The Instigator
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Winning
156 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Losing
116 Points

R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+48
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 27,075 times Debate No: 5187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (50)
Votes (51)

 

CiRrO

Pro

"It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong."

It's because that I agree with this quote by Jeremy Bentham that I urge an affirmation of the resolution. "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people."

[Definitions]
For clarity I pose the following definitions.

1.Morally permissible: conforming to a circumstantial standard of right behavior.
2.More: a larger quantitative amount

[Topical Observations]
For analysis of the resolution I pose the following observations.

1.According to the resolution, it is asking if killing an innocent to save the lives of more innocent people is morally permissible, not morally normative. The difference is that a morally permissible action changes to each circumstance while a morally normative action is in a sense absolute.

2.The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives. Abraham Lincoln once said that "action and inaction are both conscious choices and are equally praiseworthy or blameworthy if their outcomes are the same." Inaction is the cause of the death of a larger group of people, thus inaction is immoral.

3.The resolution implies that all other options have been exhausted.

[Value and Value Criterion]

The affirmative values moral permissibility since it is the clearest value indicated by the resolution. The value of moral permissibility is upheld by the criterion of moral proportionality. Moral proportionality is defined as the weighing of consequences in determining a morally permissible action. When faced with a moral dilemma in which killing and condemning to death are the only options, the outcome of a specific act ought to be evaluated in determining the permissibility of that action.

[Contentions]

To prove my position I would like to offer 3 points of contention.

Contention I: Positive consequences
A)Maximizing the protection of life. On both the affirmative and negative's side, some type of life will eventually be lost. To uphold moral proportionality, the action which yields the greatest amount of life would ultimately be morally permissible. By killing one innocent, a larger number of people are being saved, thus maximizing the most amount of life possible. By not acting, the negative is condemning a greater number of people to death, thus acting immorally in their decision. For morality to be achieved, protecting life is pinnacle. The affirmative better maximizes the protection of life thus upholding a morally permissible action.

B)Reducing negative right violations. Since the negative will eventually lead to a greater loss of life, a larger amount of rights are being violated. Violating the right to life of all these people is the clearest, however it stretches farther. All rights spring from the right to life. Without life, it is impossible to do anything. Life is necessary to pursue happiness, own property, speak freely, etc. The negative will ultimately end up in a large amount of right violations. By violating these rights, the negative is acting immorally. Therefore, the affirmative better protects the rights of a larger number of people.

C)Reducing collateral damage. Essentially, a morally permissible action is one that reduces collateral damage. The affirmative prevents collateral damage from occurring, by killing one innocent to save many people. For something to be truly right in action, the action must not create wide-spread death or destruction. The negative ends up with many people dead, which is the greatest damage possible to a human being. To achieve moral permissibility, reduction of collateral damage is essential.

D)Utilitarianism. "The greatest good for the greatest number." Ultimately the greater good should be protected to make an action morally permissible. The affirmative is maximizing the amount of social happiness by saving the greater number of people. Utilitarianism demands that an action should reap the greatest amount of happiness possible. The affirmative in comparison to the negative protects more people thus creating a greater amount of social happiness. J.S. Mill writes "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness, is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." Basically he's saying that moral actions promote the general happiness of society, and reduce pain in society. The more pain that is brought to society, the more immorality is spread. To reduce pain, one sacrifice is necessary.

Contention II: Situational Ethics
According to situational ethics, when deciding a moral action, 2 things are necessary: 1) The action itself and 2) the outcome and consequences of that action. However, situational ethics go further. When faced with a moral dilemma, such as the one implied by the resolution, the outcome should be foremost. Since there will be some amount of death, the permissibility of an action is determined by the outcomes. To save the larger amount of people, killing one innocent is necessary. The negative violates these ethics on the fact of inaction. By not acting, more people will die, which makes it immoral. J.S. Mill writes: "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." Life must be saved in this case, according to situational ethics. Since the outcome is much better on the affirmative, situational ethics demand that we take the action of killing one to save the greater number.

Contention III: The Harm Principle
According to the harm principle, as stated by John Locke and John Stuart Mill, an action is morally permissible if it prevents a greater harm to people and society. Since people are members of a larger society, we must insure the greater protection of it. As individuals our actions must protect society from a greater harm. J.S. Mill writes: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." By sacrificing the innocent to save more people, a greater harm to society is being avoided, thus making it morally permissible.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Definitions
Innocent: Innocent: free from legal guilt or fault (Merriam-Webster)

Value: Societal Order

Justification: Without societal order we would be in what philosopher Thomas Hobbes calls a State of Order, a condition in which we have no government, in the world is in chaos. Hobbes describes it as "…the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man…" This is obviously not desirable as life in this state is as Hobbes so eloquently put it "…nasty, brutish, and short…" In order to advert this unfortunate state of being, we must have societal order.

Criterion: Rule of Law

Justification: In order for a society to maintain order, it must have a government that makes laws to protect his citizens. John Locke writes "…society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates..." He is speaking of why we have governments, because in a state of nature, one would also have complete freedom. Locke shows why we need government, that is, governments are needed to make and enforce laws to protect life, liberty, and property. The Rule of Law follows from this establishment, and is necessary for Societal Order.

Contention 1: My only contention for this debate is that killing an innocent person violates the Rule of Law.
Killing an innocent person is murder. Murder is illegal everywhere in the world. There is no way one could commit a legal murder of an innocent person. Violating the law undermines the Rule of Law. If it was morally permissible to violate the law, then the Rule of Law would have no power. A law is powerless if we can make exceptions willy-nilly. In order to uphold the Rule of Law, and Societal Order, one must not kill an innocent person, ever.

Going down my opponents case

First, his Observations.
I accept his first and third observations, and I agree that I must show why inaction is moral, but I don't agree that it is unjust necessarily.

I agree with my opponent that Moral Permissibility is an appropriate value, but it is too vague and is better replaced by societal order.

As for his criterion, I disagree. As Immanuel Kant said "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found."

The consequences have no moral value, it is the intention of the action where the morality lies. For example, a consequentialist point of view would hold that a mugger, who by chance has mugged a would-be suicide bomber and thereby prevented him from killing many people committed a moral action. This is not true. Mugging is not moral, even if by chance good consequences occur. Consequences have no bearing on the actual worth of an action.

Contention 1: His first contention links to his criterion, which I just showed to be invalid. Before committing the action, there is no way to know the consequences. If I decide to kill person A because I believe that it will save persons B-R, I am not necessarily saving them. If my attempt fails, all that's happened is the death of an innocent. Consequences are unpredictable, and often accidental, and because of those two aspects cannot have a bearing on the action itself.

Contention 2: This again falls victim to my argument that consequences cannot have a bearing on morality. Consequences do not necessarily result because of one's intention, but often in spite of it.

Contention 3: Yet again my opponent relies on the false assumption that consequences have a real bearing on morality. They do not and cannot affect the moral worth of an action.

Conclusion: As I have shown that the affirmative does not uphold the Rule of Law, and would lead to chaos and other nasty things, you must vote negative.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Pro

Value: Societal Order

--> This value is inferior compared to my value because it is not either stated or implied by the resolution. The value specifically asks for an action that is morally permissible, not an action that conforms to he societal order. Thus, my value is superior in this round, and must be the end result value.

Criterion: Rule of Law

--> (Turn) " governments are needed to make and enforce laws to protect life, liberty, and property." According to my opponent the rule of law is made when it protects the 3 inalienable rights. THe question now arises, how does this affect the resolution? It will either be the end result of more people losing their inalienable rights, or one. Therefore, it comes down to quantifying. To uphold the rule of law it is necessary that the agent act and save the most amount of people to reduce the right violating being occurred. According to my opponent this would uphold the rule of law.

--> (Drop) If you do not bye the turn I have made, then you can always drop this VC. The rule of law is man made and is thus fallible. E.g. Slavery. There are certain universal laws that must take precedence, over the rule of law. Just because something is in the law now, doesn't make it the moral or just thing. Since my value is superior, then you can drop his rule of law criterion since it does not conform with moral permissibility.

Contention 1: My only contention for this debate is that killing an innocent person violates the Rule of Law.
Killing an innocent person is murder. Murder is illegal everywhere in the world. There is no way one could commit a legal murder of an innocent person. Violating the law undermines the Rule of Law. If it was morally permissible to violate the law, then the Rule of Law would have no power. A law is powerless if we can make exceptions willy-nilly. In order to uphold the Rule of Law, and Societal Order, one must not kill an innocent person, ever.

--> You can automatically drop this point because his VC is either dropped or turned.
--> i will however, refute it. He says that killing an innocent is murder, which violates the rule of law. This is untrue. Take war for instance, war is justified if the benefits are more then the evils that come out of it. Yes, innocents may die, but a greater good is being achieve. I.e. The Double Effect. If you universalize my opponents contention, then nothing would justify war. Therefore, the rule of law would be turned on itself because nothing can be sued to defend the rule of law. Evil doers would go un-confronted, genocide would occur, and the greater good would not be upheld. Basically, the rule of law must be broken to achieve a greater good, which is necessary for the rule to actually exist. Of course, the law cannot always be broken, however that is not the objective of the affirmative. In a moral dilemma, the greater good must be achieved because it is the only way to determine the moral permissibility of a certain action. By negating, you are taking the law as the letter only, not the spirit and justness behind it. Montesquieu once that that "the spirit of the law is justice. The letter must be broken at some points to achieve it."

Going to defend my own case:

He agrees with definitions and observations.

Key point: My opponent has agreed with the definition of moral permissibility. Thus you can affirm since the aff. better achieves it.

"I agree with my opponent that Moral Permissibility is an appropriate value, but it is too vague and is better replaced by societal order."

--> It is the direct value indicated by the resolution. Nowhere does it ask to uphold societal order. Therefore, my value is the superior one.

"The consequences have no moral value, it is the intention of the action where the morality lies. For example, a consequentialist point of view would hold that a mugger, who by chance has mugged a would-be suicide bomber and thereby prevented him from killing many people committed a moral action. This is not true. Mugging is not moral, even if by chance good consequences occur. Consequences have no bearing on the actual worth of an action."

--> Observation: My VC is not consequentialism. My VC is moral proportionality. There is a difference. MP is when an agent is in a moral dilemma, what ought he to do? To uphold moral permissibility he ought to take the action where the outcome is moral. By letting a group die, you are acting immorally. Therefore, the only moral action is one that saves more people. You can drop his attack since it doesn't attack the main reason behind my VC.

"Contention 1: His first contention links to his criterion, which I just showed to be invalid. Before committing the action, there is no way to know the consequences. If I decide to kill person A because I believe that it will save persons B-R, I am not necessarily saving them. If my attempt fails, all that's happened is the death of an innocent. Consequences are unpredictable, and often accidental, and because of those two aspects cannot have a bearing on the action itself."

--> you can drop this, since he didn't have a true attack on my VC.
--> He dropped all my sub-points which uphold my contention. Extend these.
--> However the consequences must be evaluated. By not acting you are killing a larger group of people which would be murder. You are violating their rights, which according to my opponents necessary to achieve the rule of law. Furthermore, he says the attempt may fail. The resolution implies that it wont fail. You either save them or you don't. Upholding life is a clear value for morality. If it was not, then my opponent could not make the claim that killing is wrong. Therefore, you must come to the conclusion that killing one is necessary to save more.

"Contention 2: This again falls victim to my argument that consequences cannot have a bearing on morality. Consequences do not necessarily result because of one's intention, but often in spite of it."

--> My opponent dismisses this point. However it is a strong point. Situational ethics demand that we take the appropriate action to save the most people. If not, we are acting immorally.

"Contention 3: Yet again my opponent relies on the false assumption that consequences have a real bearing on morality. They do not and cannot affect the moral worth of an action.'"

--> Link this point to my opponents VC. For the rule of law to exist, a society is necessary. The harm principle by John Locke who my opponent quotes, and Mill, explains that a moral action is onethat protects society. Therefore, for the rule of law to exist, society must be protected. Thus, killing one is necessary to help society. By refuting this point, my opponent has refuted his own VC, and thus can be dropped by my opponents own hand.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

He first claims that my value is inferior because it is not stated or implied within the resolution. My answer to this is that morality cannot exist without Societal Order. Societal Order is a prerequisite for his value, making my value superior.

Criterion Attacks:
You can ignore his turn because the law does not allow you to violate it even to save life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The law must have no exceptions if it is going to work. Hypothetical imperatives, such as that of moral proportionality, are inconsistent and lose their power. A categorical imperative is much more effective because there are no exceptions. His turn just violates my VC.

His drop argument is also flawed. Laws are fallible, but following them is necessary. If everyone decided to break laws that they found unjust, laws would soon lose their power. In order for the Rule of Law to be upheld the law must be followed. It can be questioned, it can be fought, but it must be followed.

Again, you don't drop my first contention, as my VC is fine. He then says that killing innocents is not murder. It is. He brings up the example of war. An innocent would not be harmed in a just and moral war. Even if we bombed there nation, we would attack their military. The enemy military is not innocent, and it is morally permissible to kill them. Civilian non-combatants are innocents, and they cannot be killed, as international law has us minimize civilian casualties. Civilian death can be made non-existent, which is minimizing it. Therefore, killing a civilian is violating the rule of law. Remember, letting die is not illegal, although it should be avoided if we can do so without violating the law. Killing an innocent is illegal even in a state of war. He then says nothing would justify war. That is not true. It is in accordance with international law to wage many wars. If we have a legitimate cause, we can wage war. Evil can be fought within the bounds of the law. Police officers exist for a reason. Law has no power if it is not absolute, exceptions cannot exist. There is a reason murder laws don't say we can kill to save more people.

On my opponent's case, as I said before, my value is necessary for your value to exist.

His criterion does not link to my value so it is dropped. He then claims his criterion is not consequentialism. Consequentialism is any theory of morality the relies on the outcome or consequence of an action to determine morality. The outcome of an action is not always evident, and is not in the control of the moral agent. It is not his fault if he accidentally causes genocide while trying to save lives. He is not a bad person, but under my opponent's VC he is bad, and the mugger I mentioned earlier is a good man. Obviously, there is something wrong.

Contention 1: Again,it is dropped because his VC is flawed. I rebutted the subpoints when I attacked the contention as a whole. Positive consequences cannot have a bearing on morality. They can be accidental, or unintended. Consequences are uncontrollable, they cannot constitute morality.

Contention 2: Like I said earlier, consequences are uncontrollable and often occur by chance, they cannot equal morality.

Contention 3: He links this to my VC/value. This is flawed. The Rule of Law does not allow one to break it. It has absolute authority. It needs to. You cannot link something that violates to my case. This point is dropped.

I will not post in R3, so as to keep this debate somewhat like LD.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrO

Pro

"He first claims that my value is inferior because it is not stated or implied within the resolution. My answer to this is that morality cannot exist without Societal Order. Societal Order is a prerequisite for his value, making my value superior."

--> He uses a messed up logic here. If morality cannot exist without societal order, then societal order would be a VC, not the main value. Furthermore, my value still is superior on the fact it is the implied resolution. The resolution specifically asks for what is morally permissible. You can turn this argument against him, and say that since his value is now a VC, he cannot the round because he cannot achieve anything, unless he accepts moral permissibility as the superior value.

"You can ignore his turn because the law does not allow you to violate it even to save life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The law must have no exceptions if it is going to work. Hypothetical imperatives, such as that of moral proportionality, are inconsistent and lose their power. A categorical imperative is much more effective because there are no exceptions. His turn just violates my VC."

--> Ok, my opponent has just dropped his VC. By claiming that even the law does not allow you to violate it to save more of the 3 inalienable rights, then the rule of law means nothing. If you take my opponents definition of the rule of law in: "…society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates..."; here you can drop right away. Even in his quote from John Locke he is implying that members of society have a right to defend those 3 inalienable rights. Furthermore, by inaction more of those rights are lost, meaning society has failed in its duty to protect those rights, which according to him, undermine the rule of law. Now you can infer that to uphold the rule of law, members must take action to protect society against these violations. Without them, my opponents rule of law means nothing. So, you either have to sacrifice to save society, or not act and cause a great harm to society, which is the basis of the rule of law.
--> E.g. The resolution asks to save one for more people. Ok, lets say that killing the one is necessary to save the existence of the human race. If he does not act human existence would die off, and he would live for a partial amount of time (until he dies). Now, link this to his VC. What is the importance of the rule of law, if there is no society for it to govern over? Thus I argue that to maintain the rule of law, it sometimes must be undermined to save society.

"His drop argument is also flawed. Laws are fallible, but following them is necessary. If everyone decided to break laws that they found unjust, laws would soon lose their power. In order for the Rule of Law to be upheld the law must be followed. It can be questioned, it can be fought, but it must be followed. "

--> I have a simple argument. The right must be followed over the written. According to your logic, The American Revolution was not justified, and African Americans were acting immorally by running away from their slave masters. I argue that what is moral is not always dictated by the law, therefore his VC is flawed and can be dropped totally.

"He brings up the example of war. An innocent would not be harmed in a just and moral war. Even if we bombed there nation, we would attack their military. The enemy military is not innocent, and it is morally permissible to kill them. Civilian non-combatants are innocents, and they cannot be killed, as international law has us minimize civilian casualties. Civilian death can be made non-existent, which is minimizing it."

--> lol, a law doesn't prevent mishaps. That's why I brought up the double effect. It is impossible 100% to not kill at least one innocent in war. We can MINIMIZE it, yes, but it isn't eliminated. Furthermore, according to you it is wrong to kill, and is a categorical imperative (Referring to your VC response). Ok, a categorical is unconditional. Therefore, according to you, it is wrong to kill in self-defense, wrong to kill evil doers, wrong to commit war. By negating the resolution for his contention I, you are opening up a world where terror reigns because it is ALWAYS wrong to kill. turn this against his VC. By claiming the categorical imperative, he is leaving the innocent people undefended against evil doers. Thus, the rule of law means nothing in a world where the law is an imperative. Furthermore, going back to his VC, it would be wrong for someone to go through a red light, even if there are no cars around, while a person is dying in the back seat. See, the flaw in his case. He is making the law by letter only, not the spirit. To save society and to maximize life, going against the written law is necessary. "The ends may justify the means as long as there is something to justify the ends."

Moving to defend my own case:

"His criterion does not link to my value so it is dropped. He then claims his criterion is not consequentialism. Consequentialism is any theory of morality the relies on the outcome or consequence of an action to determine morality. The outcome of an action is not always evident, and is not in the control of the moral agent. It is not his fault if he accidentally causes genocide while trying to save lives. He is not a bad person, but under my opponent's VC he is bad, and the mugger I mentioned earlier is a good man. Obviously, there is something wrong."

--> Ok, lets look at this. You can turn this against my opponent as well. If you kill the larger group, later on you can find out that the person saved is Osama Bin Laden who goes and commits another act of terror. There is a flaw in my opponents reasoning. Of course the future, future events are not known, but the present moment is in front of you. You are in a moral dilemma. What ought you to do? Let a larger group die, or let one person die? This is the whole idea of moral proportionality. At that moment it would be immoral for you to let the larger group die. One action out of the 2 is morally permissible. Thus, the one with the better outcome at that moment is the morally permissible one.

"Contention 1: Again,it is dropped because his VC is flawed. I rebutted the subpoints when I attacked the contention as a whole. Positive consequences cannot have a bearing on morality. They can be accidental, or unintended. Consequences are uncontrollable, they cannot constitute morality.

Contention 2: Like I said earlier, consequences are uncontrollable and often occur by chance, they cannot equal morality."

--> He brushes off these points because he says well its the consequences. Ok, but lets go through my sub-points. Would it be morally permissible to devalue life and save the greater number? Would it be morally permissible to increase the number of right violations? Would it be morally permissible to create collateral damage? Would it be morally permissible to increase pain in society? What would you do in this situation? If you answered that all of these outcomes are immoral, then you have affirmed the resolution. At this moment, what is the morally permissible action? My opponents never responds to this and he merely says well we don't know. Ok then, the negative has chosen death as the action which is morally permissible.

--> Situational ethics are part of morality and claim that in a moral dilemma, then the outcome must be evaluated.

"Contention 3: He links this to my VC/value. This is flawed. The Rule of Law does not allow one to break it. It has absolute authority. It needs to. You cannot link something that violates to my case. This point is dropped."

--> My opponent fails to refute my attack. Essentially the rule of law is nothing if it hurts those that it needs to protect. Rules and actions ought to protect society. If it does not it is immoral.

Thank you ladies and ge
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

I'm not posting this round. So even though he;s wrong in every way possible, I'll shut up.
Debate Round No. 3
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
Debating this may be challenging. Ultimately, it depends on what kind of morals you're talking about, and as such your definition of morality.

If true morality exists, it is objective. If true morality doesn't exist morals are subjective.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
No worries, I'm in another debate right now anyway. Actually, I have a lot of debates planned, so I may not be free for a while.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
I've been driving from Spokane back to Seattle for a couple hours now. Therefor, I'm absent a computer at the moment-in-time. I surely don't want to start a debate on a phone, either. I will debate you on this when I get a chance.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
I'll debate you on it.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
So when are you going to actaully begin to explain why morals can't be subjective?
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
"Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.

"Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.

"Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
Define normative :)
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
So basically you agree with descriptive moral relativism, but disagree with normative moral relativism?
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
Here I'll clean it up (for my sake).

Morals, in my opinion, are subjective and objective.

Considering I come from a family who had ancestors burned for allegedly being witches, was it moral for the people burn them? You must take yourself from today's world and put yourself in their time and only think of it in their bias. The actors thought the witches where causing, but not limited to, illnesses.

The hunters in 19th century Africa saw it as a symbol of superiority to take the heads of rival tribes. Praxeology, as you must know, doesn't care that the actor made those actions it just cares why the actor made those actions in terms of themselves (individual bias).

I agree that there are universal objective morals but looking at seclusion studies and individual thought I must look further beyond objective morals.

I am probably wrong though. I usually am when it comes to morals.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
I just now realized I should have proof read my writing. Forgive me for my grammatical and spelling mistakes. My only excuse is I was using a phone to type it.
51 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by danhep 2 years ago
danhep
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Neg/Con quit last rebuttal, Pro/Aff used clearer logic and linked better to resolution The value framework was kind of a wash but it went to Pro since he better linked to resolution. Pro won the VC because he showed why it better weighed in the round. Util vs Deo/Social contract would've been more straight foward than moral proportionality and rule of law. Good round - I like the LD debate
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Dominus 6 years ago
Dominus
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by George_Bush_Rocks 6 years ago
George_Bush_Rocks
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by KPAX 7 years ago
KPAX
CiRrOLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07