The Instigator
tmaa
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

It is Morally Permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,602 times Debate No: 5480
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

tmaa

Pro

Resolve; It is Morally Permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of other innocent people. For this resolution I offer Utilitarianism as my Value Premise and Egalitarianism as my Value Criterion. Also I offer a few definitions to clarify the resolution. Morally Permissible; conforming to a normative standard of right and wrong…..Kill; to end ones life……Save; to rescue from danger or loss.
I will also define my Values, first my Value Premise, Utilitarianism; The Greatest good for the greatest amount of people….Next is my Value Criterion, Egalitarianism; This says that everybody is born equal.

With this resolution once you are able to decide on your priorities such as saving the group of innocent people over the one innocent person then you are able to see how Egalitarianism is used, once Egalitarianism is used you are able to reach the main goal of Utilitarianism. Because Egalitarianism says that everybody is equal from birth, you are able to reach the conclusion that saving more than one life at the cost of only one life would be more humane and would reach the overall goal of Utilitarianism. Not only would this reach the overall goal of Utilitarianism it would also give a greater chance for people to benefit society as a whole, because since there is a larger number of people then there is a greater chance for one of those people to do something great that has a "revolutionary" change on our society.
beem0r

Con

I hypothetically accept utilitarianism for this debate, but egalitarianism is clearly wrong. Everyone is not born equal. A severe retard is not equal to an Einstein. A monkey is not equal to a human. Clearly we are born different, and we are further differentiated throughout life.

Thus, my first form of negation: Since people are not inherently equal, using utilitarianism it would often not be right to kill one Einstein to save two severe retards. This is because the one Einstein has much more utility than the two severe retards.

Next, I will point out that preservation of human life is not always a utilitarian goal. Human life over a certain amount contributes to overpopulation. Human life contributes to pollution. Some human life contributes to crime and other related things, directly causing negative utility. Even at no cost, utilitarianism would have us not save these people.

And lastly, I will point out that killing is not equal to failing to save. One is an explicit choice to destroy someone, the other is a mere lack of action. The very act of killing may very well have negative effects. It may cause others to follow suit. It may cause severe psychological problems in the killer and any witnesses, especially if said killing is brutal. The very effort one must put into the killing is a negative effect, however small. These negative effects could surely lead to a negative utility in killing one to save multiple.

Also, consider that utilitarianism may not be a proper criterion on which one should base morals. In this light, another negation applies - common moral code dictates that only in certain situations is it permissible to kill - when the person you're killing is trying to kill you or someone else. This is rarely the case in scenarios for this resolution.

The resolution is stated as a rule, however, it is something that only applies on a case-by-case basis, and therefore isn't a meaningful statement at all. I therefore ask that ye vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tmaa 8 years ago
tmaa
:D Im glad i posted my Aff Case i needed to see how much it really sucked, i wrote this in 10 minutes for my debate class which is full of people in debate 1 so i didnt really feel like going into detail, i just hope my classmates arent nearly as smart as yall, if they are im sooo screwed, so yes this was my LD case for my class and i only did one round cuz i didnt feel like going back and forth against someone who was obviously more experianced than I, Thanks for all of your Critism ill make sure to use it when i finish writing this case, and yea that was only my first cont. :P
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Everything > LD debate.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Mock Trial > Congress > LD debate.
Posted by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
Jeez...
I agree with Cirro...
I hope you guys aren't LD debaters and these are your cases
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Gotcha.

Also, I was thinking Egalitarianism meant something other than what he said, I just couldn't remember it and didn't feel like looking it up ;]
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Oh and aff. you should have defined egalitarianism as: everyone is born with equal intrinsic rights.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Well, its starts with resolved because the debate is over resolving it. Should it be affirmed or negated? Once the judge answers that question, then they have resolved the "question". Take this topic for instance, exchange resolved with: Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people? Basically, resolved means "Is it..."
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Why do they always start with "Resolved:"? It seems like if an issue is being debated, it's anything but resolved.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
You r right, the resolutions start off with "resolved:" However this is the September-October LD topic, and he stated a value and value criterion. so this was an LD round. But he was horrible, at least you did a good job at debating. And yeah, LD can't be 1 round...
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Well then, all I'll say is that this was clearly not an LD debate. LD debates probably can't even be 1 round, but if they can, I still don't know anything about them, and my opponent apparently doesn't either.
I have no experience with LD debate [or any type of formal debate].
Also, don't LD debates always start with "Resolved:"? Not that it makes any sense to me whatsoever.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
tmaabeem0rTied
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: Con, clearly stronger response.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
tmaabeem0rTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by tmaa 8 years ago
tmaa
tmaabeem0rTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
tmaabeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07