The Instigator
N0yer
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
DB8ISSUES17
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Is It Ok, to kill one person, to save a thousand?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
N0yer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,001 times Debate No: 42781
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

N0yer

Pro

I will argue yes it is okay to kill one person, to save the lives of many others. In order to achieve a great end result or outcome, it would require us to do evil.
DB8ISSUES17

Con

Although it may seem as if the life of one person is miniscule compared to the lives of thousands, I must disagree that it is okay to kill one person to save a thousand. This is because even though it is only the life of one, it is still a life nonetheless. This person may still have years to live, yet you would choose to end that--to kill off whatever opportunities he/she may still have in his/her life for others. Now I don't mean to offend anyone in anyway, but one of the clearest ways to think of it is like this: let's say your mother was the one who, if she were to die, would save the lives of millions. Would you be willing to do that? I think not. No matter how important the person whose life must be forsaken to save the lives of others is, there will always be people who will miss him/her. You would be bringing sadness and depression upon others who may not have done anything in their life to deserve it. Every child has a mother, no matter how old or young--just imagine the grief this mother would feel to learn of her child's sudden death only because thousands of others didn't know how to save themselves.
Debate Round No. 1
N0yer

Pro

You have made some good points, but i think the needs for the many outweighs the needs for the few. You say killing off one person even though they may have some years to live. Would that work for an evil doer, such as Bin laden? I think most people agree that the world would be better of without him. Yes it affect emotions of those close to him, but the goal being is to enhance the protection of life. I will argue the mother example you made. If you let your mother or whoever you are close with live, you just condemned the other millions of people to death witch would create even more depression and sadness.
DB8ISSUES17

Con

To address your point with Osama bin Laden: although he was a threat to society and killed thousands in the 9/11 bombing, he was only a terrorist. Why do you think we have institutions such as Guantanamo Bay? These institutions are to hold terrorists who threaten the safety of the United States and gain information for the continued safety of our nation. Although I do not personally agree with the methods of Guantanamo Bay, I still believe it would have been more practical to keep Osama bin Laden in a detainment center to gain information on other potential terrorist actions than to kill him. Also to address your argument against my point concerning the mother, would you honestly be willing to subject your loved one--someone who has loved you and cared for you all your life--to the cruel hand of murder? I think not; maybe the death of one would be contributing to the betterment of the whole, but it still doesn't justify killing someone as "okay." A death is still a death, no matter the numbers. How could you possibly justify one sin for another?
Debate Round No. 2
N0yer

Pro

What if the evil doers in this world cannot be captured unharmed in the means of being locked up and detained? What if they continue their reign in the world doing harm to hundreds or thousands of people in their lifetime because we cannot find a moral way to take stop them? You are right, i will not decide my mothers fate, ill have her know whats at stake, and the choice will be her own. However, will you kill thousands indirectly because you were afraid to kill one person directly? I am not saying a life is not precious, but 1 life vs. 10(0)+? I would make a choice that will harm the less people and benefit the many. If you don not choose to save the many, you will have to live the guilt and the many deaths on your conscious. A person who does not act is as bad as a person acting wrong. The end result for me would be to save the many as opposed to saving one, because regardless of what that person means to the rest of us. There would be likely just as many people who identify with those in the many we save. Majority wins.
DB8ISSUES17

Con

Even if there is no initial way to stop the evildoer, there will always be some successful method that does not require cold-blooded murder. Think about it: when someone is mad about something, they naturally have violent tendencies. If people were to approach him/her with more violence, they would only be fighting fire with fire--and maybe even burn a house down. The hearts of people are the same; some choose to lock away the darkness while others let it all out. But somewhere, among all that darkness, is love. It may be difficult, but it's not impossible, to touch that lonely place in the hearts of evildoers, setting people on a course for the better. Maybe it'll only take a few months, or maybe it'll take a few years, but there's always a chance to start over. People make mistakes, some big some small. I am not saying we must forgive them, but I believe each person deserves a second chance at life. Now to address the initial question at hand: yes, you may be saving more lives if you kill the one person, but your conscious would still be ridden with guilt. An example would be the millions of soldiers sent overseas each day to fight and kill people who threaten the safety of civilians. Yet these soldiers do not feel happy about what they have done; many are diagnosed with PTSD--they are scarred by the scared, dead faces of those they had killed. Even THEY know that although they are protecting the lives of "thousands," it is not okay to kill the life of one. Therefore, I strongly urge a CON ballot in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by msheahan99 3 years ago
msheahan99
N0yerDB8ISSUES17Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I applaud both debaters, but ultimately the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Pro made much more convicning arguments on this, however it felt like con had no chance from the start. Con wins spelling because I saw a few errors in grammar on pro's side. Con stated that "there will always be be some more successful method that does not require cold blooded murder" However this is off topic, because the debate is over if or if they should kill one or a thousand. The option of zero is not presented. Thus these arguments cannot be counted. Ultimately this was a surprisingly close debate round, however pro wins because as he stated the means of the many outweigh the needs of the few.