The Instigator
DenzelUram
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Citrakayah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,224 times Debate No: 34239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

DenzelUram

Con

Morally - in a way that conforms to standards of good behavior
Permissible - allowed
Morally permissible - a good or right behavior or action that is allowed
Innocent - not guilty of a crime or offense
More - a greater or additional amount

I negate the resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people.

Value: Morality

There are ten people on an island with only enough food to support nine people. To say that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people would be to agree with saying that it is morally permissible to kill one of the ten people in order to save them all from starving.

Contention 1:Both actions are immoral
The topic says, "It is morally permissible to kill", killing is always immoral and always wrong. To win this argument my opponent must prove that killing is moral. To say that killing is moral would be to say that it is not a crime and therefore should not be punishable.

Contention 2: To decide to take one person"s life in order to save more would be placing a value on the people themselves. Would you kill one homeless stranger to save several family members? Would you kill one family member to save several homeless strangers? To agree with the current topic you would have to answer yes to both of the questions. According to the constitution, "All men are created equal" so how can one man decide to take the life of another?

Contention 3: It breaks the social contract
The government"s job is to protect all of its citizens, not some or a majority of its citizens. To say that it is morally permissible to kill one to save many would be giving the government the power to chose any person and "sacrifice" them in order to save a majority.
Citrakayah

Pro

Contention 1: True, both are immoral. However, Con has not established that the conscious refusal to carry out an action, with full knowledge of the consequences, cannot be unethical or immoral. Most would agree, I think, that the conscious refusal to carry out an action can be immoral; to consciously withhold food from a starving person most would consider unethical. I will assume that my opponent agrees with this statement.

Now, it's true that killing is generally immoral, but that does not mean there are times when it is the most moral option, and thus morally permissable. For instance, if one is forced to choose between saving three people and saving a hundred people, refusing to help any would make one responsible for 103 deaths, helping three would make one responsible for hundred deaths, and helping a hundred would make one responsible for three deaths. It is better to be responsible for three deaths than a hundred or 103 deaths.

Contention 2: Answer to both questions is yes. And Con hasn't established how the Constitution has any authority in this matter.

Contention 3: Effectively, though, the government can't protect all of its citizens. For instance, the very act of protecting citizens puts other citizens (police) at risk. Worse for Con's argument, just because sacrificing one for the many is morally permissable when it is the only option does not mean such an occurance will be common.
Debate Round No. 1
DenzelUram

Con

DenzelUram forfeited this round.
Citrakayah

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
DenzelUram

Con

DenzelUram forfeited this round.
Citrakayah

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
DenzelUramCitrakayahTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This had potential to be an interesting debate :(
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
DenzelUramCitrakayahTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet, self-defense.