Você está na página 1de 6

I affirm the resolution, Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic

violence. I would like to provide some definitions for the round: y Morality- the effort to guide ones conduct by reason while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by ones decisions y y y y Morally permissible-that which is allowable under a code of morality Deadly force- force intended to kill Deliberate- done consciously and intentionally Repeated domestic violence- acts of violence against a person living in one's household, esp. a member of one's immediate family

Observation 1: Deadly force is intended to end in death. Lets assume, for the purpose of debate, that deadly force will result in death, and not get stuck on the fact that the victim CAN survive. The victims goal in the resolution is to kill his/her abuser, so his/her actions must be judged as if the abuser died, whether or not the actions taken by the victim actually resulted in the abusers death. Observation 2: Assumptions made because of the phrase, repeated domestic violence. The phrase repeated domestic violence in the resolution implies several things. 1. The domestic violence has been going on for a period of time. 2. No one has intervened to stop the domestic violence. 3. All other alternatives for escape have been exhausted.

I value morality. Morality is the value mandated by the resolution through the inclusion of the phrase morally permissible which is meant to describe the object of evaluation in the resolution, deadly force as a response to repeated domestic violence. In other words we are to determine if this deadly response to domestic abuse is moral or not and so no other value could so directly answer the question of the resolution. The best mechanism for achieving morality is protecting the right of self-defense. Self-defense is defined as a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property or the well-being of another from physical harm. The right to self-defense is necessary for society, as without it, one cannot protect any other rights. The right to self-defense best achieves morality because it protects life and autonomy, without which morality cannot exist. By protecting the right to selfdefense, life and autonomy are protected, and morality is achieved

Contention 1: Self-defense is morally justified under forced consequences. Wallerstein argues: I believe that the right not to be killed is an absolute and unqualified right. Thus, permission for a defender to take the life of an aggressor is not based on some balancing between two rival rights, but instead on, considerations of forced consequences. These considerations, establish a right to self-defense triggered by the unjust threat posed by the aggressor.

Starting from the premise of an absolute unqualified right not to be killed, it follows that self-defense, as a derivative right, must be an absolute natural right as well. This is so because without an absolute right to self-defense the right not to be killed can hardly be regarded as a right, as it provides its owner no effective tools to protect it. Self-defense plays a major role in resisting the threat posed by an aggressor. It also has an additional role in the defense against an indirect threat to autonomy, a threat generated by the fear and instability that the lack of such a right would bring about. It constitutes one of the basic conditions that allow people to live together in society. One of the reasons we value life is because it is a necessary precondition to the possibility of autonomy, of pursuing various personal and communal goals. Thus, the right to self-defense can be partly explained by reason of its implications for autonomy. No matter how comprehensive the rules of a given society are, there will always be situations where one is unable to turn to the community for help. Unless the possibility to defend oneself is recognized in these situations, the risks associated with living in a society would increase. Given that life is a precondition of (or at any rate, closely connected to) autonomy, the protection of these two interests is inseparable; even if we justify the right of self-defense in terms of defending ones life from an imminent unjust threat, the defense of life is, inter alia, a defense of autonomy. Contention 2: The right to self-defense succeeds the right to life. Subpoint A: An abuser falls into a state of war with the abused. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Sect. 16

THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, ;it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. This clearly states that Locke, a believer of the inalienable right to life, advocated the right to self-defense above that right to life. In the name that man must be preserved, and all cannot be, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred. In the resolution, the life of the victim is to be held higher than the life of the abuser. Subpoint B: Without the right to self-defense, the right to life cannot be exercised. In order of importance, the right to self-defense must be held higher than the right to life. While it is true that without life, one cannot exercise any other rights, it is also true that without the right to self-defense, one cannot protect any other rights. Therefore, robbing an individual of their right to self-defense ends in the same

consequence as robbing an individual of the right to life. The right to self-defense must be seen as higher than the right to life because without self-defense, the right to life cannot exist, as it does not allow the owner any way to protect that right. Ayn Rand continues on the link between the right to life and the right to self-defense The necessary consequence of mans right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. Contention 3: Self-defense is a moral imperative. The right to self-defense falls under a category of rights entitled security rights, which protect people against crimes such as murder, torture, and rape. Not only is self-defense morally permissible, but it is also a moral imperative. Goodmark argues According to Kant, punishment was a categorical imperative; the imposition of punishment was not just permissible, but morally required simply because wrongdoing had occurred. Punishment restores the moral balance that is upset when a crime occurs. So, self-defense is morally imperative, as the abuser threatened the victims rights and well-being that can only be reversed when the victim exercises self-defense. Once the victim has been threatened (in other words, once the abuser has abused the victim), self-defense becomes valid until the threat of the abuser has vanished.

The affirmative restores morality by advocating the moral permissibility of selfdefense. Negating opposes such an advocacy and therefore condemns self-defense as morally impermissible, meaning that morality cannot be restored and allows for the rights of the victim to still be undermined by the abuser. Therefore, negating opposes morality, and since morality is the only value that can answer the resolution, my opponent cannot fulfill his burden. Therefore, I urge an affirmative ballot.

Você também pode gostar