No Standard Moral Law is Free of Conditionality

I will form my debate more like a formal case. Resolved:No Standard Moral Law is Free of Conditionality. definitions: moral law is defined as the rules of behavior an individual or a group that may follow out of personal conscience and that are not necessarily part of legislated law in the United States. conditionality is defined as depending on the circumstances of a situation My core value will be that of morality. We are looking to what is moral since the resolution states moral law. My value criterion will be that of quality of life. If we are using moral laws, we are using our conscience to lead us to what would be the most reasonable way to solve a problem. By using our conscience, we are doing what is best to most achieve the greatest overall quality of life in a society or individual. My first contention will be racism. Racism is a problem whereby we separate the black and whites. In legal cases involving blacks and whites, most blacks would get the automatic loss because they were black. That's racism. So the black people can take revenge in a form of what they think is the most just way of reimbursing their damages. For example, if you have ever read the book "Ragtime" by E.L. Doctorow, a black man by the name of Coalhouse Walker Jr. has his car bashed up by white firefighters. He sues and he gets the loss. He gets aggravated and retaliates by attacking the firehouse. This was right because he was punished for no logical reason. Since the government never helped, he had the moral right to retaliate to his damages. My second contention will be retaliation. Same as my first contention. This is another instance where moral law is permissible. We use moral law as a retaliation to whatever damage or harm was dealt to a person. Another example is World War 1. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914 caused Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. Austria-Hungary wanted to retaliate for what was done on them. Moving on to my opponent's case: His value premise is pragmatism, which means depending on the situations. Moral law depends on the situations but we are using what we think is right to perform the action and how good it was done. Using moral law doesn't necessarily mean we help the evil but we take into consideration of what the circumstances are. I will tie that into his second contention but I will do that later. Moving on to his first contention. His first point drops because in real world situations, the moral remains a standard because we look to how moral the action was. The action depends on the situation but it is a standard nonetheless. It fails as a premise because do not refer to moral laws but we use them to determine how moral the action done by the person, society, or nation was. His second contention also drops because what is moral is to perform some type of action, not to just provide help. His example referring to it says that one has an obligation to help others but under pragmatism, one doesn't do that to a person planning to create a nuclear bomb and annihilate a nation's population. A moral course of action would be to take out the person in charge. The definiton of morality is what is right and just. The right thing to do is to get rid of the person instead of helping the threat in harming other people/ nations. Linking this with his value premise. Since his value premise is pragmatism, which is based on the situations, his example must fall and so does his contention because there is no such thing as moral tyranny first, and second of all. We know what is right from wrong. We would not help a group of people perform evil towards another group if they were asking us. We would react by taking out the people because they are posing as threats towards not only another group but they could also target us instead or take us out after they get rid of the other nation. And it is for the reasons that i urge a neg vote and await for my opponent's response.