I affirm.
Based on the wording of the resolution and the tie to moral permissibility,
the value with be morality.
Jeff Landaur and Joseph Rowlands, Importance of Philosophy, 2001
“So that you can live life successfully and happily, you must learn which
values to hold and how to achieve them -- this is your life as your moral standard. All
questions of how to live moral questions (questions of right action) are happily and
successfully, and all moral principles must be measured against how they promote
and benefit your life and happiness.” Thus, the standard will be
Utilitarianism. Targeted killing is intended to promote the best
consequences for the greatest amount of people. Thus, improving living
standards as well as promoting utilitarianism in a morally permissible
manner.
C1: In order for humans to prevail as a organized civilization and morally
correct society, we must not consider the actions we pursue but rather the
consequences of the action – this creates utilitarianism for a extended
amount of time.
1. The only way to promote utilitarianism for an extended amount of
time, is to judge morality based on the consequences and what other
actions they will lead to. If a terrorist is targeted and killed, that is
obviously one less terrorist; the obvious outcome of killing a terrorist
is that they are not going to commit any more terrorist crimes. This is
a good consequence, and that’s what matters.
Conrad D. Johnson, 'The Authority of the Moral Agent', Journal of
Philosophy 82, No 8 (August 1985), pp. 391
If it is
simply wrong to kill the innocent, the wrongness must in some way be
connected to the consequences. That an innocent person is killed must be a
If we follow the usual deontological conception, there are also well-known difficulties.
consequence that has some important bearing on the wrongness of the action; else why be so
concerned about the killing of an innocent? Further, if
it is wrong in certain cases for the agent
to weigh the consequences in deciding whether to kill or to break a promise, it is
hard to deny that this has some connection to the consequences.
Following one line of thought, it is consequentialist considerations of mistrust that stand behind
such restrictions on what the agent may take into account.
Essentially, the only reason why something is wrong or right, is
because of what might or might not happen afterward. The action that
brought the consequences is not of as great importance compared to
the after math. The intended after math of the targeted killing is to
prevent or reduce the amount of terrorist leaders as well as attacks
and prevent casualties. According to great philosopher like Immanuel
Kant and Jeremy Bentham, the intention of the action, whether achived
or not, as well as the outcome of the action is how to judge whether
and idea is morally or ethically correct.
2. Targeted Killing is an effective way of promoting counterterrorism
within states and does in fact, disorganize and slow the process of
Terrorist organizations.
Daniel L. Byman, Professor at Georgetown University and Research
Director of the Saban Center at Brookings Institution, The Targeted Killings
Debate, Expert Roundup, Council on Foreign Relations, June 8, 2011,
http://www.cfr.org/international-peace-and-security/targeted-killingsdebate/p25230
Killing terrorist leaders and key lieutenants not only brings justice to our enemies, but can
devastate the group in question. Killing a leader like bin Laden removes a
charismatic yet pragmatic leader--one who succeeded in transforming a small group
into a household name and proved time and again he could attract recruits and
funding. His replacement, be it Ayman al-Zawahiri or another senior al-Qaeda figure, may prove
less charismatic and less able to unify this fissiparous movement. Some existing affiliates and
cells may split off, and the core might be eclipsed by rivals. Less dramatic, but no less important, is a
campaign against lieutenants and bomb-makers, passport-forgers, travelfacilitators, and others whose skills cannot easily be replaced--essentially what the United
States has been doing since the end of the Bush administration in Pakistan through drone strikes . When these
individuals are hit, and hit again, it is possible to exhaust the terrorist group's
bench. During the Second Intifada, Israel found that initial strikes against Palestinian cell leaders and bombmakers had only a limited impact on the terrorist groups it faced, as eager replacements quickly took over .
Eventually, however, there was a bottom to the barrel and less skilled, less motivated
people took over. An often-neglected impact of killing terrorist leaders is on what they and their group do
not do. When a campaign against lieutenants is in full-gear, they must spend much
of their time in hiding or moving from place to place. Communicating by phone becomes
risky, and the circle of trust shrinks, making meetings or large-scale training
harder to pull off. The hunt for spies within can become all-consuming. In the end, leaders are less
able to lead, and the group's cohesion and strategic direction suffer.
3. Using foreign policy tools such as targeted killing promotes success
for both states’ interests, especially when promoting counterterrorist
ideas – essentially promoting utilitarianism within the states.
U.S Department of State, Diplomacy in Action October 6th 2010
After September 11, 2201, Pakistan’s prominence in the international
community increased significantly, as it pledged its alliance with the U.S in
counterterrorism efforts and made a commitment to eliminate terrorist
camps on its territory. However, regardless of this effort to stop terrorism
and comply, individuals like any of the various al Qaeda members like
Mehsud, Bil Laden. Consequently, the targeted kill of individuals involved
with terrorists such as Al-Aulaqi and Osama, both involved with al-Qaeda
was a success on both ends because both states were involved in an effort
to rid of terrorism, which was accomplished.
-
Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
Judge Patricia M Wald
Terrorist organizations also tend to foster a sense of anonymity or deindividuation among members. By stripping individuals of their identities through
increased anonymity, de-individuation causes people to become less selfaware, feel less responsible for their actions, and become more likely
to engage in violence if placed in a provocative situation. The quasimilitary structure of many terrorist organizations, with their uniforms and clearly identifiable
proscribed rules for behavior, facilitates the processes of deindividuation, conformity, diffusion of responsibility, and ultimately
violence if the terrorist group leadership dictates such behavior.
John Stuart Mill believed those who seek to harm the general good
must be removed from interaction. This is because they prevent the greater
good of humanity. With these individuals against humanity, we are
restrained when it comes to our human race prevailing. According to Mill’s
theory of Utilitarianism, the actions that are morally correct are those that
produce the greatest total amount of human well-being.
C2: More humans will live if we continue to pursue these terrorists and
target kill them.
1. Without this morally permissible foreign policy tool, we cannot provide the
greatest number with the greatest good, preventing humanity from
prevailing.
2.
Washington Post, April 2005:
The numbers were provided instead by the government's new clearinghouse for terrorism-related
National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and included statistics
documenting a sharp surge in significant terrorist acts from 175 incidents
that killed 625 in 2003 to 651 such attacks that killed 1,907 in 2004. But senior
information, the
officials said the threefold increase was a result of changes in methodology and urged reporters at a
hastily called briefing not to compare this year's terrorism numbers with previous ones. Congressional
aides already had disclosed the increase in terrorist incidents to reporters Tuesday after a private briefing.
Not including over 18 attacks that have happened since 2005
A nuclear or biological terrorist attack on the US will happen in the next two
years if counter terrorism efforts are ignoring or put off.
Dave Bohon, Government Panel Predicts WMD Attack by 2013, New American, 6/ 15/10,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3788-government-panel-predicts-wmdattack-by-2013]
terrorists with weapons of massive destruction (WMD)
are likely to attack somewhere in the world in the next three years, and the United
States could be a prime target. According to the Commission on the Prevention
of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, the likelihood is
high that by 2013 terrorists will use WMDs in an attack somewhere in the world,
and while several nations with terrorist ties are now in a race to produce nuclear weapons, the commission’s report says that an attack
using biological weapons is the more likely scenario, with potentially devastating
consequences. Among its recommendations, the commission said it believes that “the U.S. government needs to move more aggressively to limit the proliferation of
The official report from a blue-ribbon panel warns that
biological weapons and reduce the prospect of a bio-terror attack.” The commission, co-chaired by former U.S. Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Jim Talent (R-Mo.), originally reported its
findings in December 2008. During a June 10 press conference to announce legislation aimed at addressing dangers from terrorism, members of the commission joined with members of the
“The consequences of a biological attack are
almost beyond comprehension,” said former Senator Graham. “It would be 9/11
times ten or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed.”
Noting the millions of Americans who died as a result of the epidemic flu virus of
1918, Graham predicted that a lab-generated biological agent in the hands of
terrorists could prove far worse. “Today it is still in the laboratory,” he said, “but if it
should get out and into the hands of scientists who knew how to use it for a
violent purpose, we could have multiple times the 40 million people who were
killed 100 years ago.” In December 2008, at the same time the commission presented its findings, former Director of National
Intelligence Mike McConnell offered a similar assessment of the likelihood of a
biological attack, telling a Harvard University audience, “With weapons of mass
destruction that could result in the death of many people — chemical, biological,
nuclear — we assess biological as the more likely,” adding that “it’s better than
an even chance in the next five years that an attack by one of those weapons
systems will be conducted in some place on the globe.” While emphasizing the likely scenario of a biological attack,
the commission also warned of the danger that exists of nuclear attacks, and cited efforts by
House Homeland Security Committee to address the commission’s findings.
both Iran and North Korea to produce a nuclear weapon. It also cited the specific danger that Pakistan poses to the United States, warning that while the country is officially an ally of the
United States, “the next terrorist attack against the United States is likely to originate from within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas” of Pakistan, which has been identified as a haven
for terrorists. “Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan,” the report stated. Said Graham, “We think time is not our ally,”
warning that
the United States “needs to move with a sense of urgency.”