The concept of good and evil should ideally be abandoned in order to create a more just world

In my last rebuttal, I will attempt to defend my position and try to illustrate how my morality is better for society than replacing it with justice. For starters, you are saying that all morality in a society should be abandoned for the sake of justice in our law systems. When I said the justice system should be based on justice, that is just one part of society. We shouldn't abandon all morality to fix one part of society. That is like saying you shouldn't eat Doritos with a fork so abandon all forks in your life. On to my main rebuttal: My opponent's essential argument is 'all existing moral systems have led to some form of injustice and in order to create a just world moral systems must be abandoned and replaced by the creation of Just Laws which would be considered and created by philosophers whose job it is to create those laws.' First objection, wouldn't the just laws become the new morality? Under your laws, being just is right and being unjust is wrong, and morality is based on right and wrong or good and evil. You are just making a new set of morals. My essential argument is that (I should've worded this better in my previous argument, my bad) justice is an important part of morality so there is no need to ditch morality. This is because morality's purpose is to help make an even playing ground for people to compete and live, help us get along and according to Rousseau, to make us more free. Justice, like morality, strives for those goals. According to Rousseau, if anything is permissible, then we wouldn't be free because everyone will be fighting over food, water, et cetera and everyone would be scared for their lives, thus halting the path for progress, welfare and freedom. This is what philosophers like to call the State of Nature, for all those who don't know. The reason why morality was invented was to help people move away from the State of Nature to a more civilized society. Justice helps people become more civilized, so therefore, justice is a part of morality. Furthermore, what I said earlier about real/ontological morality, that means there is only one system of morality that benefits society the greatest. If someone says something is moral, but that something is bad for society, then it is not moral, but immoral. In this sense, morality is just as objective as logic. If something is good for society, it is moral. It something makes sense, it is logical. If we abandon all of morality for the sake of justice and justice alone, then we lose other traits that humans need to become more civilized and better, such as self-sacrifice, temperance, sincerity, honesty, et cetera. And people could differ on ideas and get along together. Most people are grown ups. The purpose of morality is not for everyone to agree with each other, it is to make sure they could disagree with each other and still live in peace. When I said that murder was immoral, you gave a very interesting response. But, if two people know that the other could kill the him if they don't get along, then they will not trust each other, work with each other, and will hide away from each other. Because of this, they will not get along with each other. Murder is immoral in this sense because murder will hinder the trust and cooperation that people have for each to build a working society. Moreover, I emphasized justice as being a strong part of my morality and killing someone because you don't like them is unjust and so it's immoral. You are keep using God not teaching women as an example of morality being unjust. As I stated earlier, morality is based on the improvement, welfare and freedom of people. That is a totally fair and just goal by the way. If a set of morals does not do that, that means those morals are immoral and should not be followed. In response to your rebuttal on what I mentioned about Jesus and Confucius, they are just trying to give good advice. If you love your neighbor, you'll get along fine and you will be fair to them, by nature. You don't have to be loved back. Furthermore, most people want justice, so based on the other saying, they should be fair to others. By the way, why is forcing people to be fair even a fair thing to do when forcing people to love one another not fair? In each case, you are making people do something good and the action will help them and those around them, so what's the difference? My point on the current law system is still valid. I said that the current law system is unjust. My point is made to demonstrate that laws could be unjust for other reasons then false morality. Governments make unfair laws for greed or lust for power and stuff like that. In his next rebuttal, Pro further enters his utopian world. My argument was that in a just world, there would be no want for philanthropy because it is entirely unjust. He stated that under his just laws, there would be no poverty. He tries to prove this by stating that the poor should be treated justly (which would be he same under my system of morality, because justice is a big thing in my morality). He also states that the government would provide food, water, shelter for the poor. This requires money, which must be taxed from the middle class and rich, which contradicts his earlier statement that the rich do not have to be taxed for such purposes. So his providing basic necessities for the poor is an entirely unjust thing to do, even if the government does it. (In the real world, the government always screws things up. I'm arguing reality vs. his utopia.) Yet there are other reasons why poverty exists without injustice, such as natural disaster, bad geography, famine, drought, et cetera. Why is it just for people to help them? Why is it even fair for the government to help them? The poor people do not pay enough taxes in return. It is not fair for people to sacrifice part of themselves for the people in need. Even if a government entirely abolishes all poverty in its country, what about philanthropy in other countries. Or what about on a basic, personal level? If a neighbor's house burns down, would you give them help? How would just laws prevent that fire from burning (assuming it was accidental)? Furthermore, he stated that poverty is unjust. Here he runs in a predicament. He wants a society that is based on just laws at the expense of morality. However, if poverty in unjust, and helping the poor is unjust, then you have an unjust society. It is unjust for the government to help the poor because they will have to tax the richer people to provide basic necessities for the poor (food, water, shelter). And furthermore, the poor pay very little taxes (obvious reasons), so it is unfair for the government to help them because they do not get enough in return. So in this scenario, my morality will make a more just world because it values self-sacrifice, which done by individuals could (hypothetically) successfully eliminate all poverty n a country, thus ending poverty, an injustice. This is to an expense of another injustice, self-sacrifice, but those individuals are cool with it because they volunteered to the injustice. If you want to rebuttal my above two paragraphs, do so in the comments. Pro, charity was not make for people to feel better about themselves. It is about help others, not yourself. In conclusion, I have been able to come up with a moral system that does lead to justice, and I have shown how Pro's system of justice will lead to a more unjust world in some scenarios, and also a worse off world. I hope I have successfully shown how justice is part of morality. Furthermore, I hoped that I have shown how justice without morality could lead to a more unjust world, because sometimes people have to go outside morality to fix it, such as in my philanthropy scenario. And lastly, if nothing in my argument is convincing, understand that there would always be a good and evil, it is just two sides of a coin. Good is for the benefit of society, and evil is for the harm of society. Also, for all those who know of utilitarianism, which is the philosophical system of providing the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people, I am against it. I think Pro is against it too because it is unfair to the minorities who will have to be sacrificed at some points under this system. I am against it because a) it is unjust b) it is a shortcut to benefitting society and c) it is murder. A popular scenario of utilitarianism is the trolley situation, which is where you have a train that is going one way and is going to kill 5 people, yet you can make the train go another way and only kill one person. The beauty of life is that this scenario could never take place, there are always more than two choices to make in every situation, and if you have to sacrifice someone, sacrifice yourself. I say this because utilitarianism may seem to be to the benefit of society, and Pro could think I am for it, but I am against utilitarianism. Thanks for accepting my debate JayConor. I apologize that I was scrubby at points, but I learned a lot and I hoped you did too.