The Instigator
resolutionsmasher
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
daSnowman1183
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other innocent..

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
resolutionsmasher
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,229 times Debate No: 7634
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

resolutionsmasher

Con

I am con so I will let aff go first.
The full resolution is this:
Resolved: It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of multiple other innocent people.
You must debate LD style using value, criterion, and contentions.
daSnowman1183

Pro

Well first I'd like to start off by saying good luck to my opponent and I hope we have a good debate!

Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of multiple other innocent people.

I agree with the resolution for the following reasons:

1) In the resolution, the author fails to mention whether or not either of the innocent people are any more important to societal good than another. Having said that, because they are simply the same, quality over quantity, more people saved is more important.

2) Also in the resolution, the reason for the death of the innocent people is unknown making this debate tough to determine whether or not it is justified. If a terrorist has a bomb on a train with a civilian hostage and to stop the terrorist you must kill him or her and the hostage to save 100 other innocent people, why would you, the voters, choose the one person over the 100 other people?

3)(this argument is just for fun but very philosophical) Today, in society, the value of life is not as important as you might think. Abortions are taken with the slightest thought, suicides and gang violence are reported on the news everyday but no one really pays attention. Even war is glorified as a soldier who died for their country receives a medal of honor. The point is, no one will live for ever. No one. The one person you saved over the 100 other people could have stepped off the train and got hit by a car. What then? The real question to be asked is whether or not the quality of life is superior over the quantity of life (how long you will live).

good luck to my opponent !
Debate Round No. 1
resolutionsmasher

Con

resolutionsmasher forfeited this round.
daSnowman1183

Pro

daSnowman1183 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
resolutionsmasher

Con

First of all my opponent did not put his case in LD format and thus is not meeting the criteria I put on this debate.

"Never can the death of a human being be justified, whether through actively killing another or doing nothing to save another from death. Both are equally wrong and non-justifiable." Because I agree with this statement as said by Mahatma Gandhi I must negate the following the resolution.

Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

For clarity in today's debate I offer the following definitions of key terms and phrases from Merriam Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Morally - according to the rules of morality
Permissible - That may be permitted; allowable; admissible.
Kill - to cause to die.
Innocent - An innocent person; one free from, or unacquainted with, guilt or sin.
Lives - The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death.

The negative value in today's debate shall be morality. Morality is the highest value in today's debate because the resolution demands as much. Morality is a set of rules that define the right and wrong in human behavior. These rules are typically vague, but in the case of human life there is no discrepancy. Any one life is of intrinsic value and thus cannot be put into mathematical terms of one vs. many.

Because of this the negative criterion in today's debate shall be Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract Theory. Rousseau stated that all people have the inalienable right to life. Inalienable rights are rights that are given by either God, Nature, or chance/luck. Thus the only entity that can rightfully and morally take these rights away for any purpose is God, Nature, or Chance. Since no person is one of these three entities then no one cannot under any circumstance take away the life of another, including themselves.

The negative will offer a sole contention to offer in today's debate.
Contention: There is no morraly justifiable way to choose the one person. Thus there is no morrally justified way to uphold the resolution.
Sub-Point A: The single person in question cannot morrally give away their life for the rest. Since this one person is not one of the three given entities listed in my criterion then they cannot rightfully take their own life. Doing so would violate Rousseau's Social Contract, and therefore not value morality. Thus this option does not apply in this debate.
Sub-Point B: The group of innocent people mentioned in the resolution also cannot make that decision. First of all, such a decision is selfish and sinful. According to my definition of innocent, one must be free of such selfishness and sinfulness. If the group were to do this they would no longer be innocent and thus couldn't be applied to the resolution and wouldn't be relevant to this debate. In spite of this they would still be breaking social contract and thus would be violating morality.
Sub-Point C: No outside entity can morally choose the singe person. To do so they would cease to be innocent as I've proven in my Sub-Point B, and no non-innocent person or persons has the right to choose the fate of an innocent person. They would also cease to uphold Social Contract.
Sub-Point D: The person to be killed cannot be chosen through chance such as drawing straws and such. This is because it is still not a matter of chance. If they were chosen then they have a choice. One, they could accept the decision and give their life willingly. If so then just refer to my Sub-Point A to negate that option's morality. Or two, they refuse the decision and thus refuse to give their life. This would be a selfish act and thus that person's innocence would be negated. If that happens then it no longer applies to the resolution and is thus not relevant to this debate.

In conclusion I would like to point out that if you cannot morally choose the one then you cannot morally sacrifice anyone. I have shown in my contention and its sub-points how all possible methods of choosing are not moral and thus negate this resolution.

I will now attack my opponent's case.

In my opponent's first point he states, "Because they are simply the same, quality over quantity, more people saved is more important." This is blatently false. John Locke, a man we founded our nation upon said this, "All lives are of intrinsic value and thus killing one is just as horrible as killing a million." Thus we can conclude that not only is killing the one to save the many immoral but allowing the many to die is also immoral. Thus there is no moral way to look at this situation.

My opponent's second point is this, "The reason for the death of the innocent people is unknown making this debate tough to determine whether or not it is justified." This is of cource irrelevent. The resolution gives us a specific situation and it is this. You can kill one person actively and save more people or you can not kill one person actively and kill many passively. That is the situation and that is what we have to make our decision off of. Because of this we must negate the resolution.

My opponent's final point talks about the possibilities of people. What they could become if they were to live. This is irrelevent since it applies to both parties and both parties could eventually become either good or bad for the future. Thus this arguement is negated.

I have proven why affirming the resolution is wrong and why negating it is correct. Thus.....

RESOLUTION IS NEGATED.

thank you
daSnowman1183

Pro

because my opponent is against killing one innocent person in order to save the lives of other innocent people. I am guessing he would be for a debate on it is morally permissible to kill the lives of many people in order to save one innocent person...

btw... where did you get your GED from?

lol...
Debate Round No. 3
resolutionsmasher

Con

I do not appreciate the insult put into my opponent's last round. I am still in High school and thus don't have any degree. Despite this I am well on my way to a masters degree in Secondary Education at UCO.

As for the debate, I would not take the Pro side on the case: It is morally permissible to kill the lives of many people in order to save one innocent person. I believe killing one to save many is immoral. I also believe letting many die so as to not kill the one is also immoral.

Basically if you get stuck in this situation you are royally SCREWED.

thank you and vote for neg.
daSnowman1183

Pro

ok well the GED comment just has to say that you should probably use the spell check option more often...

anyways, after reading my opponents arguments, all he said was that it was PERMISSIBLE not "permissable" to kill many people save one life... he claims that all humans lives are equal... he did not display any evidence of why it is NOT permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of other innocent people.

therefore, he did not disprove any of my arguments false...

I now conclude this debate with one last argument:

if all lives are created equal, then how is it equal to save one life and let many more die?

I let you decide...
thank you!
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Runescape sucks!!!!!!!!!!
Halo rocks!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Chuckles 7 years ago
Chuckles
snowman: STFU
all you are doing is making an A$$ of yourself.
Jersey's beaches are sh*t
You make fun of him for being a kid but at least he's acting with a bit of courtesy and respect, not to mention MATURITY.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
seven people are reporting you as I speak. I hope you enjoyed your time on debate.org It's almost over.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
If you are accusing me of homosexuality. Is you are then you are dead wrong. I do not participate in such activities and I would ask that you cease and desist your mindless ramblings before I report you.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
At least I'm not from Jersey.
Posted by daSnowman1183 7 years ago
daSnowman1183
haha shenagans.. wow... do you honestly take pride in an online debate ?? obviously you spend wayyy too much time indoors... oh wait, maybe you go out and play tag with your friends.. lmao
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
daSnowman1183, ?!your're calling me retarded when you can't even come up with a good debate?! While they are not all separate people it is someone else. And you, daSnowman1183, are wasting there time with your shenanigans.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Those aren't separate people.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Just the 114 people so far. idiot.
Posted by daSnowman1183 7 years ago
daSnowman1183
hahaha many people? what are you so self righteous that you actually believe so many people come through this website and read your debates? haha wow...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 7 years ago
dragonfire1414
resolutionsmasherdaSnowman1183Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by daSnowman1183 7 years ago
daSnowman1183
resolutionsmasherdaSnowman1183Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by LuxEtVeritas 7 years ago
LuxEtVeritas
resolutionsmasherdaSnowman1183Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
resolutionsmasherdaSnowman1183Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Vote Placed by Urania 7 years ago
Urania
resolutionsmasherdaSnowman1183Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
resolutionsmasherdaSnowman1183Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70