The Instigator
Seagull
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,874 times Debate No: 89730
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (3)

 

Seagull

Pro

I recently debate this topic with N7. (1) As is was my first debate and I am working to impove I would like to try my hand at this topic again. I did make a subtle change. The resolution is now a question. This is important to notice as I want the burden of proof to be shared in this debate. It will be my burden to argue that it is morally permissable, while my opponnet will need to argue that it is not.

I have set the character limit to 6,000 and the time between rounds to 3 days. Please do not accept without permission. If you would like to debate this, please comment on the debate.

(1) http://www.debate.org...
ssadi

Con

I accept and thank the instigator, who will be called as Pro from now on, for initiating such an interesting debate..

Pro didn't post any argument in round 1, therefore I will wait and post my arguments in round 2 so that we had equal rounds to post our arguments.

Since the instigator didn't provide any definition s etc., I will do instead.


DEFINITIONS

Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conductor the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.[1]

Kill: cause the death of, slay.[2]



STRUCTURE


Round 1: Acceptance, definitions etc. No arguments.

Round 2: Arguments.

Round 3: Rebuttals only. No new arguments.

Round 4: Defense of arguments. No new arguments.



BURDEN OF PROOF (BOP)


I will just repeat what Pro stated about the BOP in round 1, but in complete form:

Pro argues that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Con argues that it is not morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.



RULES


1) Follow the definitions.

2) Follow the structure.

3) No insult.

4) Sources must be given within the text of the debate, when provided.


I will stop here and wait for my opponents arguments in round 2 and wish them best of luck. I hope this will be an interesting and fruitful debate.

Debate Round No. 1
Seagull

Pro

Value and Criterion

Due to morality being referenced in the resolution, it is the core value that should be upheld in this debate. Morality is simply defined as “conforming to the rules of right conduct.” (1) The central query of the resolution is whether killing one innocent person to save more than one can be conforming to the rules of right conduct. The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism and The Greatest Happiness Principle

Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." (2) This demonstrates that desires exists and that the ultimate desire is happiness.

Utilitarianism demonstrates that an actions morality is determined in “proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”(3) Put another way; “Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else.)”(4) The determining factor is not personal preference or belief, rather, it is happiness.

Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy. Utilitarian ethics is a reasonable and effective way to determine morality.

Affirmative Case

Let us now apply our understanding of utilitarianism and the greatest happiness principle to the resolution. As Utilitarianism is based on what is “likely,” or what “tends to” promote happiness. We simply have to ask the following question; what is “likely produce the most happiness overall?”

Perhaps you have seen the Star Trek movie 'The Wrath of Khan.' (Spoiler alert!)There is a pivotal moment when Spock successfully restores power to the warp drive so the Enterprise can escape an explosion. He did this knowing he would die. During this, Spock explains that "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", in which Kirk replies "or the one." Spock essentially kills himself to save the ship, i.e. one life to safe many. By killing one innocent to save more innocent Spock protected and preserved more happiness. Thus according to our moral criterion such an action is morally permissible.

Similarly, suppose that your spouse child, or friend, is tied to a railroad track with a train approaching that is carrying 100 people. You are at the switch, but if you switch the train away from your loved one, it will run over a broken bridge off a high cliff with jagged rocks and a raging current hundreds of feet below. What should you do? Why?

It is clear based on our moral framework that the moral action would be to save the 100. In fact, it would seem reasonable to say that any other action is immoral. This is clear as the action that would be most “likely,” or what “tends to” promote happiness is to save the 100. This demonstrates that killing one innocent to save more than one is not only permissible but it may even be immoral not to.

It then follows that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Sources

(1) http://www.dictionary.com...
(2) http://www.utilitarianism.com...
(3) http://www.utilitarianism.com...

(4) http://www.ucs.mun.ca...

ssadi

Con

I thank Pro for posting their arguments for R2.


INTRODUCTION


Let’s simplify the condition of the resolution. There are two options with two outcomes. In the first option 1 innocent person will die & many other innocent people will be saved. In the second option the lives of many innocent people will be saved & only 1 innocent person will die. There are different cases for such a condition which we will now discuss each of them separately.


KILLING AN INNOCENT PERSON IS IMMORAL


There are mainly 3 cases where a person is left with causing the death of 1 innocent person so that the lives of many innocent people were saved OR vice versa:

1 - Killing 1 innocent person OR killing more innocent people

2 - Killing 1 innocent person so that more innocent people were saved O not killing 1 innocent person so that more innocent people were saved

3 - Saving 1 innocent person OR saving more innocent people

These are three different cases in which there are two outcomes; one innocent person will die & many innocent people will be saved or one innocent person will be saved & many will die. Let’s discuss all three cases above separately to understand what is right & what is wrong according to moral principles.


1 - Killing 1 innocent person OR killing more innocent people


It is obvious that both killing 1 innocent person & killing more innocent people are immoral, the only thing is that killing 1 innocent person is less immoral as compared to killing more innocent people. But this obviously doesn’t make killing 1 innocent person morally permissible, the only thing it can do at most is making it less immoral.

Therefore, killing 1 innocent person is not morally permissible in the first case.


2 - Killing 1 innocent person so that more innocent people were saved OR not killing 1 innocent person so that more innocent people were saved


We all agree that in normal conditions killing an innocent person is immoral. But the question is whether it is morally permissible when killing an innocent person can save lives of more innocent people. In other words, is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person when not doing so results in death of more innocent people? So there are two options:

1 - killing an innocent person,

2 - not killing an innocent person.

E.g., there are these bad guys & there are many innocent people. These bad guys give you 2 options.. They bring 1 innocent person & tell you that if you killed that innocent person, then they would not kill the other innocent people. But if you didn’t, then they would kill all other innocent people. Here the choice given to you is actually not saving those other innocent people but it is killing that 1 innocent person. Because if you didn’t kill that 1 innocent person, then it is not you who kills those other innocent people, therefore it is not you who would be responsible for their death, but it is the bad guys. & if you killed that 1 innocent person, then it would not be you who saves the lives of those innocent people, but the bad guys.. So your actual options are killing 1 innocent person or not. Now the question that we should ask is as follows:

Is it morally permissible for you to kill 1 innocent person or not?

The answer is obviously not, because your choice is saving 1 innocent person or killing him while he doesn’t deserve death & you don’t have any right to kill him. Everyone has right to live & no one can decide on who lives & who dies, if they are all innocent.

Furthermore, killing 1 innocent person is not only killing him. He may have family, parents, brothers & sisters, relatives, friends etc. Killing him is also hurting all of those people very much. No one has right to do such a thing. Doing so is obviously not morally permissible. Neither does that one innocent person deserve death nor do those who are close to him deserve to be hurt in that way.

Here the immorality is with killing an innocent person while he doesn’t deserve it. Therefore, killing him is not morally permissible.

Briefly, we have to ask this question:

Does that 1 innocent person deserve death?

If not, then killing him is not MORALLY permissible, no matter what the outcomes would be. But even if in extreme cases one decided to kill one innocent person so that many innocent people were saved, then at most it could be LESS IMMORAL, hence still immoral, therefore, not morally permissible..


3 - Saving 1 innocent person or saving more innocent people


This is the case where you don’t kill anyone; you just choose to save 1 or many innocent people. E.g., someone else tries to kill many innocent people. You have two options; either you save 1 innocent person or many innocent people from being killed by someone else. In this case saving more innocent people is morally permissible & it is obviously a better choice than saving only 1 innocent person because you are not killing any innocent person, you are just saving many innocent people. Since this case is very similar to Pro’s example of train with 100 people, then if I go into the details & provide some examples they could be considered as direct rebuttals to Pro’s arguments which is against the structure of the debate.

So, I will conclude this case for now by saying that it is morally permissible to save more innocent people than saving 1 innocent person if you don’t kill any innocent person in either case, even if someone else does. I will provide detailed explanation for this case in R3 as a rebuttal to Pro’s example.

Please note that it is still not killing one innocent person to save many. Therefore, it doesn’t affirm the resolution..


CONCLUSION


I wish Pro best of luck in R3 & would like to remind them that they can only provide rebuttals, no new arguments are allowed.

Debate Round No. 2
Seagull

Pro

In addition to thanking Ssadi for accepting this debate, I want to thank him for taking the time to articulate his argument. I am sure our back and forth will prove beneficial to us and all who read. I also want to make clear that I accept the format suggested for this debate. This is important as from this point on in the debate “no new arguments” can be given. All we can do is rebut and defend the already existing arguments. With that, let us dive right in. Ssadi makes a few mistakes in his round that are devastating to his case. The first and most minor is the appeal to what he calls the Obvious. Next, his concession that killing one innocent to save more innocent is somehow less immoral than killing itself. Lastly and the most overwhelming is his implicit acceptance the utilitarian calculus. Let’s examine each in turn.

1: The Appeal to the Obvious

Several times in Con’s round he makes an assertion which is then justified by him as simply “obvious.” This seems to be done in lieu of providing reasoning or justification of his arguments. This is harmful to his case as it makes most of it a bare assertion. In other words, my opponents reasoning often boils down to “that just how it is.” Contrast this with my opening argument. I provided an argument for what is moral, and a mechanism by which it can be measured. Thus, rather than claiming something as obviously moral and leaving it there, you can measure for yourself. What’s worse is he is no longer able to provide a new argument per the rules. This is especially damaging to con as he has not recommended an alternative moral philosophy. This is troubling because even if Utilitarianism is found to be imperfect, it is the only moral framework presented.

2: Less immoral

Twice in Con’s round you will find him arguing that killing one innocent is not morally permissible, only to then state that under some circumstances it is “less immoral.” This resolution in question implies a lesser of two evils scenario, that is to say whether my case or my opponents, the end result is innocent life being lost. Neither scenario of itself will produce happiness due to this circumstantial nature. Thus, due to Utility we must focus on which case preserves or protects more happiness. Thus if of the two options available, there is one that is “less moral” that is the morally permissible action to take.

3: Implicit acceptance of Utilitarianism

Along with not providing his own moral framework, you will notice in con’s round he accepts a utilitarian calculus. Consider when he said the following; “Furthermore, killing 1 innocent person is not only killing him. He may have family, parents, brothers & sisters, relatives, friends etc. Killing him is also hurting all of those people very much.” The acceptance that the whole suffering produced by an action is to be taken into account of the actions moral status is to accept Utility.

Conclusion:

As my opponent has provided no moral framework, and to do so would constitute a new argument ( against his rules) it is clear that my moral framework is the one to use in this debate. Con even implicitly accepts Utilitarianism. As Utilitarianism is based on what is “likely,” or what “tends to” promote happiness. We simply have to answer the following question; what is “likely produce the most happiness overall?” Clearly, killing one innocent to save more than one innocent person is morally permissible.

The resolution is affirmed.
ssadi

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posting their rebuttals in R3. Here I will only address their arguments in R2 and try to show that none of them affirms the resolution.


REBUTTALS



Pro provides a new concept for morality, namely utilitarianism, and then gives 2 examples to affirm the resolution. I will show that none of Pro’s examples can affirm the resolution, regardless of what morality is.



SPOCK'S DEATH


The first argument of Pro is the example of Spock, in a Sci-Fi movie, saving the Enterprise from explosion knowing that he will die.[1]



The term “killing” is usually used for “killing someone else” where the case of Spock is sacrificing his own life or at most it can be called as a suicide. Sacrificing one’s own life is completely different than killing 1 (e.g., another) innocent person and something being true in the first case cannot be generalized to the latter.



The resolution is whether killing any innocent person is morally permissible or not to save lives of many innocent people, whereas Pro’s first example is about one’s sacrificing his own life, not killing another or any innocent person. Therefore, it cannot be generalized to “killing one (i.e., anyone) innocent person”.



Shortly, Pro’s first example doesn’t affirm the resolution in general, exception is a special case where someone sacrifices his own life to save others, regardless of what the concept of morality is.




TROLLEY PROBLEM



The second and final example of Pro to affirm the resolution is similar to trolley problem[2], as illustrated in the following figure[3].




The trolley problem is about whether it is morally permissible to switch the train towards 1 person tied to the rails to save many. It is argued that the right choice to be made is to switch the train away from many people towards one person tied to the rails, to which I agree. This was actually what I wanted to give as an example under my arguments for “3 - Saving 1 innocent person or saving more innocent people”. But I didn’t do so because it could be considered as a rebuttal to Pro’s second example. Now let’s see if this example affirms the resolution of our debate or not.



As I explained in R1, it is saving 1 innocent person or saving more than 1 innocent people, not killing anyone. Let me illustrate that the person who switches the train is not killing anyone; he is only choosing to save many people rather than 1 person.



In the trolley problem switching the train to either ways turns the problem into one of the followings.



1. Switching away from many people:






2. Switching away from 1 person:






For any of the above cases the question is “Who killed those tied people?” Is it the man standing there unable to do anything else? Or is it those inside the train who also were unable to do anything? I argue that the killer is the person or people who tied those people on the rails and left them to death. I assume you agree with me.



Since we know who the killer is, now we can properly interpret both cases as follows:



1) Switching the train away from many people means that the person saved many people from death and those who tied the other 1 person killed him by tying him there and leaving him to death.



2) Switching the train towards many tied people means that the person saved only 1 person from death and those who tied many people killed them by tying them to the rails and leaving them to death.



So, both in trolley problem and in Pro's scenario, the question is about saving 1 innocent person or many from those who tried to kill them by tying them. It is obvious that saving many is better than saving 1 and it is not killing 1 person.



Note that the trolley problem is constructed in such a way that it actually creates an illusion to distract the attention from those who tied those people on the rails and draws the attention to switcher's decision.



Therefore, Pro’s second example is also not about killing 1 innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people, hence it doesn’t affirm the resolution.




A POSSIBLE OBJECTION



If one objects that Pro’s examples can be considered as “killing 1 innocent person to save many”, they would still not affirm the resolution according to utilitarianism, as Pro argued, since overall happiness is not promoted in both cases.



For Pro's first example, imagine the moment before the problem of explosion appeared and assume the level of happiness as zero at that point. Let’s give numbers to levels of happiness as follows; the happiness becomes -1 if 1 person dies. If the Enterprise exploded, then everyone on board would die where the overall happiness would become -50 (assumed there were 50 people). Spock had two choices, either to let the happiness to decrease to -50 or to decrease only to -1 from 0 happiness. He chose the latter and as a result the happiness decreased to -1 from 0. What is the overall change in happiness? It is -1, hence the overall happiness is decreased. It is actually true because how can one think the happiness increased when a person died? The happiness only decreased less, no happiness is promoted.



Therefore, although Spock’s choice was right, it cannot be said that it was moral according to utilitarianism because the overall happiness wasn’t promoted. On the contrary, the happiness was decreased from 0 to -1, hence immoral.



Note that according to utilitarianism, none of Spock’s choices could be considered as moral, since in both cases the overall happiness is decreased.



Similarly, Pro’s second example is also immoral according to utilitarianism since at least a person dies which would decrease the overall happiness to -1.



This shows a flaw/paradox of utilitarianism though.




CONCLUSION



It is demonstrated that none of Pro’s examples is about killing 1 innocent person to save many. Even if they were, they would still not be moral according to utilitarianism. Therefore Pro's arguments cannot affirm the resolution.



I wish Pro best of luck in R4.

Debate Round No. 3
Seagull

Pro

Again I would like to express my Gratitude to Ssadi for this debate, it has been a pleasure.

Spock’s Death

I must say I found it odd that Ssadi disqualifies my example of Spock. He contended that “The term killing is usually used for killing someone else.” This is remarkably easy to demonstrate as incorrect. The very fact that such a phrase as “killed someone else” is often used, and not as a redundant phrase illustrates that killing oneself is as much killing as killing someone else. Thus we see that the example from star trek fits into our dilemma perfectly. Spock essentially kills himself to save the ship, i.e. one life to safe many.

The Trolley Problem

It seems to me that the main point of Ssadi’s argument here is the supposed difference between saving many at the expense of the one as opposed to the killing of one to save the many. Even if I grant the difference, con’s reasoning accepts the utilitarian ethic. He states “It is obvious that saving many is better than saving one.” Though he provided no reasoning as to why it is “obvious” I will… Utility. I argued in the first round that “Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else.)” This is seemingly accepted by my opponent. Thus, it is clear that killing one the save more than one is the right thing to do, as it is likely to produce the most happiness.

A Possible exception

Ssadi’s last contention is that Utilitarianism is about promoting happiness, since the result of killing one to save many is still decreasing happiness it is not moral. I fear that if my opponent keeps scraping the bottom of the barrel, he is in danger of getting a splinter. This resolution in question implies a lesser of two evils scenario, that is to say the end result is innocent life being lost. Neither scenario of itself will produce happiness due to this circumstantial nature. Thus, we must focus on which case preserves or protects more happiness. This is a semantic difference at best. Surely we have all heard the phrase that a dollar saved is a dollar earned. Protecting or preserving happiness in a lesser of two evils scenario is essentially the same as promoting happiness.

Conclusion

When reading this debate and voting, please bear in mind the following… My opponent has provided no moral framework. It is clear that my moral framework is the one to use in this debate. Con even implicitly accepts Utilitarianism. As Utilitarianism is based on what is “likely,” or what “tends to” promote happiness. We simply have to answer the following question; what is “likely produce the most happiness overall?” Clearly, killing one innocent to save more than one innocent person is morally permissible. Thanks for reading and voting!
ssadi

Con

Thanks to Pro for posting their arguments in R4.




REBUTTAL TO PRO’S REBUTTALS



Pro doesn’t directly address any of my arguments. I presented 3 cases where 1 person dies while many are saved. I argued that two of these cases are related to our resolution because the choice that a person makes is between killing or not killing 1 innocent person and showed that in both cases killing 1 to save many is not morally permissible. However, the 3rd case is not related to our resolution because the person in question doesn’t kill anyone. Pro fails to address any of these separately.




1: The Appeal to the Obvious



Pro claims that using the word “obvious” makes most of my arguments bare assertion. However, they fail to address where I used them and why it makes them bare assertions. For example, if I said that 5 is obviously greater than 3, then does using “obviously” make this claim a bare assertion? No, it doesn’t. It simply means that “it is true beyond any reasonable doubt”.



The first time I used “obvious” was where I said that killing 1 innocent person or more innocent people (in the first case where there is no saving anyone, but just killing) are obviously immoral. Pro fails to explain why this is a bare assertion.



So, Pro’s claim that most of my arguments are bare assertions due to my use of the word “obvious” is a bare assertion.



In addition Pro claims that I didn’t provide any moral framework. I strongly disagree; I did provide a definition for what is moral in R1 and discussed my arguments according to this definition. Pro, on the other hand, ignored the definition and provided a different concept for morality which was against first rule which was “Follow the definitions”.




2: Less immoral



Pro:
“Twice in Con’s round you will find him arguing that killing one innocent is not morally permissible”


Contrary to Pro’s previous claims, I did give reasons why killing an innocent person is “obviously” immoral under 2nd case:



I:
“Does that 1 innocent person deserve death?

If not, then killing him is not MORALLY permissible..”



An innocent person doesn’t deserve being killed by definition of innocence. Therefore, killing him is distinctly wrong since he doesn’t deserve it. And therefore, by definition of moral in R1, killing an innocent person is not moral, hence not morally permissible.




Pro doesn’t provide anything against my arguments that killing 1 innocent person is not morally permissible, so they concede by default.



Pro:
“..only to then state that under some circumstances it is “less immoral.””



By “less immoral” I was saying that killing 1 innocent person is “still immoral”, but not as immoral as killing many innocent people or may not be as immoral as letting many innocent people die. Therefore, “less immoral” was used to compare it with “more immoral” actions. It is like doing 1 wrong thing is “less wrong” than doing 10 wrong things, but doing 1 wrong thing is still wrong.



Pro: “This resolution in question implies a lesser of two evils scenario, that is to say whether my case or my opponents, the end result is innocent life being lost. Neither scenario of itself will produce happiness due to this circumstantial nature.”



Exactly! It is good to see that Pro agrees that killing 1 innocent person to save many doesn’t produce any happiness since an innocent person is dying. And according to our definition of "moral" in R1, it is still immoral to kill 1 innocent person since he doesn’t deserve it by definition of innocence.



Pro:
“Thus, due to Utility we must focus on which case preserves or protects more happiness.”



Something that preserves or protects more happiness means something that decreases happiness less.



However, according to Utility Pro presented, we must focus on which case “promotes overall happiness”. It means that if the amount of our happiness was H then an action is moral IF AND ONLY IF it promotes/increases H. And according to Utility, anything that promotes the reverse of happiness is immoral. In other words, anything that decreases H is immoral.



Since killing 1 innocent person doesn’t promote happiness, on the contrary it decreases overall happiness (his death, sadness of his family etc.), then it is immoral even according to Utility.



Pro:
“Thus if of the two options available, there is one that is “less moral” that is the morally permissible action to take.



Only if there was a “less moral” option.. But if all options were “immoral”, some being “less immoral than more immoral ones, all of which are still immoral”, then none of them are morally permissible, even according to Utility.



To remove confusions, think of moral things as positive numbers and of immoral things as negative numbers. For example, -1 is less negative than -10, but -1 is still negative. Similarly, “less immoral” still means “immoral” since it is still a negative number.




3: Implicit acceptance of Utilitarianism



Pro claims that I implicitly accepted utilitarianism and they further claim that it is harmful for my case. However, I showed that even according to utilitarianism killing 1 innocent person is not morally permissible. If a person had only 2 options both of which are immoral, then he may choose the one which is less immoral, not because it becomes moral but only because he doesn’t have any other option. Having no other option doesn’t make an immoral action moral, but at most it gives the person an excuse. Excuses are not for moral actions, but for immoral or wrong ones.



The 3rd case in my arguments was not related to “killing 1 innocent person” because the person was not killing anyone to save others. Hence, that case doesn’t affirm the resolution.




CONCLUSION



I provided arguments that negated the resolution both according to definition of morality in R1 and according to Utility. In addition I negated all of Pro’s arguments in R3 and refuted their rebuttals against my arguments in this round.



Many thanks to my opponent for their good conduct in this fruitful debate.


Thanks to voters for their votes in advance..



Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org...

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter more than sufficiently articulates the reasoning that went into his decision. The reporter's disagreements with his interpretations don't represent a breach of any of the standards of moderation, as they are focused on personal grievances with the logic used by the voter. Whether or not they are valid has little bearing on how the vote is moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
@dsjpk5

NP. Thanks for consideration.. :)
Posted by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
Sorry. I just got your message, ssadi.
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
Sure thing, and cheers.
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
@Seagull,

You are very welcome.. It was a pleasure for me, I really enjoyed it. I hope you did too. :)

And thanks to all that read and voted, regardless of our disagreements (if there are any) to their RFDs ;)

Especially I would like to thank @tejretics for their vote, RFD and time for preparing their RFD, I really do appreciate it.
Posted by Seagull 9 months ago
Seagull
Thanks to everyone who read and voted, I am grateful. Thanks again Ssadi for debating me.
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
On reading SkyLeach's vote, I think I agree with most of it. My only caveat is "who won the debate" is the equivalent of "the better debating was done by _______." Con's failure to contest util. cost him the debate on weighing the relative strength of arguments.
Posted by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
Part 11: Extra 7. Feedback

To Pro: First, sacrificing is different from killing. Killing is more of the example of Con's, of bad guys threatening. Your example was sacrificing. They are different. Therefore, I couldn't accept your arguments because Con pointed this out also.

Now, your rebuttals. Make specific rebuttals to all arguments, it's easier for the voters to understand, and it is easier for you to not drop arguments of Con's. You dropped some arguments of Con by making a rebuttal of the entire whole case. Don't do that.

To Con: Not much. Very good job, But if I were you, always make a framework. It makes you a higher chance of winning. Also, you don't need to change this, but can you lower your font? It hurts my eyes.

Vote Con/

Finish RFD
Posted by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
Part 10

6. Outcome/ Conclusion

Good debate. The framework is Utility, it is the only one. For this, Pro has no arguments to have, and in Con's side the arguments are that killing a person is not immoral, etc. Because in Con's side I have arguments, but in Pro's side I don't, Con's burden is filled, and Pro's is not. Therefore, I vote Con.
Posted by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
Part 9

III: Saving 1 innocent person or saving more innocent people

Pro says that there is a choice to not kill anyone, and says that it is in round 3. I already put it in Pro's arguments and Con's rebuttals side.

More of Pro's rebuttals

I: Appeal to the obvious

Pro says that Con is just appealing to the obvious and giving no sources unlike him. Pro says it is a bare assertion.

Con defends by saying that it is reasonable with no doubt like 3 is bigger than 5, not a bare assertion.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
SeagullssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/philosophy/topic/86956/
Vote Placed by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
SeagullssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD here: http://www.debate.org/forums/philosophy/topic/86855/ If not, look at comments too. From VU.
Vote Placed by SkyLeach 9 months ago
SkyLeach
SeagullssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: After reading through this debate, I had to do so again. Once finished, I am left without a clear decision. Essentially, Pro and Con seemed to be arguing semantics for the same side, but differing only on quantization of the solution set. The arguments seemed to be over what counts (adds up) to a moral decision. Pro uses utilitarianism, which is essentially morality-by-arithmatic, while Con is arguing that ethics dictate morality but that ethics are defined by the same quantification of 'adding-up' ethics. Both sides gave good points, but neither side managed to rebut the other's arguments largely because they wanted to use the same technique in their own argument and to rebut the argument would invalidate their own technique. In the end, I feel like I only heard two slightly different perspectives on one side of the debate. While this initially seems to confirm pro, it really leaves me feeling like the assertion itself is uncontested rather than affirmed. Tie.