The Instigator
jaden.casey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

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

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 3 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,076 times Debate No: 22018
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

jaden.casey

Pro

>I'm re-opening a very interesting thread that another user had previously opened, but he disabled his account.<
---------------------------------------------------------------
"It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many."
I start my debate by simply re-phrasing the statement, in my view this statement is saying: Kill one person to save many - or kill many to save one, in other words,
This is a trick question, none of the options stated in this statement will allow you to get away without killing, so in my view, any of these options aren't morally permissible, but looking at the question in the context of which one is a better decision, would you rather save one innocent person, or many people, with a chance that atleast 2 are innocent also? Which one do you think is more morally permissible?
ConservativePolitico

Con

1) By killing one person to save the lives of many you take the burden of moral wrongdoing onto yourself in order to try and combat the actions of another.

- By killing this one innocent person to save the lives of "many" you then must kill. It is not morally permissible for a person to kill anyone at anytime. Now since you are trying to save the lives of many we can assume you are not the one who are putting the many in danger. Therefore it is not moral to taint your own purity in order to try and counter act the actions of another.

If you kill the one innocent person the only resulting action is the death of an innocent person by your hands. You cannot weigh the value of a future possibility against an action that has already happened.

For example:

Someone tells you to kill a young child in order to save 10 grown men so you go ahead and kill the child.

Now you are left with one result: the death of a child at your hand. The statement "well if you hadn't killed this boy there was a chance 10 men could have died" cannot outweigh the action committed.

Therefore this is morally wrong. You cannot be expected to taint your own morality for the possibility of a better future.

2) The Scenario

The wording of this resolution says you can kill an innocent to save the lives of "many" but there are many cases in which this would be incorrect.

- You kill a toddler to save "many" convicted criminals from death row.
- You kill a baby straight from the mothers womb to save "many" teen drug addicts
- You murder a young girl to save "many" rapists
- You kill your own brother to save "many" old men on the edge of death

In these situations the killing of an innocent would not be morally permissible.

3) Killing is Wrong

Killing is immoral period. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to kill anyone no matter who is saved.

It may be justifiable in the eyes of society.
It may be justifiable to yourself.
But killing anyone, at any time, for any reason is immoral.

You cannot be expected to kill someone in order to save "many" from a killer. This would not only make you a murderer but also a hypocrite. By saving some from the hand of a murderer by subjecting an innocent to murder is hypocritical. Now you have committed two moral wrongs to undo the actions of another autonomous being. You cannot be expected to do this and it is still morally wrong. Now you have committed more moral wrongs than the murderer.

You cannot be expected to kill someone to alter nature. Saving someone from a car accident or drowning by killing an innocent again leaves nothing in its wake but murder.

Murder is morally impermissible at all times and the only justification you'll get out of it is for yourself.

No net gain of life is enough to outweigh any lose of life at the hands of murder.
Debate Round No. 1
jaden.casey

Pro

jaden.casey forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Con

The case rests. Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
jaden.casey

Pro

jaden.casey forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Bring it on home. One more round.
Debate Round No. 3
jaden.casey

Pro

jaden.casey forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
CP, do you wanna actually debate this? I didn't want to put the effort into making a case for it previously, but after seeing so many people do a piss-poor job at it, I may suck it up and do it.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Ah, deontology vs. utilitarianism. Classic clash. Don't feel like making the argument, though.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
jaden.caseyConservativePoliticoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
jaden.caseyConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Lame. I was actually looking forward to a good debate. Stupid FFing n00bs.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
jaden.caseyConservativePoliticoTied
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: Forfeit....