The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Kill a beloved, to save many criminals

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 66470
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance.

Standard rules. (No trolling, cussing, and be nice. Format is intended to be arguments on round 2, however the opponent may extend his/her arguments as he/she pleases)

Definition: This debate concerns humans. Assume both parties have same level of morality.

Scenario: A psychotic maniac named "Commondebator" has given you an option of which you cannot escape: Kill a beloved family member, or kill an entire country of criminals. (All of the criminals are in jail for as long as you decide)

This debate will regard heavily on morals, logic.There are no federal standpoints. (The psychotic maniac commondebator, has removed all authorities). Try to envision your beloved family member, v.s a nation of 100million criminals. (You do not know one of the 100mil criminals) And what the family member's specific action of caring of in the past is irrelevant, however assume that they care about you, (enough that they will save your life, and help you out in your time of need. This is not about them doing your chores) vice versa. Try minimizing emotions, and the criminals crimes are no more serious than stealing a bank of $10k, and their reasons were to help their family. Aside from that, both parties have same level of morality.

(Does not have to be a family member, just a friend or a hobo that you care)

Good luck


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you con, for accepting my debate. Good luck

Moral point of view:

The number of deaths shows there are no morales present within the decision
This reason is quite obvious as far as morale is concerned. Putting 100 million people to death just to save
a close person you know is selfish towards the others. Making such decision to slaughter 100 million people solely based on the idea that that you know the person well enough that you show emotions towards them. Killing one person just to save 100 million is clearly has greater morale.

The things those "criminals" have done, do not deserve to be put to death
Robbery for 10k is not nor should be a capital offense. Stealing 10k is about the money to hi-jack a fairly
used car to go to work. (This analogy works because the they stole the money for their family, not for their
own use). Now, these people needed the money to financially survive, so they have some justification for
their cause. On top of that, they have the same level of morality as your friend/family member. The only
difference is 10 million will be manslaughtered.

This part of my argument was extremely short and I will expand my argument in the following rounds. I will also perform rebuttals to my opponent.


Hi , thanks for accepting :)

Just thought the voters should know playing devils advocate. ;)

"Kill a beloved, to save many criminals"

My breif arugment.

1. We ought to act in such a way to minimize the greatest amount of suffering.

2. Love is perhaps the quintessence of the human experience ,that which provides unparralleed bliss and unfathomable euphoria yet when taken away is ironically what may also create unfathomable pain and incomprehensible suffering. This is to me what makes live worth living. It is love. This not need to be true to you however I KNOW IT TO BE TRUE TO ME subjectively.Therfore love to me is the most paramount of all things within life.

3. To have this taken away , subjectively i may say this would likely be the absolute worst experience that i could possibly undergo. Thus creating unfathomable pain and sufffering.

4. To me it is self evident that this would cause me so much incredible pain and suffering that it would drastically out wheigh any potential happiness which could possibly be attained by many criminals.


This is a fairly straightfoward debate. The subjective value i place on love is so unfathomably great that the suffering I would undergo by killing and therfore losing a beloved of mine would be far greater than any happiness achived by many criminals.

Therfore the action which would minimize the greatest amount of suffering would be to kill many crimianls and allow me to love my beloved.

Therfore the resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent's argument refers to the person killing their beloved, would experience unfathomable pain and suffering. That may be true however. . .

Recall that the reason for the 10k robbery was to help their family. Assume all the robber's family (10 million) would suffer as well. Therefore causing absolute pain to their families as well.

Now, lets assume that not all the families did not have such a relation as you. Most families may not feel the same amount of suffering as you have. But certainly, many more people will feel pain due to the large amount dead.

Lets look at the logic:

-Was the robbery morally justified? No. However, he/she does not deserve a death sentence.
-Innocent or the robber? The innocent is morally superior therefore the innocent should survive
-Innocent or 10 million robbers? Wiping out the robbers is not morally superior. The beloved and the robber have same level of morality besides from the rob.

-1 v. 10 million? Definitely saving the 10 million is the logical and moral thing to do
-1 v. 10 million robbers? Well, the reason to steal the 10k was to help their family. Which means they had enough love for their family to risk themselves in jail. The reason is not entirely justified, however can be debatable.

Thank you!


imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
I hope you open this one again, to find an opponent that doesn't FF.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
And that we can agree that sources are irrelevent as this is basically a theoretical argument that can't really be backed with any FBI charts or anything of that sort.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Hey I'd accept this if I'm assuming the position of saving a family member over the criminals.
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
Secret option 4: Kill yourself and avoid the death of your love one and the theives.
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
Secret option 3: Kill the psychopath
If the criminals were serious criminals, such as rapists and murders, I could kill them more easily, because I could justify killing the many criminals in order to save my loved one more easily. The criminals being theives with the intention of helping their family members would make it hard to kill them. I would, however, easily try to steal from them in order to save my family member, because they stole to help their family.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
This is horrible, where is the "both" option?

Jokes aside, any moral egoist will insist on killing the many you don't care about, without the need for ad hominem attacks of calling them criminals.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Not to mention that no one can make you make a choice. You can always choose not to choose either immoral acts.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 1 year ago
Agreed that the responsibility is the psychopath's. I'd also point out that choosing not to murder by refusing to kill a friend is not the same as murdering 100 million, the psychopath is the one committing the crime. Ultimately it is the friend/family member's decision to make. One is only responsible for not harming others and one's actions, what the lunatic decides to do is their problem.
Posted by Duncan 1 year ago
The responsibility lies on the psychopath, not the victim here. They were forced into this scenario.
Posted by Unitomic 1 year ago
Ok several things:

1: A debate should have better controls then this. This debate (if that is the proper word for it) gives the participants too much say in the scenario

2: How would the voters judge the debate?

3: Robbing 10 Grand is kind of a big thing. Robbing is kind of a big thing. The reason for robbing is irrelevant. There are ALWAYS other options. Usually pride is the reason for not choosing those options. And pride can never justify such actions.

4: The Devil can send me a thank you letter for all the souls he's about to recieve.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture