but because we value our property and our lives. This is a huge loophole in Pro's argument. I can say that I value my property and my life: So what? Should that alone prohibit someone from legally taking my things or my life? Laws against such theft exist because we think it is IMMORAL to infringe upon someone's right to their belongings. Rights and morality are not entirely synonymous, but you cannot separate the two. Laws exist because we think it is moral to protect those rights. Additionally, sometimes morality justifies those rights and what makes certain things "rights" at all. For instance, Pro-Lifers feel that abortion is wrong because fetuses have the RIGHT to life. In this instance, the line between morality and rights becomes blurred. Countless other examples exist where people felt that they had "rights" which were being withheld, i. e. Suffrage. The problem is that society usually does not posses a unanimous opinion on what rights people have and don't have, thus morality comes into play in determining what are actually "rights. " Pro himself concludes his premise by noting that people seemingly create rights out of thin air. I agree. I then pose the question to Pro: How would you go about determining what rights are legit and which ones are not? Clearly the only answer is to use existing knowledge to dissect an idea and regard the morality (right and wrong) of the claim. Without morality, rights don't exist at all. Re: Integration of Morality Causes Political Mistakes My opponent brings up the issue of the War on Terror, claiming that the U. S. has enacted such a pointless war based on the idea that we have the moral high ground. This is a weak argument on Pro's behalf. Most people know that we did not go to war because of any moral conflict; I think we can all agree that there are distinct political, strategical and economic aims that the U. S. is trying to achieve by going to war in Islamic countries, and any remotely intellectual person understands that concept whether or not they agree with the goals. Law makers here don't give a hoot about the going-ons in other countries insofar as their actions don't negatively harm the U. S. Proof is historic examples of Isolationism (i. e. WWI and the early stages of WWII). Thus, this argument is generally irrelevant by my opponent's own standards. Regarding morality and political mistakes in general, Pro failed to note two important things: One, political mistakes occur regardless of obvious moral inclinations, and two, the notion that eliminating morality would also lead to political mistakes being made. If right and wrong were eliminated from our justice system, what would be the basis on determining what principles govern our society? Pragmatism does not ensure achieving the most just results. The concept of pragmatism implies that there is no right or wrong; you should just do what works. However, often what works for one does not work for another, and Pro has not explained whose benefits in society should be taken into consideration. For instance, some may feel that implementing a flat tax would have better consequences for society while others disagree. Everyone has different wants and needs: Stealing might be pragmatic for an impoverished person, but it sure as hell isn't beneficial to the person being stolen from. Laws are supposed to protect rights as universally as possible. Moreover, pragmatism is a moral system in itself, so Pro has negated his own argument. Another thing to consider is that pragmatism leaves a lot of questions regarding politics unanswered. If pragmatism is defined as "considering practical consequences to be vital components of meaning and truth," is Pro suggesting that we apply pragmatism to the Self or to the State? One must use MORALITY in determining which route is the most righteous. Re: Morality as a decision-making tool is anti-democratic I find it quite comical that my opponent references Locke's insight on the tyranny of the majority, as his very own POV indicates that it is the majority's opinion that should govern our nation. His argument is hypocritical. He states that we should have a law against killing not because killing is wrong, but because we don't want to die. In that case, what if some people DO want to die or simply want to kill others? If they don't find killing to be immoral, should they have the right to kill others simply because they themselves don't believe that it's wrong? In one breath Pro is saying that subjective morality is the reason why morality should be eliminated from politics; a governing body can not incorporate all of those values into one system. He then says that what the people want (i. e. a majority) should be what determines law. In the next breath he condemns tyranny of the majority in noting Locke's observation that minority rights should also be upheld. Hmm. So if a majority of the people support gay marriage, then gay marriage should exist. .. but since a minority doesn't, and minority rights must be upheld for a successful democracy, then gay marriage SHOULDN'T exist? I don't get it. Pro also never explains why a tyranny of the majority is wrong. The obvious answer is that it's immoral. In fact, it is a logical fallacy to assume that a majority is right just because their belief is held by the majority. Therefore, Locke himself agrees that morality should be taken into political consideration and not ignored just because most people feel a certain way. He is implying that there is more than one view of what is right or moral. The very reason that laws exist is to uphold morality. Without a basis of an accepted right and wrong, there is no reason to make laws in the first place. Laws are flawed just as the human beings that enact them are flawed, and no one is suggesting that we should blindly accept what is considered moral based on pre-existing laws. Just because our views or values may be inconsistent over time does not mean that morality in general does not exist or is not important; simply that our ideas have changed (often progressed). Conclusion: 1. Morality determines "rights. " 2. It would be immoral for rights not to be upheld. 3. The U. S. has established laws/government to protect those rights. . : Morality should be a deciding factor in US politics.