The Ethics of Star Trek: Ethnic Cleansing

Thanks again to User for this debate! I will use this round to rebut his case.PRO's CASEReally, Pro's whole case rests on the framework debate, so my rebuttals are going to be a discussion of the framework. Pro is suggesting we evaluate this round through a utilitarian system of ethics, which he defined as indicating that "an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone." Let's take a look at Pro's framework at both the macro- and micro-levels, starting with some big-picture issues. (A) Utilitarianism is a problematic theory in itself for four key reasons.1. Determining "favorability." "The utilitarian calculation requires that we assign values to the benefits and harms resulting from our actions and compare them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions. But it's often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of certain benefits and costs. How do we go about assigning a value to life or to art? And how do we go about comparing the value of money with, for example, the value of life, the value of time, or the value of human dignity?" [1]2. Reliance on Prediction. How certain can we be of the consequences of our actions? Myriad factors, including poor data, incorrect analysis or judgement, luck, etc. can interfere with outcomes that we though we knew for certain. Relying on prediction to determine morality thus means that we make morality mere guesswork, rather than a set of clearly defined and understandable guidelines or rules. And, what does happen if things go wrong. Say all data points to the outcome of action G being thing Y; yet, when G is performed, thing V occurs. V is worse than Y. Can we the retroactively blame someone for causing net harm, despite the fact that they did everything in their power to not do that, and despite the fact they worked with the information they had?3. Utilitarianism Justifies Clearly Unethical Acts. "[U]tilitarianism is incapable of differentiating the root sources of utility. For example, some people may get utility from viewing beautiful scenery and others from performing sadistic acts. In the value-free world of utility theory 10 utils is 10 utils no matter how it is derived." [2] Consider, if three sadists torture one person, the pleasure that the three derive could be said to constitute "consequences...more favorable than unfavorable to everyone." Unless Pro is prepared to defend that action as being ethical, then his framework hits a roadblock. And, even if he does defend it as being ethical, a world in which that kind of activity is justified is not one in which any rational person would wish to live, and thus it seems to fail the test of what makes ethics, ethics--that is, to provide fair and equitable rules that make society livable and cooperative human interaction possible.4. Pro gave us no reasons to prefer or justify his standard. With no good reasons given to use it, we can't really have a good reason for using it ourselves to weigh the round.(B) On the micro-level, Pro simply has no evidence that he links to utilitarianism. This is true for two reasons.1. Murdering the Borg. Certainly, the "Borg" are everyone, and presumably there are just as many Borg as humans, so by slaughtering them, Pro is generating either net neutral or net negative outcomes. And, unless he can show that Janeway's actions saved more lives than they cost (in terms of Borg deaths), there is no real way he can illustrate net utility in this debate. 2. Assimilation as a harm. Assimilation is not necessarily a harm insofar as it might produce net good; consider, the Borg offer a world without violence and crime, pain or suffering. Surely, that is a world a utilitarian would embrace. Assimilation, then, is not something to be feared, but rather it is something to be welcomed. Moreover, he cannot demonstrate assimilation to be an "unfavorable" outcome without being ethnocentrist. Certainly, from the perspective of the Federation, assimilation is a bad thing, but from the point of view of the Borg, it not only enhances the collective, but gives the individual access to the strength, information, and unity of the hive mind. To prejudice one view over the other is, at its core, an ethnocentric act. Isn't ethnocentrism an "unfavorable" consequence, and couldn't that mentality lead to additional harms if allowed to be justified?(C) Pro dropped my StandardFinally, we can prefer my framework to Pro's because Pro simply did not rebut my framework or its justifications. Without any rebuttal forthcoming, my reasons to prefer my standard can be extended, leaving us with no reasons to prefer utilitarianism, and at least two reasons to prefer my two-pronged framework.(D) ConclusionUtilitarianism is a problematic ethical framework for a number of very good, valid reasons. If it fails as an ethical framework, we cannot use it to evaluate or structure ethics; it thus has no place in this debate. Additionally, and even if you decided to use utilitarianism to weigh the round, Pro just cannot show that he is actually produces the most favorable outcomes. Finally, my self-defense-related framework ought to be sued instead because it is a viable alternative to utilitarianism, and Pro identified no problems with it as a framework to use for this debate. I will show next round how I link into my framework, and negate the resolution at that time.SOURCES1- http://www.scu.edu...2 - http://www.env-econ.net...