RESOLUTIONS: Gary plauche killing his child's predator was unethical
POSITION: PRO (I am fine with being PRO. Additionally, my opponent has argued for the CON side, which is what he alluded to in the description. )
- involving or expressing moral approval
- conforming to accepted standards of conduct
- involving questions of right and wrong behavior
With these definitions in mind, let us analyse the resolution. The resolution asks whether or not the killing of some guilty individual is unethical, meaning, if it involves behaviour that does not confirm to accepted standards of conduct (a social field), or is deemed wrong by morality (a philosofical field). I am here to argue that this murder was indeed immoral; and CON is here to argue the opposite, that the murder was not immoral, that it was acceptable by social standards. With this probably vague BoP in mind, I am going to move onto my arguments.
MURDER IS UNETHICAL
Murder means the unlawfull (and intentional) killing of a human being, as opposed to public execution, war, or accidents with lethal results. Murder is considdered wrong by every human society, and its immorality is intellectually undisputed in both religious and philosophical circles, and it has always been. Unless CON specifically denies this point, that murder is unethical, it must be taken as a truism. Now, the killing of Gary Plauche's child molester was not lawfull but intentional, making it murder by definition --- thusly, unethical. No matter the guilt of any person, this holds true. Only an execution after fair trial can be considdered an acceptable punnishment instead of being unethical murder.
EXTRAORDINARY REVENGE IS UNETHICAL
Look at the situation from an objective perspective rather than the very subjective perspective of Gary Plauche. A child has been scarred for life, abused and harrased. The person who did this has done much harm to society, and is therefore what we call "guilty". The guilt of this person is high, as the damage he has done is great. However, does that justify the murder of this individual? If one murders a man that has murdered your friend, then you are taking an eye for an eye, and some imaginary virtue of "fairness" has been established (not saying that the murder of a murderer actually acomplishes anything of value). However, if you murder a man that simply beat up and harrased your friend, or child, then you are not taking an eye for an eye --- you are taking a head for an eye. The so called "punnishment" is unproportional to the crime. If everyone did this, society would collapse. Imagine if we cut of the hands of children because they lied to their parrents, or if merely driving too fast meant you would spend your life in prison.
This is the kind of world that would arrise if everyone did like Gary Plauche. This world would be a dystopia, and anyone who works towards creating such a world is making the world a worse place. Sure Gary Plauche's child is hurt for life, but he that did this has no life anymore. The guilty who is now dead surely has a family and friends. These people have just lost their friend, colleague or employee, and Gary Plauche is thus "guilty" from their perspective. If it was not unethical for Gary Plauche to unlawfully murder a person just because he was "guilty" from his perspective, then surely it can't be unethical to take revenge on him, no? If Gary Plauche's philosophy was applied universally, he would be tortured his entire life for murdering someone. Both Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism would agree that a world where subjective feelings of anger dictate what punishment is dealt, that such a world is bad, and that therefore, acting in this manner is unethical.
Unproportional personal revenge detached from objective justice systems is unethical, beacause it contradicts itself by letting the act of "punnishing" someone be a crime worthy of punishment. If applied universally, this lust for revenge would destroy society as a whole; furhermore, without objective standards for right or wrong, anyone can do anything as long as they see it as just ---- meaning to support "personal justice" is a self-contradictory belief.
Gary Plauche killing his child's predator was unethical --- because murder is unethical, and the ideas justifying it are unethical, self-contradictory and destructive