Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment
Debate Rounds (5)
I will now define some terms for a better understanding during the round
ought-used to express duty or moral obligation
just society- a society that makes decisions that are morally right.
my value for today's debate is the sanctity of life-The belief that human life is sacred in and of itself. Under no condition should a life be taken.
my criterion for this debate is natural law which are the rights that every human is inherently granted examples include life, nourishment, the pursuit of happiness, etc.
Con1- The death penalty is morally wrong
If we enact the death penalty then we are no better than the criminal because both society and the natural law say that killing is wrong. so when we kill the offender we are now guilty of the same crime.
B, it is unconstitutional. if we enact the death penalty then we compromising the entire integrity of the constitution because is specifically states in the preamble "we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" so if we choose to utilize the death penalty then we are undermining the foundation of American ideals
C. Social contract- Although the social contract says that criminals need to be reprimanded for there action it clearly says that the sovereign does not have the right to make an individual kill itself for the good of the society
Con2- natural law
This needs to be the most important thing that someone judging this round needs to focus on. the natural law is the only way to obtain the sanctity of life when talking about the resolution. The second reason why natural law is the most important thing in this debate is because it outlines and guides us to what is not only the morally right thing to do but it also helps us organize Kant's categorical imperatives which in Kant's system states that natural has to be placed and the top of the moral ladder
I shall be coming from the angle that if justice requires punishment of wrongdoers then any punishment can be seen to be a valid part of a just society, however severe or apparently 'wrong' it appears at a first glance.
For this debate, pro defines a just society as one that makes morally right decisions.
The value on which to base the morality of the decisions the society makes would be the sanctity of life.
The criterion for the debate was that the natural laws inherently granted to all human beings should be held as valuable in a just society.
So then, I must ask you, in a society that upholds sanctity of life as its core moral then in what way could one see a murderer as deserving of the right to live anymore? Have they not inherently displayed themselves as no longer a member of this just society if they have broken the core tenet of their entire value system? Is it not therefore right to eliminate this individual before many lives might potentially be taken? Do not be so naive as to assume that a murderer will only kill one person before they die, especially not if they learn that all they have to do is sit tight a few years in a prison cell and get out free to kill again.
What would truly display that sanctity of life is the most imperishable moral of this society would be the explain that any who wish to break this moral value will be considered invaders to their way of life, no longer members of the society, thus no longer valid for the granted rights of the humans of that society, and instead as an intruder into their land which must be eliminated by any means necessary so as to avoid further lives being lost, lives of those who are clearly entitled to their right to life as you say.
So basically for this speech just cross apply my argument that it makes u no better then the criminal. Once we kill him are we not guilty of a crime our self's? Does it now make it morally permissible for someone to kill us? Also as I stated in my first speech the actions of the criminal have already been committed there's nothing we can do to change that, the only thin we can do now is decide what is the most moral thing for us to do as a society.
Now to refute my opponents case. Just because someone commits an immoral act doesn't mean that they are no longer a part of the just society it just means they are subject to punishment as outlined by the social contract and in regards to natural law
My opponent is trying to twist this debate to be absolutely indisputable altogether.
In round one he defined a just society as one in which the decisions made have to be morally right. He then declared the what the morality should be based on is the sanctity of life or, as he calls it, 'natural law'.
Then I said that if someone were to break this value and kill someone, they are clearly no longer part of a just society for their decision was not morally right and therefore should be treated as an intruder into the just society as opposed to a member of it.
Somehow, my opponent interprets this as me stating that "the sovereign could go around killing anybody for the smallest crimes. People could be executed for something as minimal as mouthing off to a cop." This is blatantly false and a very meagre attempt at a straw man fallacy.
He then somehow concludes that "Just because someone commits an immoral act doesn't mean that they are no longer a part of the just society" Well, if he were to define a just society as one in which all decision are morally right then clearly this would be a blatant contradiction in definitions if he then defined one who had made a morally incorrect decision as a member of a just society.
Then he concludes stating that "they are subject to punishment as outlined by the social contract and in regards to natural law" I would like to point out that he is trying to make this debate irrefutable and this is very poor conduct for an instigator to do as if natural law must be followed even if one poses a major threat to it then that would make it 100% impossible to be con here. This is a very blatant attempt at trying to hijack the debate to make it a dead end for con.
next he talk about my quote about the cop this was a response to his value or "angle" as he called it he stated "if justice requires punishment of wrongdoers then any punishment can be seen to be a valid part of a just society, however severe or apparently 'wrong' it appears at a first glance." I'm going to extend and clarify my point on this. I'm not saying that were going to go around killing people back talking cops. its saying that just people may have punishments put on them that aren't proportional which goes against natural law and the social contract
next he talks about how I am twisting this debate to where the con has no chance of winning but this is also not true. I am presenting philosophical ideal from great philosophers both pre and post modernist. this is supposed to be a philosophy debate. it is impossible for my opponent to win this debate if he doesn't present any ideals to clash with mine. next he talks about how my definition of a just society is abusive but he failed to offer a counter definition so we have to look to it.
now I'm going to build my case
1. if we chose to use the death penalty on people. (I will use murders for this example) then we have committed the same crime as the criminal and the entire society is just as unjust of the murder. so it is impossible for a just society to use the death penalty.
2. the death penalty doesn't fall under the social contract. many philosophers have made there version of a social contract. philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and niche all agree that if someone does something that the society deems morally unacceptable that they be subject to punishment, but they all agree that the sovereign doesn't have the right to kill individuals.
3. sanctity of life is a categorical imperative- Kant (maybe the most renounced philosopher) devised a system of what he called categorical imperative. these are what is considered the most moral acts. he suggest that we apply natural law to decide if something is a categorical imperative. since the right to life is apart of natural law we have a duty to preserve it if possible.
Pursuer forfeited this round.
First he is agreeing that it would make us no better than the criminal and since we both agreed that the act of the criminal was immoral we can conclude that the death penalty would make the hole society unjust and immoral which is the biggest point we have to look to in this debate.
Next my opponent is agreeing that it doesn't fall under the social contract. This is HUGE because this takes away grounds for his justification of punishment argument
3 we need not enact the death penalty because it goes against the categorical imperatives. These are what acts are the most moral. Kant's categorical imperatives are one of the most known and widely accepted ideals from any philosopher and that is why it should outweigh any other ideals
Pursuer forfeited this round.
Pursuer forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.