Murder is Objectively Immoral

Morality is Objective Utilitarianism is an objective normative ethical system of morality but this debate is contingent on the existence of metaethical morality. In this debate pro has undertaken a large burden and this is a burden that he is unable to fulfill. He manages to prove that the ultimate desire is happiness but why is the ultimate desire relevant or applicable to morality which is defined as “conforming to the rules of right conduct. ” According to his own description, he needs to prove the following: To slaughter barbarously is, based on facts, not conforming to the rules of right conduct. At best, Pro has proven that murder is wrong because it it goes against human base desires but that is not what his burden entails. Without the fundamental establishment of a metaethical system of morality then normative ethics cannot exist. My opponent needs to prove the existence of morality before presenting reasons why things are moral and immoral. This is something that pro simply fails to do. He continues to insist that utilitarianism is objective. This is true however it isn’t setting the necessary existence of and perception of morality that this debate needs. Without that voters cannot and should not view morality as an existing concept. He does assert that happiness is a universal desire however that doesn’t make it something that is “conforming to the rules of right conduct” as his definition states. Innateness is not mentioned in the definition of morality and given that my opponent does not expand upon this point it should not be weighed when voting. He is shifting his advocacy and his definitions once more. The definition of morality doesn’t refer to an action being more moral as a result of something being innate or universal (which he seems to believe with his off topic claim). I have also proven that basic psychology proves that murder creates happiness. This may not always work under the framework of utility, it is crucial to note that there are circumstances where it does work - ie. Alam Khan. Many people will be satisfied, the economy does not have to pay for the criminal in jail, nobody else will die, etc. His only rebuttal to this point is invalid because he fails to consider the example (Alam Khan). Murder is Immoral Pro is shifting their advocacy and they’re are trying to deny it. This is like me debating Christianity and then when I raise a potential error regarding it you say that you’re actually debating from a Catholic viewpoint and Catholics don’t believe this whereas most Christians do. His analogy fails. He says that it’s like debating Christianity and then mentioning the opinion of the Methodist Church. This is not what he’s doing. He not just mentioning or bringing up the opinion of a rule utilitarian - he’s shifting his entire framework from utilitarianism to rule utilitarianism. In his initial framework he was doing what will create the most happiness. Now he introduces rule utilitarianism which states that there are certain things that are always wrong. This is a shift in his advocacy as his initial framework mentioned NONE of this. This is a completely new addition to his framework that he cannot do as he commits a logical fallacy in doing so. A framework cannot be shifted as it is incorrect debate etiquette - voters ought to dismiss his addition to the framework as it changes his original advocacy which is fallacy that must be viewed as having no impact upon the resolution. It is a change to the original framework not an extension that coincides with it. If pro wanted there to be rules then he should have began by providing a framework of rule utilitarianism. A framework of utility does not have rules of specific actions being deemed immoral. A framework should be clearly and concisely presented in the initial round. Adding to it largely unfair and is penalized in debate. The Alam Khan example produces more happiness with his death than without it. With his father’s murderer’s death many deaths would be prevented (causing increased happiness). Pro does not refute or even attempt to refute this point. He says that it tends to create negative happiness. This would be a sufficient response if this debate was about whether murder is wrong in most instances but it isn’t. The resolution in the simplified form regarding the definitions (that Pro presents) is: To slaughter barbarously is, based on facts, not conforming to the rules of right conduct. Pro must prove that barbarous slaughter based on facts isn’t conforming to the rules of right conduct. This does not include exceptions. It doesn’t say sometimes - it is a positive statement asserting that murder is wrong. It is the equivalent for me to claiming I am always objectively right about all issues. Then I later claim that there’s an exception where I’m occasionally wrong. This is contradictory. Just like his claim. The resolution does not account for exceptions and pro’s claim that this is one is a concession. I merely need to provide a single exception to this and my burden is fulfilled. The fact that he says: “murder is “wrong as it tend(s) to produce the reverse of happiness. ” is a concession as in order for my opponent to fulfill his burden he must account for all scenarios. Saying the word tend(s) means that in most scenarios murder produces the reverse of happiness BUT NOT ALL and this is a concession to his burden. Conclusion Pro needs both premises to stand in order to fulfill his burden. Even if judges find one to be inadequate then you ought to vote Con. Pro concedes his BOP by proving that murder isn’t objectively wrong in all scenarios. If it isn’t applicable in all scenarios then it is no longer objective and the claims required to meet my opponent’s burden are invalidated. Pro doesn’t provide a metaethical framework which is needed for normative ethical frameworks to stand. This is a clear win for the neg case. Vote Con! Source [1] . http://bit.ly...