It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
Debate Rounds (3)
My value premise for my case is life. My value premise life is defined as the interval between birth and death. My value premise is life because life is sacred and held important by all individuals.
My value criterion for my case is protecting human life. My value criterion is protecting human life because it is morally correct and good to protect life at all cost.
My first contention for my case is the importance of preserving human life.
My second contention for my case is the value of life.
My third contention for my case is the obligation that societies have to protect their citizens at all cost.
I would like to define some words that will help my argument for the affirmative:
Moral: Pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.
Kill: To extinguish.
Innocent: Free from legal or specific wrong.
Save: To rescue from absolute danger or harm.
(1) It is important to preserve human life, if we don't protest human life we are acting with no morals or values at all. The constant continuing of life must come first before anything else. Anything that can be used to protect and allow life to thrive should be used. All human life is precious and should be preserved. It goes without saying that without life you can not live. The resolution clearly clarifies the need to protect human life. It is better to protect the most life at all cost. That is why societies should seek out individuals that willing offer to be used to save the lives of others. We are killing a life because essentially to end a life is to kill. But it is morally permissible because the life being sacrificed has agreed to allow it to happen.
(2) We have to value life to truly understand its worth. To say that life is priceless and can not be valued is absurd. It is morally inferior to not quantify life. Applying certain value to human life does not lessen the importance of the life in any matter. If you don't value life than you are unable to respect the life's worth and the human tied to the life. To measure human life in values of greater than or less than actually gives the life its true value. All human life is rated by measuring and weighing their skills and potential. If a society is put in the scenario the resolution implies and the lives in need of saving are of great asset we must save them. Therefore societies should seek out a life of lesser value to the other lives and ask for their assistance in saving the important lives.
(3) Societies have a moral and indestructible vow to protect its citizen. Societies maintain armies to protect their citizens from foreign invaders. Societies fund the construct of hospitals to protect their citizens from viruses and harmful injuries. Societies must protect the lives of all its citizens using all the resources in their reach, even if the resource is a human life. If a society stand against the resolution and say that it is not morally permissible to kill one life to save many more lives, the society stands against its only true purpose. Humans come together and build societies to protect themselves and help maintain a lucrative lifestyle that each of the humans could not do by themselves. Societies must achieve the greater good for their citizens. That means to protect their citizens from death, to essentially preserve life. Societies acquire their power from the people. The people must ratify the resolution and stand affirmative for its message. If not the societies ideology stands against protecting its citizens, and inadvertently stands against itself. Society that stands against itself and can not help its citizens is immoral. So the resolution must be consider morally correct because the ideology of the resolution is in rhythm with the ideology of societies.
To crystallize my case my, value premise is life. My value criterion is protecting human life. My first contention for is the importance of preserving human life. My second contention is the value of life. My third contention is the obligation that societies have to protect their citizens at all cost.
Now, let's rebutt the pitiful whines of the Affirmative side. Do you really preserve human life? As far I can see, the Affirmative side's speech seems that there is a complete contradiction. In the principle level, how can you preserve life by killing an innocent soul? Well, if you want to preserve life you shouldn't kill another life especially an innocent one. Secondly, is it morally permissible to kill an innocent person? In the first place, nothing is morally permissible when killing is involved moreover, if the one whom to be killed is innocent. Even if you kill an innocent person for the sake of the world, this killing is not justified even if it's for the sake of the many because you killed an individual that who's not even accountable for anything and in fact the person is indeed harmless to begin with. It's totally unfair!
As far as I am concerned, my opponent illiterated that socities have a moral and indestructible vow to protect its citizen and these socities are fully equip from foreign invaders, viruses and calamities. Is this even true? How come, that an innocent individual should be held responsible of protecting others?
Now let me paint you a picture what does the affirmative side wants to do.
To begin with, affirmative side wants you to believe that killing is MORALLY permissible and I think it's not. Because it's like killing a child with a gun and just saying "This is for the sake of others..." Do you think this killing is permissible? No! That innocent soul is not even knowlegable!
In conclusion, I don't think that killing is morally permissible to begin with. Well if you want to save others society is fully equip anyway, stated by my opponent.
First before I refute my opponents critique I have to answer the off hand remark in the comment section about my case. I wrote my case and do not plagiarize at all.
So any way back to the debate;
The NEG arguments:
•It is immoral to kill life
•The murder individual is "innocent" and should not be killed
•You can not preserve life by killing a life
The AFF will not show how the NEG arguments are of weaker reasoning:
•It is immoral to kill a life. The AFF agrees with that contention the NEG presents. The AFF does not stand for killing or murder rather the AFF stands for sacrificing. Murder and sacrifice are two different things. Murder is immoral and sacrificing is not when it will achieve the greater good. The resolution implies a scenario where by sacrificing one individual you will save many more individuals. Also the NEG case would allow the more innocent people to die rather than sacrifice one other person to save them. That reasoning contradicts his entire argument of killing is immoral. By letting those other people die you are killing them as well. "You don't have to shoot a child with a gun" as the NEG so put it to kill some body. By noting helping the people who are going to do you are killing them. To not help the dying people to best of your resources you killing them. The AFF suggest that you aim to save the most life and sacrifice one person to save more people. Compared to the NEG who says it is immoral to kill one innocent life and murders a lot of innocent lives.
•The Resolution implies that the people in this scenario are only innocent of being put in this position. The resolution uses innocent as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The NEG implies a society of Angels and Demons and suggest that resolution will murder the saints of the world to save the lives of whomever. The NEG needs to stop looking at the world thrown black and white stain glasses and fully understand the resolution. The scenario the resolution implies is that society can either sacrifice an innocent person to save the lives of others, or let the others die. The innocent person clearly means that the people are on equal standings. Innocent is written into the resolution to keep this debate from starting an argument about sacrificing a child molester to save one hundred doctors.
•The NEG implies that if you murder a life you are not preserving life. NEG is correct on that reasoning but fails to understand the full implications of the resolution. The resolution implies that by sacrificing a life you will preserve more life by doing so. Sacrificing that life to save more life is morally correct and preserves the most life. So the NEG logic pales in comparison to the AFF ideology of saving the most life.
Well, I believe my opponent needs to study his case. Secondly, I am sorry if I said that you copy and pasted your argument because as far as I can see you never tried to link your points back to the motion/topic. Thirdly, I appreciate that you gave a definition even if I come late, however I will stick to my definition and probably get some definitions of the affirmative side.
Let's weight and analyze what is the difference of sacrifice and murder? Whatever you could say, sacrifice or murder and what not it is still simply killing. Sacrifice happens when the person himself/herself is willing to give his/her life, it only means there is a prerogative or an authentic free of choice. In the affirmatives resolution, it seems that the said innocent person has no authentic freedom of choice, it only concludes that society or the government or others are dictating the death of the said innocent soul. In this case, murder happens because the said innocent soul doesn't even know why should he/she be "sacrificed" or killed in the first place. Could you even call this a sacrifice if indeed others are the one who decide your fate or death, even if you say that it's for the betterment of the many?
I believe that innocent society or the people whom you offer the sacrifice sees murder or killing as immoral and I don't think they are willing to sacrifice/kill an innocent soul to begin with. Secondly, if you kill or sacrifice an innocent person is still not justified because the people that you are offering to are advocates of preserving life and morality, therefore they don't want blood shed. I don't think my opponent's so called sacrifice for the better good will be productive.
There are alot of means and ways to save innocent souls you don't need to sacrifice one of them. Stated by Affirmative side that societies are secured and well protected however they want to "sacrifice/kill" an innocent soul. You know if they are secured already why do they need to kill.
In Conclusion, both sides of the house are for preserving life then again which side preserve life better? Well it's definitely Opposition because we are not the one who is willing to sacrifice or in other terms "kill" an innocent soul, which is definitely Affirmative side. Secondly, we see other avenues to save lives we don't need to give up one. Thirdly, we follow societal morality which means we see what the majority sees and the majority wants is to preserve life and "make life alive!" So ask your self which side preserve life better? Is it Affirmative side that wants to kill an innocent soul or Opposition that sees alot of avenues to save life?
The resolution implies a scenario where a third party has the option of sacrificing an innocent life to save more innocent lives. The innocent people are innocent of being placed into this situation. The individuals past or status are of no concern in the debate. The mentioning of innocence is to prevent an argument of sacrificing a child molester or murderer to save the lives of doctors or engineers. If you don't sacrifice the innocent person the other people will die. After evaluating the specific scenario the resolution illustrates, the affirmative panel would sacrifice the one individual to save the more individuals. The affirmative panel values life and will achieve my value my value criterion of protecting human life. Sacrificing the one innocent person to save more innocent lives is protecting the most human life and honors the highest amount of life. The affirmative panel contentions are it is important to preserve human life if we don't protest human life we are acting with no morals or values at all, we have to value life to truly understand its worth and societies have a moral and indestructible vow to protect its citizen. The affirmative ideology has the strongest reasoning in this match. It is morally correct to save the most life because if you don't you are killing the most life. Essentially to kill is to extinguish, as I defined early in the match and my opponent did not feel the need to refute. Your inactions will extinguish the lives of many people if you choose not to help them. Essentially if you agree with the negative you are killing life and not preserving life, by not acting to save lives. To stand for the affirmative you are preserving the most life and stand for morally correct standards.
I encourage the judge(s) to vote AFF and stand for life and protecting it at all cost.
vitalsign789 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.