Experts' Debate Competition R2: Just Societies and War

Definitions accepted. Moral absolutism, relativism and values My opponents states that if murder is wrong it is always wrong, but this is just tautologous. What separates murder from mere killing is that murder carries a negative moral connotation always. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being[1]. So saying murder is always wrong is an analytical a-priori truth. It's part of the definition; and that is as far as most moral absolutes go. It is true in every possible world and in every possible scenario that an act defined as wrong will be wrong; but the standards for morality are much more relative. For example, what constitutes murder may vary across culture and time. In the same way, what justifies an act of war may vary across different societies. Absolutes are rarely so simple as, "murder is wrong". I will not hold that morality is completely relative. Rather I will say that most broad and non-tautologous moral statements contain exceptions and might differ from society to society. That just societies should never initiate war, is a very broad proposition which I posit must leave room to numerous exceptions--if not being flat out unsound--as do most such general moral statements. Such absolutism should be reserved for all-encompassing rules that don't leave room for exceptions such as, "just societies should never initiate war without sound basis of threat to them or other innocent societies". That's much more absolute but could probably be found to be subject to some error. After the error is found, however, a new rule can be proposed that makes room for the error. That is how absolutes are formed. That being said, some general moral absolutes do exist. Morality is based upon a large network of values. From privacy, to freedom, to happiness and to life. There are many more and all these things contain a certain moral value. Morality is centered on values and from that we can infer a general moral absolute: "the scenario which best serves the interest of the values of morality is the best possible scenario". With that axiom I will defend my case that it may be morally permissible for a just society to initiate war. C.1 Deontology Pro makes an argument that is supposed to be based on the value of innocent life. However, if we stay true to that value, the argument fails. Pro states war should not be initiated because it results in the killing of innocents but has already given us a scenario where killing an innocent person is the best possible moral choice--so he's refuted himself already. The death of innocents is sometimes the inevitable tradeoff to a greater good. The greater good protects the lives of innocents. So while some had to die, more innocent lives would be saved in the end. In the scenario pro depicts, a person is faced with the choice of killing someone to save 5 people, or killing someone with nothing else gained. Even though pro states that both actions are "bad", at the same time he denies that all are immoral. That doesn't really make sense as a moral choice is by definition not bad. The right choice; the just choice, is the moral choice and cannot be said at the same time to be bad. C.2 Utility Rule utilitarianism adds nothing useful to morality. The problem with the theory is that it is far too general and thus impractical and unnecessary. There is no reason at all to apply a standard of morals that provides broad general rules to live by when plausible exceptions can be found to them. For example, it is true that society would be better off if persons lived by the rule "keep your promises" than if they lived by the rule "don't keep your promises", but there is absolutely no reason to live by these unspecific rules. In many plausible scenarios it would be best to not keep a promise. It's utterly unnecessary to live by a rule as if it's absolute when it's obviously not.For example in answer to the rule, "don't initiate wars" I could offer the counter-rule, "war should be initiated when the rights and well-being of society are being oppressed unfairly and relentlessly" (the American revolution). Pro might find some exception and then I would simply alter it to include the exception. Morals are relative when they are broad but eventually an absolute rule can usually be formed if it is comprehensive enough. I see no real support for this view of morality. Pro says it's useful because it fits with the "never" in the resolution he's affirming but that merely means it's useful to him as he's found a morality that fits well with the resolution. That it does not ignore consequences is insignificant. Most moral theories are centered on consequence. Since there's no real argument in support of rule utilitarianism it can be safely disregarded. Sub-points A-B There are two things we should agree upon. First, as a means of safe guard, nations seek to increase the quality of their weaponry regardless of whether war is being held or not. The potential for war is always there and drives any nation to focus on its ability to defend itself. Second, war will happen regardless of whether the resolution is recognized or not. That means that unjust societies will engage in unjust wars and strive to increase their destructive power. If moral societies sit on the side lines, immoral ones will grow greater and greater until inevitably the moral nations offer no threat to them. It was in fact America's advanced weaponry that kept the cold war cold[6]. The situation was highly insecure, I'll grant that, but a shaky stalemate is far better than nuclear war. It is inevitable that weapons will advance further and further. This leads to an entirely different conclusion than Pro's. Moral societies should make sure their weapons stay ahead of all more questionable nations and sometimes initiate wars to stop the relentless power seeking that pro mentions. Without war, people like Hitler would not be stopped. At the same time, the UN has made treaties to keep countries in line[2]. Breaking the treaty entails adequate retaliation. Most countries are for efforts to keep nuclear weapons at bay which helps to keep everyone in check. It's extremely risky to go after weapons of mass destruction. Contention one: Preemptive Defense This contention starts with my opponent's sub-point C and includes D and E as well. I cannot find Pro's quote in the PDF he cites or by using Google (only this debate comes up). However, I will respond briefly to his reasoning. I believe my other arguments stand by themselves in the way of this. The Six Day War was a preemptive attack by Israel on Egypt. The attack was based on the knowledge that Egypt had, "announced a policy of hostility to Israel put its military forces on maximum alert expelled the UN Emergency force from the Sinai border area strengthened its forces on the border with Israel announced the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships formed mutual support treaties with Iraq, Jordan and Syria"[7] Israel's intelligence service had found evidence that Egypt, Jordan and Syria had planned to attack and annihilate Israel.[8] There are numerous other such examples: "History is replete with examples when pre-emption was successful, as well as occasions when, because pre-emption wasn't employed, catastrophe struck." [9] But I need not merely mention preemptive strikes where it has been morally permissible to initiate war; we only need to conceive of their legitimacy. We could say, in times similar to the conditions mentioned before, just societies are usually justified to initiate preemptive war. The resolution does not say not to participate in war, it says never to initiate it. So it is true that in some cases it may be better to let the other nation initiate war. However, this could be potentially devastating at other times. If there were legitimate reason to believe, for example, Iran was compiling nuclear weapons which they were going to put to use, defeat would be utterly guaranteed if the choice was to sit on our backsides and let them strike first, especially if the country under threat does not have any significant defenses against such attacks. Under conditions of impending attack, a preemptive attack may be the best option. If America had been aware of the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened, they would have been justified to strike first. If a country or group is compiling military strength with obvious intentions to strike, a preemptive attack would be entirely justifiable. Tension alone is not at all justification for preemptive action. In fact preemptive war is, "an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent."[5] Contention two: Protection of Rights and Well-being One example of this would be the Revolutionary War. The British heavily oppressed the colonies with taxes and laws. The colonies needed to protect their rights and general well-being and thus rebelled. It is fully within the rights of a society to defend its basic well-being when being oppressed by another force. If we were persuaded of the resolution, then just societies would always have to roll over and meekly obey their oppressors. The above example is self-protection. There is also the case of protecting the interests of other societies. If one country is being abused by another, does a more powerful country have justification, or even obligation to step in? Pro makes a case around the value of human life, however, human life is much better served when societies are allowed to step in at times to protect it when it's in danger. The Rwandan genocide, for example, went on with too little interference from the outside, and resulted in the deaths of 800,000 Rwandans[3]. [1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...[8] http://goo.gl...[9] http://goo.gl...