The Instigator
sh0tym5
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Metz
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives or more innocent people

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  
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: 11/20/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,712 times Debate No: 6013
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

sh0tym5

Pro

I affirm the resolution resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

The value for this debate ought to be societal welfare, because society is the agent of the action this resolution encompasses, and because in order to determine the moral permissibility of such an action, we must analyze the cause-and-effect calculus of the action. If the effect of the action is that of society attaining societal welfare, and if the affirmative can show the moral grounds behind it, the affirmative wins the round.

The standard I will use in this round will be Amitai Etzioni's New Golden Rule.
Amitai Etzioni's "new golden rule" argues for the rebalancing of values. Specifically, Etzioni contends that freedom and morality must be balanced as well as autonomy and community. Etzioni's golden rule is "Respect and uphold society's moral order as you would have society respect and uphold your autonomy."

Contention 1: Respect for autonomy means we respect consent, but it must be consent freely given. Eric Rakowski, Taking and Saving Lives. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 5, (Jun., 1993), pp. 1107-1108

Actual and Hypothetical Consent Volenti nonfit injuria ("No wrong is done to one who consents") is an established moral principle which the law sanctions. Respecting other people means allowing them to decide for themselves what harms to risk or suffer in return for what they prize. For those who share this ideal of voluntariness, rooted in both Kantian moral philosophy and the English utilitarian tradition of which Mill is representative, a person's consent to be killed for his own good or for the benefit of others will often render it morally permissible to kill him. Regard for his autonomy requires that we defer to his wishes.

Contention 2. Consent is enough to permit one to perform an action. This consideration should apply to risks people assume of being killed intentionally to save others. Eric Rakowski, Taking and Saving Lives. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 5, (Jun., 1993), pp. 1108

A person's reasoned, informed, and uncoerced consent to an action generally suffices, as a moral if not as a legal matter, to permit one to perform the action so far as that person is concerned. When, moreover, consent is given explicitly not to die but to bear some risk of being killed that falls far short of certainty, and when the benefits seem reasonably to rival the costs, legal objections motivated by the fear that consent to suffer harm might not in some cases be completely voluntary typically fall away. We allow people to drive to work on busy highways, even though a certain number will be killed in crashes." In most if not all cases in which death might accompany some activity, we require only that participants be apprised of the risks they run and that they take minimal precautions that a large majority of persons would recognize as prudent.

Analogous considerations should apply to risks people freely assume of being killed intentionally. Situations in which killing some people might save others are rare, but in some instances one can imagine people assenting to their being killed in the unlikely event that those situations occurred. The situations most easily envisaged are those in which killing some would save many more others. "when consent cannot be given we use hypothetical consent this hypothetical consent is universal to all of society for each person so as contention 2 says, as far as each person is concerned each person is entire society it's just the general understanding of what society collectively would say which is many over 1"

Contention 3. Law is filled with examples of times when we assume consent when it can't be given. Eric Rakowski, Taking and Saving Lives. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 5, (Jun., 1993), pp. 1110

The question is therefore whether it is permissible or morally required for one to act as if people had agreed to the application of a maximizing rule when in fact they have not considered one or have not expressed their collective assent. In certain circumstances, acting as somebody would have wished if he were informed, lucid, and undistracted seems plainly appropriate if his consent to what would generally constitute an invasion of his rights cannot be obtained. Providing medical assistance to an unconscious person is the stock example. Other examples include personal ones which are made everyday and thus provide a link to current status and quo. In a legal sense, contract law supplies another example of hypothetical consent: when contracts fail to specify how some unanticipated event should be handled, arbitrators or courts typically attempt to determine what arrangements the parties would have made had they foreseen the unexpected event and accord them rights against one another on that basis.

Contention 4. Autonomy has both instrumental and intrinsic value. Eric Rakowski, Taking and Saving Lives. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 5, (Jun., 1993), pp. 1113-1114

A deeper question is why autonomy itself has value, so that a person's status as a reasonable judge of what is right or good for him deserves respect and his choices deserve deference to the extent that they do not unjustifiably harm other people. This is a controverted question, to which there are many answers. Certainly, autonomous decision making has instrumental value. It contributes to our well-being, not only because of the delight we take in our own agency, but also because we are usually the best judges of what will advance our interests. Autonomy, however, has intrinsic value as well. We would not trade our capacity for choosing and leaving our mark in return for life on a wondrous experience-machine, even if it produced a perfect counterfeit of our experience of free agency. More fundamentally, we not only value efficacious choice, we respect the capacity to choose in ourselves and others because ranking ends and selecting means is ultimately what defines us as persons. The evident importance of autonomy to our identity and well-being is the main reason paternalism is only tolerable in exceptional situations.

Contention 5 Hypothetical consent can be a standard of Moral Permissibility. Eric Rakowski, Taking and Saving Lives. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 5, (Jun., 1993), pp. 1115

Hypothetical consent is simply the consent that somebody would actually have manifested in a normatively authoritative situation of relevant knowledge and rational choice that never in fact occurred. Thus, the standard I am endorsing merely attempts to explain and guide our intuitive reactions to particular cases by holding people to bargains they would have made, insofar as they would have wanted themselves held to those bargains. It is therefore consonant with, indeed an expression of, the personal autonomy that morality should protect and nurture. Deference to a person's considered higher-order desires, insofar as they can be ascertained, is deference to that person.

For these reasons I urge you to affirm the ballot.
Metz

Con

Ok September/October topic awesome....
I Too,like my opponent am a varsity Lder and I will be using a case I wrote to help teach LD to freshman so I hope this works out.
Ok So I guess I will be taking Negative... So I will start by building my own case and refuting my opponents

Professor of philosophy Paul Edwards States "As Kant correctly pointed out the decisive factor is good will, the moral intent or attitude. It is here that we find the existential meaning of live ‘Since that which is morally good contains its meaning in value itself, it follows that it is intrinsically worthwhile"

CV: Morality (Principles concerning the distinction of right and wrong or good and bad behavior)(oxford)

Criterion: Kant's Categorical Imperative-A Standard of Morality which states that a decision is morally just if it can be established as a universal law. According to the Categorical Imperative Acts are intrinsically moral/immoral so the action must be considered before the result of that action. the Categorical Imperative also says that humans cannot be means to an end. Therefore I stand opposed to the resolution that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people.

1st contention:
In Critique of Pure Reason Kant states that human life is not a means to an end and that the life must instead be considered as an end itself. What Kant is establishing is that Human life is not something that can be used as a currency to buy other things or to achieve an end. Also because people have their own goals it is immoral for them to be used for someone else's goals So to Rob them of these goals would be immoral and giving a value to life which is also immoral. That human Life must be considered an end in itself. So in this resolution the one person being sacrificed must be considered before the other people being saved are considered. Each life is wholly sacred and cannot be taken. Since the action must take precedence over the consequence the act of taking a human life is wholly immoral.
B. By killing one person it is establishing a universal law that human life can be used as a currency. This Law is Immoral as it takes away the sacred value of human Life,Which is a Natural Right that cannot be taken or used as a means. As J.W.N Hopkins put it "Death and pain are immeasurable: No amount of pleasure can equal the pain of death." Again because the action takes precedence the pain of that death would be wholly unbearable and no happiness would result from that action.

2nd contention
The outcome of an Action cannot be predicted, so the morality of that action must be based of the action itself. According to the affirmative side of the resolution, the action is killing one person. Considering that action alone it must be agreed that killing an innocent person is immoral. AND as that consequence cannot be predicted the action determines the morality of an act. If the one person is killed it is setting a universal law that innocent people may be killed. This would lead to an eventual breakdown of society which would benefit no one and cause much pain. Since the morality of an action is based on that action itself, the resolution is immoral because the killing of an innocent person is innately wrong.

Moving to my opponents Case.

CV: While Societal welfare may be important but there question posed is a Moral one. "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives or more innocent people" Since the question being asked is a moral one the only logical way to evaluate it is by Morality.

VC: Etzioni, as my opponent, stated believed in Autonomy or freedom of action in other terms. Now If you look at this meaning you will find we must give everybody the freedom of action. Killing them is using them as a means or a tool which does not respect their autonomy or there status as Humans. furthermore Etzioni was a communitarian not a moral philosopher which makes his ideas concerning social welfare irrelevant to a moral debate and we must look to Kant to evaluate this debate.

1st Contention
My opponent quite clearly states that "Regard for his autonomy requires that we defer to his wishes." Or nor kill him to benefit others to use him as a mere tool and disrepecting his status as a Moral Agent. So therefore in order to uphold my opponents criterion in any way we must respect the wishes of the one and not deprive him of his most sacred right without his consent.

2nd contention
Now as I see if there is a contradiction of points here. in this contention he contends that "when consent cannot be given we use hypothetical" But ALSO contends that "A person's reasoned, informed, and uncoerced consent to an action generally suffices" this is referring to consent and is a pretty clear contradiction for we cannot have informed and uncoerced consent when we assume his actions which is also not respecting his autonomy. Therefore this contention is seen to fail as it does not uphold even my opponents Criterion as it denies Autonomy.
The people killed cannot be seen as mathematical but instead the action(killing) should be evaluated first.

3rd contention
It is true that sometimes consent can't always be given. this passag ein particular is deeply flawed. "In certain circumstances, acting as somebody would have wished if he were informed, lucid, and undistracted seems plainly appropriate if his consent to what would generally constitute an invasion of his rights cannot be obtained." It cannot be assumed that somebody would WILLINGLY die to save other unknown strangers. It is making their moral decisions for them and is not only assuming false consent but using them as a means, or a pawn in the game rather than a moral Agent. Also the example about medical assistance fails. First of all the life is not being used as a means and saving it respects their humanity. However using them as a Pawn and saying they would consent is disrespectful to their humanity and life is the most sacred thing we have and it cannot be taken for the wishes of others.

4th
this is merely proving Autonomy, however the vale of autonomy comes behind the sacred value of life and Morality. also as I have proven Autonomy supports my case because we are not allowing the one to choose therefore not creating autonomy.

5th
Hypothetical Consent in this instance is irrational. The resolution says we would be killing them and as we must look at the action first who would consent to being killed?? So therefore unless express consent was given in must be seen that Hypothetical consent in this instance is Immoral as it disrespects Humanity and uses Life as a bargaining chip.

Because I have proven Autonomy to Support my side and Morality to be in all ways superior to societal welfare, as well As proving Kant to me more applicable I see nothing more than a Negative ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
sh0tym5

Pro

Okay. So Value and VC debate then NC then AC.

My opponent uses Morality as the value in this debate. However, morality is very vague in this sense. My opponent uses Kant's ideas of a universal law. However, how do we determine what is the actual universal law? By stating there is a universal law, my opponent is abusing the affirmative ground because if there is a universal law in this debate then there is no way for me to win. So for the sake of debate we must assume that morality is not universal. We must look to societal welfare because moral permissibility is determined by what is best for society.

My opponents VC is Kant's Categorical Imperative. This VC is very flawed because it does not prove anything for the negative. First of all Kant's first maxim is turned over as I have stated before because we cannot use universal moral laws in this debate because it skews the round. Kant's second maxim states that humans should not be used as a means to an end. However, in this resolution, it clearly tells us that either one or more people will die. Therefore, Kant's Categorical Imperative does not work for the negative because either way humans will be used as a means to end. The five people that will die by neg's action will be used a means to save the one person. Lastly, Kant is all about giving value to one's life. This value is given through autonomy. Kant is all about autonomy and the Affirmative better achieves autonomy as I will explain later. Therefore, my opponents VC is very flawed and so we must look to Etzioni's golden rule to weigh this round. My opponent does not understand how my case links together. Yes, autonomy is giving freedom to the individual, and the affirmative achieves this by looking at hypothetical consent. Therefore, the golden rule is met because Aff achieves the balance between autonomy and society and that truly determines moral permissibility.

Negative Case

Contention 1
This is all about Kant. As I have stated before, my opponent does not understand Kant because he does not address how Kant is all about value to life and how this is achieved through autonomy. The second maxim does not say anything because either way humans will be used as a means to an end so my opponent is giving into using let's say 5 people as tools in order to save one. My opponent also cannot say that we must look at deontology because that clearly skews the round because if we do not look at the consequences of the action then there is no way for the affirmative to win because aff's ground is in saving those 5 people. Also, by saying that Negative protects life is logically invalid. By saving one life, you are KILLING 5 other people. Therefore, Negative is indeed not protecting life because 5 lives are being used as a means to an end. My opponent is very flawed in his outlook on morality and it does not link to his VC and Value.
B. Again universal law. This cannot be used because it abuses the affirmative ground. Don't look to this.

Contention 2
By saying that the morality of an action is not looked at is very flawed. First of all my opponent says we cannot predict the outcome, but clearly my opponent does not realize that a specific situation is given to us in that we do know the consequences of the action. There are more lives at stake and we must look to that also, because as I've stated in order to truly make a moral decision we must look at the cause-and-effect calculus. Deontology is a very abusive argument because it basically says that there is no way for the affirmative to win in this debate because it does not look at what the Affirmative is trying to preserve.

Aff Case

Contention 1
My opponent does not realize that all my contentions link to each other. So for the sake of time I will summarize all five of my contentions. Do not say I dropped any of them. First of all, C1 states that we must respect consent. Therefore, when someone lets us do something, WE MUST LISTEN TO HIM/HER. My opponent has to concede to this in order for his Kant ideology to work. If he doesn't all his contentions and VC drop. My opponent thinks that this person will not allow the agent to kill him/her. However, my opponent doesn't realize that because as C2 says, under reasoned, informed, and uncoerced situations, NO RATIONAL PERSON WILL SAY NO TO ALLOWING TO KILL HIM/HER. If my opponent cannot prove this wrong, it stands. All my contentions state that we must look at hypothetical consent because in order to make a truly moral decision, one must be informed, uncoerced, and reasoned. So in a situation such as the resolution provided, this person that will be killed is will be coerced so we cannot look here for consent. What I am saying is that society can ASSUME that in a hypothetical situation, a rational person WILL ALWAYS allow the agent to kill him/her for the better of society. Again if my opponent cannot prove this wrong, if he cannot prove that a rational person will not always say this, then Aff wins. This way the Affirmative is achieving autonomy and societal welfare, where as the negative is simply achieving autonomy. The Affirmative covers Neg ground and aff ground and this truly defines moral permissibility. Again don't state that I have dropped any of my contentions because I am summarizing them all because they all link together.

Because I have disproven Neg's case and proved that Aff better achieves an action that is morally permissible I urge you to affirm.
Metz

Con

CV/VC/AFF/NEG

CV: My opponent attacks my core value by saying it is unfair to his case. However, If you look to the resolution it states" It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives or more innocent people" Because the resolution is asking the Morality of an action we MUST evaluated off of morality.

VC: My opponent attacks My criterion of the categorical imperative by saying we cannot use universal law to evaluate this debate. First in a case such as this we cannot prove that sometimes yes and sometimes No, If we do we must negate, because the resolution implies, Is it or is it not, nto whether is it sometimes or is it not sometimes. Therefore The ONLY way is to evaluate off of the Universal law. Second my opponent contends that the Means to the end argument is invalid as it provides for both sides. Is is just not true. Look once again to the resolution "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives or more innocent people" it does not say we would kill 5 to save one but merely should we kill one, to save save the former is a false assumption and has no place in this debate. Also Kant is not ALL about autonomy as my opponent would claim. He looks at morality of action alone and the means and ends principle and the Maxim. So therefore any attacks on my Criterion are seen to be invalidated. Etzioni's golden rule as my opponent has explained is all about autonomy, now while autonomy is important we must also look to morality which is not achievement fully by autonomy. Therefore we cannot judge this debate on a criterion that looks at only one thing to evaluate a issue such as this.

Aff Case
As I said I agree that we must respect consent I have already stated this. Now for the second contention when my opponent assumes that "NO RATIONAL PERSON WILL SAY NO TO ALLOWING TO KILL HIM/HER" This is obviously a fallacy as it is making a False assumption that cannot be backed up. The idea that everybody will consent to their deaths is not valid as it cannot be assumed as it is making a choice for a rational being with their OWN ideas. Saying otherwise is a Logical Fallacy and does not belong in this debate. Also My opponent claims the reason for them sacrificing their lives for the betterment of society, which is assuming that all human are automatons and have no free choice of their own and not doing as dictated is not being rational, this plainly is not Moral, not just and does not help society. So this claim made by my opponent is not only fallacious but is disrespecting the humanity of every individual so must be discarded. So as I have proved that the consent idea is Immoral and disrespectful for humanity a negative ballot is in order.

NEG
1st:
Again the assumptions made by my opponent are incorrect. Accoriding the the resolution the action is either killing one and saving more or not killing one and allowing the more to die. the choice is not between saving 1 and killing five or Killing one and saving five. If we negate we would kill nobody and save a Human from being used as a tool. By Affirming we are using Life as a means to an end which is immoral and does not promote for the good of society. Negating is not using life as a means because we would be treating the life as an ends by not using for the ends of others. So there is a Link as can be seen therefore this contention MUST stand for the Negative because the Aff is indeed using Human life as a means. Also the idea that Kant was All about life, I have stated this but remember, since life is sacred, he cannot use it as a means to an end as we would by Affirming the resolution.

B. I do not see why this should be discarded because it seems to be an irrefutable argument. It is not abusive it is simply a fact stated by my case so it has essentially been allowed to flow through. Also the affirmative is trying to prove that it is ALWAYS morally permissible to kill one to save more so SOMETIMES it is morally permissible. So saying universal laws don't matter would be directly contradicting the Affirmative ground.

2nd: first My opponent misquotes me, I say we SHOULD look at the Morality of the ACTION so because my opponent has essentially AGREED to This it must be considered as true. Because we must look to Morality of action first and the action is killing one, that is immoral. Also my opponent contend we can predict the outcome. My opponent missed the point of this, we know the DIRECT consequence but not the indirect consequences. So we do not know the overall societal impact of the action. Also saying Deontology is abusive once again is an appeal to emotion. By Deontological Ethics, specifically Kant's we are evaluating the Morality of an action, which is what this debate is asking us to do.

Because of those stated reason I can see no other than a negative ballot.
Debate Round No. 2
sh0tym5

Pro

V/VC/NEG/AFF Voting Issues

V: I have previously claimed that my opponent's view on morality cannot fit this debate, not that it can't be used at all. Because morality is a topic that has been debated for ages, our views on it really matter. When my opponent claims that morality is universal, then there would be no point for this debate if there really was a universal law. If there was a law that stated, "Killing an innocent is morally wrong regardless of any situation," then Neg would automatically win. However, this is not the case. Morality is not universal. It is dependent on certain situations such as the situation that the resolution implies. My opponents whole case is built off this "universal law." This is logically invalid because there can be no way to determine a universal law, and if there was this debate would be useless. Therefore, my opponents VIEW of morality does not work for him, and therefore you must look to my value of societal welfare because societal welfare is what really matters because it encompasses morality and because morality is very vague in that we cannot determine what is TRULY moral, we must look to what is better for society and that is the only way of determining what is moral in the case of this debate. Aff is providing a clear cut way of determining what is moral through societal welfare, and that trumps my opponents vague and invalid definition of morality.

VC: The resolution clearly states "moral permissibility." Therefore, it is implying that morality is not absolute or universal. Under a case where morality is absolute, neg will ALWAYS win because there would be no way to prove that killing an innocent is moral. The only way for this debate to clearly go on is for morality to be circumstantial as in what the resolution provides. Therefore, both sides have to argue whether the action each side takes is moral based on the specific situation the resolution provides. Again, a universal law cannot be permitted in this debate because it skews the round in favor of the Negative. "Therefore The ONLY way is to evaluate off of the Universal law." How do we know this universal law? We cannot. Even if you say societies all agree that killing is wrong, we still cannot say this is the UNIVERSAL LAW because this universal law does not take into account certain situations where it can be false. Therefore, my opponents VC is extremely flawed in stating that we must abide by a universal law. The second maxim is also flawed because it really does not provide for neg. When my opponent says that we must look only to the action of killing the one person, this again skews the round because there is no way for aff to prove that the action itself is morally permissible. We must take into account the consequence of the action. And when this is taken into account, the means to an end argument turns completely over because there is no way to argue against that the five people that are at stake in this situation will be used as a means to an end. They WILL be used as tools to save that one person because they are directly affected by Neg's action of saving one person. My opponent CLEARLY does not understand Kantian philosophy. No one will disagree that Kant is all about value to life. And how do we determine value to life? It is by autonomy, the ability for one person to make decisions on his own. That is the only way to determine life's value. The means to an end principle is trying to avoid violation of autonomy. Etzioni's golden rule provides a clear way to achieve a balance between autonomy and society. When achieving this balance you are not violating the one person's life because he has consented and you are saving more lives. Who is taking the real moral action now? Aff clearly is. And through Aff's case, I am not violating autonomy because we are respecting autonomy by looking at hypothetical consent, and Aff is also achieving societal welfare. However, Neg is only preserving one person's autonomy. It's like saying that Neg is only achieving autonomy whereas Aff is achieving autonomy AND societal welfare. This is the clear distinction between Aff and Neg here. Aff should win because he is consuming the Negative's case and in addition achieving societal welfare.

Neg Case
I am quickly going to summarize all of Neg's points. Again we cannot simply look at the action because that skews the round for the Negative because there is no way for aff to prove that "Killing an Innocent person" is always morally permitted. The fact that the resolution states "to save the lives of more innocent people" is the only way for aff to correctly justify an action made. This tears down Contention 2 of Neg. We do not know the indirect consequences therefore we cannot look at those. All we know is that one person will be killed or not killed and there are more lives at stake. That's all we must look to in this round. Nothing else. So indirect consequences are out of question. We can predict the outcome because it is given to us.

I have stated many times that universal law cannot be used because there is no purpose in this debate. If there really was a universal law, then this resolution would be solved because the action would be justified under ALL conditions. This is not the case because we are debating whether the action is justified with the given scenario.

Aff Case
My opponent still hasn't addressed to my previous burden: "What I am saying is that society can ASSUME that in a hypothetical situation, a rational person WILL ALWAYS allow the agent to kill him/her for the better of society. Again if my opponent cannot prove this wrong, if he cannot prove that a rational person will not always say this, then Aff wins." My opponent has not addressed this to this point so he clearly cannot find an alternative. So it still stands that under uncoerced, informed, and reasoned situations, a person will ALWAYS allow for him/herself to die in order to save more innocent people. My opponent thinks that this decision is being forced on the innocent person. HOWEVER IT IS NOT! Hypothetical consent is simply assuming that this person will allow for the agent to kill him/her when he/she is informed about the situation. THIS PERSON WILL ALWAYS DO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY RATIONAL DECISION. Again if my opponent cannot provide another rational decision in this case, then Aff clearly wins because I am consuming the Neg's case by not violating one person's life and I am saving more lives. I am not violating life because this person has consented. And my opponent has already agreed that this consent MUST BE RESPECTED. Therefore if a person allows himself to be killed, then it is not an immoral action, it will be moral. So by hypothetical consent, society can assume this because it is the only rational decision. I don't know how many times to say it, but if my opponent does not provide another rational decision, Aff wins. I will spike the means to an end argument because this person will not be used as a means to an end because he has consented and also those five other people will also be used a means to an end.

Voting Issues
Even if I omitted one of my opponents contentions he still does not win. I have consumed my opponent's case by preserving the one person's autonomy by agreeing to his plea for death. I have also achieved more lives because this person's death results in more lives being saved. There is no violation according to my opponents VC and contention of Categorical Imperative because this person agreed to being killed which is not using him as a tool. Therefore it has no value in this round. Clearly Aff wins because my opponent cannot prove that any rational person will say no to dying for the betterment of society. My opponent has not given an alternative decision under hypothetical consent. Aff achieves autonomy and societal welfare therefore achieving an action that is morally permitted, because there are no violations whatsoev
Metz

Con

AFF/NEG/VOTERS

CV: I cannot see, how in a resolution that asks the moral permissibility of something we cannot evaluate it off of what is the most moral... As for the Point regarding the universal law this is being entirely misunderstood. Kant's Idea on the universal law are as follows QUOTE"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."" QUOTE (Kant) Because The attacks must be seen to be invalidated this must stand. So therefore this debate must be evaluated in terms of IT IS ALWAYS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE TO KILL ONE INNOCENT PERSON to SAVE MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE. So In order for my opponent to win he must prove that it is ALWAYS permissible.
My opponent claims that Societal welfare encompasses morality, and that morality is vague. I agree with the latter but that is why a offered Kant to clarify morality for this debate. That is the purpose of a value criterion, and if you are going to say that Morality is vague you must also say societal welfare is vague. We do not know what society, what is best for that society so therefore if Morality is seen to be vague as is societal welfare. Concerning the point that societal welfare encompasses morality it can be seen that my opponent has this backwards. Morality encompasses all and is what the resolution is specifically asking. There can no question about the latter becuase the resolution uses the term Morally Permissible.

VC: I have already proven the misunderstanding of the universal law idea but i would like to clarify something. As I said in my opponing case, all Acts are Intrinsically Moral/immoral. That is a simple idea and killing is indeed an immoral act. The idea of circumstantial morality is completely outside the resolution. if you look to the resolution you will see it is the Burden of the affirmative to prove that is IS morally permissible, No circumstances are given so therefore it must be assumed that the AFF must prove that it is always Morally permissible. If he cannot, becuase of the resolution he will lose the round, that is pretty simple.
My opponent also seems to misinterpret the resolution he has given. Now for this Resolution and what my opponent has established is the trolly problem. if five people on tied to one side of a track and the train is heading towards them should we switch the track of the train and KILL one person as opposed to let the train run its course. Now as you can see allowing the five to die is not using them as a means but killing the one is, we are taking his life and everything he has worked for for others.
Now for My opponents criterion. He claims that Etzioni is balancing society and autonomy and this is only upheld by the Aff. However his justification for this is hypothetical consent. As I said in my first contention and was not refuted All humans are rational beings. Now my opponent justifies hypothetical consent by saying that any rational being would allow themselves to be killed. Now I can refute my opponents entire case right now. I WILL NOT CONSENT TO BEING KILLED TO SAVE OTHERS. I am Human, therefore am rational and I said I don't consent to being killed in this manner. Therefore hypothetical consent CANNOT exist and so we must look to KANT to Evaluate Morality.

AFF case
My opponent places his burden of 'What I am saying is that society can ASSUME that in a hypothetical situation, a rational person WILL ALWAYS allow the agent to kill him/her for the better of society." Now If you remember I said I would not consent, I am Human and therefore am rational. So It can be seen that all rational people would consent.

Also assume for a moment that not everyone is rational. because of the nature of the resolution we do not know if the one is a rational person therefore hypothetical consent cannot exist.

I have Given two alternatives as to why hypothetical consent cannot exist so therefore I have disproved the burden. The rational choice is whatever the agent being killed decides, but it is not morally permissible to force the choice upon him. Also assuming he has consented is outside the parameters of this debate so therefore my Opponents case is invalid because it relies on a invalid principle. So therefore AFF, because hypothetical consent does not exist would be using human life as a means to an end AND not respecting his Autonomy.

NEG Case
First of all, it is agreed that killing an innocent person is immoral. And as my opponent stated we do not know the indirect consequences. because these consequences remain unknown it is not Moral or logical to act upon SOME of the consequences. So we must instead look to the morality of the action. The Only outcome known is one, however the effect will spread and have 10,000 consequences. So Aff says we should look to 1 consequence and forsake the 9,999 others.

I have already covered the universal law point many times.

Voters
CV: Morality--This is the obvious Core Value so we must evaluate off of it.
BOTH VC
Kant/Etzioni both look to autonomy as my opponent says. I have proven that Aff does not respect Autonomy so therefore I uphold my opponents Criterion better than he does. As for Kant, Aff uses Life as a means to an end,evaluated off of unforeseen consequence and does not respect autonomy all of which NEG does. So Judging of either criterion NEG should win.

Now my opponents Primary issue is hypothetical consent. I have proven this to be a false concept so therefore it cannot be voted on. Therefore I make the point regarding Autonomy a voting issue. Neg Clearly respects Autonomy by not forcing anything upon the agent. Aff does not respect autonomy because he is making a decision for the agent, which dis-respects Autonomy.

Thanks to anyone and everyone who read this debate and an extra thanks to my Opponent for making such a good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
haha it was coerced by the debate yes..

It was a good debate, not to mention fun
Posted by sh0tym5 8 years ago
sh0tym5
This was a really good debate. But I can't agree with you saying that you would not consent. You are obviously coerced by this debate, so that is not a valid refutation. But good debate nonetheless.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Hmmm... Sh0tym it says in your Profile you are in the Coast Forensic League... What exactly is that??? Are the LD rules the same as NFL?(National Forensic League)
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Accepted the Round... Best of luck to you my friend....
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
If I can find my Old Neg Case I accept...

Why Etzoni though? he was a communitairian not a Moral Philosopher...
Posted by sh0tym5 8 years ago
sh0tym5
Someone challenge me! I'm a varsity debater. Let's see if you can match up with me.
Posted by sh0tym5 8 years ago
sh0tym5
well yea i have it cited for my real debate rounds i just didn't want to put it up here cuz ppl will steal them. im sorry just incase anyone wants to see it here: Eric Rakowski, Taking and Saving Lives. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 5, (Jun., 1993), pp. 1107-1108
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"For these reasons I urge you to affirm the ballot."

Yeah....'Cept you copy/pasted your entire argument. Try citing your sources next time.
http://www.jstor.org...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by sh0tym5 8 years ago
sh0tym5
sh0tym5MetzTied
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 theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
sh0tym5MetzTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
sh0tym5MetzTied
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 
Vote Placed by frank_gore_is_da_best 8 years ago
frank_gore_is_da_best
sh0tym5MetzTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
sh0tym5MetzTied
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