The Instigator
CiRrO
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to saves the lives of 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
Con Tied Pro
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: 8/23/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,508 times Debate No: 5118
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (9)

 

CiRrO

Con

As most people know, I have done this topic previously, but I was Aff., now I will be Neg.

I would appreciate it if the person was familiar with LD style, however if you are tempted to debate this and you are not an LD debater, that's fine, but prepare to suffer technical consequences as the round advances. That is a warning. Anyway, good luck however accepts.

Since this is LD, the Affirmative usually starts, so I will let him/her go first, I will simply state definitions.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
===============================================================================

I negate: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to saves the lives of more innocent people.

[Definitions]

1. Morally permissible: conforming to a normative standard of right and wrong.
2. Kill: to take away the life of.
3. Innocent: free from the action or intention of committing moral or legal crimes.
Danielle

Pro

:: INTRODUCTION ::

Leon Trotsky once said, "The end may justify the means, as long as there is something that justifies the end." I agree, and affirm the resolution: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. For clarity in the round, I will agree with my opponent's proposed definitions. Additionally, I'd like to offer an interpretation of the resolutional analysis, which would allow the resolution to read: It is morally permissible to save the lives of innocent people [more than 1] by killing one innocent person instead. This is just another (equal) standard of reading the resolution. Further, the resolution implies that all parties are EQUALLY innocent, meaning no one person is any greater or more valuable than another.

:: THESIS ::

It is morally permissible to sacrifice one individual's life to save the lives of other innocent people, because saving as many lives as possible in a given situation has always been a paramount goal throughout various historical endeavors, including war. This is because the human race, as a whole, places a very high value on human life. Thus, my value is morality, and my criterion is the value of human life. If human life had no value, killing in general would not be wrong or immoral.

:: CONTENTION ONE ::

Human Worth.

A) Every life is equal in terms of its value. In addition to this being a religious concept, it is social philosophy as well. For instance, to most people, Adolf Hitler was a terrible man with absolutely no scruples. To followers of Nazi Germany, however, Hitler was considered a hero. The point here is that there is no way of accurately measuring one's "value" so an inherent, set value must apply. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that each life is worth 5 points. Well if you spared the life of one person, you would earn 5 points. If you chose to not save one life, but in doing so actually saved the life of 3 others, you would earn 15 instead of 5. Fifteen points is greater than 5 points, so saving 3 lives is more morally preferable than saving 1 life.

B) To elaborate one why more points = more morally preferable, I would like to reiterate that 'points' are how we are calculating human worth in this particular example. More points = more worth = more valuable, and we're not talking about monetary gain here. Rather this contention seeks to prove that the more lives that are spared, the more rewarding the experience. Why? Because human worth is extremely valuable both from a spiritual standpoint and a social one - this we know. However, having 'value' means that this value can be defined or at least matched. According to the resolution, all individuals are innocent - equally innocent - so if it's one life vs. three, saving three lives means you are saving 3x the value or worth. Thus, it is more morally permissible to consider the (non-monetary but rather spiritual) worth of several people in comparison to one.

:: CONTENTION TWO ::

The preservation of life.

It is not uncommon that in various situations, we seek to preserve human life as a way to uphold morality. For instance, during times of war, sometimes drastic measures with immediate results (death) are taken as a way to prevent more deaths, i.e. through the continuing act of war. The thought process is that it is preferable to sacrifice the lives of a few to save the lives of many. This is because more lives affect more people and society as a whole. Further, this act is less about KILLING a few (or one) and more about SAVING a few or many. So rather than looking at this debate from a killing standpoint, we can look at it as a debate of salvation, martyrdom and heroism.

:: CONTENTION THREE ::

Responsibility.

A) If one has the opportunity to save an abundance of lives verses saving just one life, this person has the moral responsibility to save as many lives as humanly possible. Why? Because of the established value of human life (which I have already presented and thoroughly explained). To negate the resolution is asking someone to be responsible for intentionally killing several people to spare the life of one individual. The ideology behind this is action vs. inaction - that one's inaction at saving lives makes them morally responsible for their deaths.

In this sense, you are asking someone to be responsible for a multiple of deaths, and for no reason. Whereas if one sacrificed one life, it would be upsetting to do; however it would have been for a good cause: saving the lives of many others. This relates to Leon Trotsky's introductory comment regarding a justification to 'an end,' i.e. the end being killing the one (to save the many).

B) Keeping retribution in mind, let us apply the term 'morally permissible' from the resolution in a case regarding the justice system. In the United States courts, for example, if a convicted killer is sentenced to 40 years in prison for murdering someone, he or she would probably thereby be sentenced to 80 years in prison for murdering two people (even if the convicted would not presumably live long enough to serve an 80 year sentence). This is to signify the correlation between the equal immoral-ness of killing the 2 individuals, regarding of their circumstances. Now, because moral correctness is the main contributing factor regarding sentencing in the court systems, we must uphold this mathematical interpretation of justice in order to vindicate morality. We can do this by ensuring the distribution of appropriate sentences and opportunities of other types of retribution for the benefit of all society.

:: CONCLUSION ::

As we have seen, there is a way of calculating morality as it pertains to justice. Human life has value -- if it did not, the negation of this resolution would stand: that killing one person and killing five people is morally equivocal. However, using my criterion of the value of human life, and considering all of the evidence I have offered in its defense, you must conclude that taking one life and taking five lives will never be morally equivocal. If all lives have the same value, than taking five lives of the same worth would = 5x the value of taking just one life. Mathematic calculations of morality are what is to be considered in this debate, because as I have shown, it is our humanly way of interpretating justice to the best of our degree (ex. the legal/justice system).
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Con

"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end."

It's because that I agree with this quote by Immanuel Kant that I urge a negation of the resolution. "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people."

[Topical Observations]

For analysis of the resolution I pose the following observations.
1. According to the resolution, it is asking if an action is moral. Morality is normative. Normative is defined as absolute, not relative or circumstantial. Therefore, the affirmative must prove that killing complies with morally normative standards.

2. The resolution implies morality versus necessity. Killing an innocent may be necessary to save more lives, however that does not make it moral. Killing must be proved moral rather then necessary to affirm the resolution.

3. A Logical Fallacy. In a moral dilemma, such as the one posed in the resolution, one immoral outcome does not make the other possible outcome automatically moral. Just because a larger group of people may lose their lives, does not make the action of killing an innocent automatically moral. Under moral criteria, they are both immoral.

4. Logical problem with the definition of innocent. Innocent is defined as being free from the action or intention of moral or legal crimes. With the intention of wanting to kill an innocent to save their own lives, they are not innocent anymore, because they have the intention to kill. Therefore, the affirmative must prove that intending to kill is a moral intention.

[Value and Value Criterion]
The negative values morality, since it is the clearest value indicated by the resolution. The value of morality is upheld by the criterion of moral normality. Normative morality is defined as being absolute, under the guidelines of set moral criteria. Since killing is an inherently immoral action, it violates the moral norm, which dictates a general morality.

[Contentions]

To prove my position I would like to offer 1 sole contention.

Contention I: Killing violates principles of moral normality.

A)Killing is inherently immoral. Killing means taking away the life of another human being. This action is inherently immoral because it is the intentional action of striping away the life of another. From this, you violate all their rights as well. Morality demands that life remain sacred, and that it is not violated. Killing can never be claimed as a moral action, even though how necessary that action might be, that doesn't validate it being moral.

B)Deontological Ethics. According to deontology, the morality of an action is by the action itself, not the result of the action. Killing for instance can reap positive results; however that doesn't make it moral. "The ends do not justify the means." There are certain actions that violate the code of morality, no matter what end result is achieved. Killing is one of these. Deontological ethics explain that killing can never be a moral action, because of the very immoral nature it has. Killing an innocent can never be morally permissible for it violates a set standard of what is right and what is wrong.

C)The Categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative created by Kant can be broken down into two main maxims.
1."Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law." Essentially, the maxim says that a moral action is one that can be universalized. By claiming that killing is morally permissible to save more people, it should also be able to be morally permissible in any action. This is a fallacy, because killing can never be universalized as a morally permissible action. Univeralization can be equated with the quote: "do unto others as you will have them do unto you." You must universalize the action on yourself. Would the action be morally permissible if you were the innocent being killed? Obviously not. A moral action is one that is the same between all individuals. Since you would not want to be killed, then you cannot claim that killing another innocent is morally permissible.
2."Never act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself." Basically this maxim says that a moral action is one that treats another human being as an end not a means. Killing one innocent to save many people is the means of using a human for another's end. This is immoral because it makes a person a means, just like an inanimate tool.

D)Violation of the right to life. A moral action protects an individual's right to life. This right is inalienable and not subject to forfeiture. By killing an innocent, you have violated their given right, and thus is immoral. No one has the right to take away a given intrinsic right for all autonomous individuals. By killing one innocent, you have violated their own human worth and autonomy. A moral action is one that protects every innocent individual's right to life.

I'll now refute my opponent's case.

Value: morality

--> Set Value for the round. Whoever, can uphold morality in it's purest form should ultimately be the winner.

Value Criterion: Value of human life

--> I agree, to achieve morality, valuing the worth of human life is necessary. "If human life had no value, killing in general would not be wrong or immoral." This statement right here calls for an automatic negation. As you can see from my case presented, I argue that the reason for a negation is because killing can never be moral, as is both of our VC's. Killing may be a necessary way to achieve her VC, but that doesn't make it the intrinsically moral way of doing it. My opponent has agreed that the act of killing is "wrong and immoral."

I. Human Worth.

Sub A

--> My opponent brings up a point system. Essentially saving 3 would give you 15 points instead of 5 (for saving one). Her contention is human worth. I argue that human worth (in terms of morality) is unquantifiable. Essentially my opponent says that human worth is based on numbers rather then the inherent worth itself. you do not achieve human worth this way because each human is equal. I will explain the fallacy in here Sub-B.

Sub-B

--> Say Person A needs to be killed to save persons B and C. According to Aff's logic, killing A is morally permissible because it upholds the human worth of B and C. Note: Each person has 100% human worth. Now, my opponent is wrong. Saving B and C does not equal 200% human worth. Each human is a separate entity to itself. It is two separate 100%'s. From this we can infer that killing A is not morally permissible because you are denying their human worth of 100% also. Therefore, turn my opponents point against her.

II. The preservation of life.

--> I agree, however I agree in a different way. I argue that killing to preserve life is a necessity rather then a moral imperative. Killing is not moral, as my opponent has stated. Would it be moral to kill every person with AID's in that it will not spread? More people would probably be saved, but that doesn't make it moral.

III. Responsibility

--> I argue the same way. It is a responsibility yes, but that doesn't make it moral. The negative is not saying that we should let them die, I am arguing that killing is immoral, which negates the resolution.

*Fallacy in opponents case*

My opponent wishes to maximize life, and preserve it. But how do we know it will be preserved. E.g. what if Hitler was in the larger group before his rise to power? He would have killed 10 million people. Therefore, killing the larger group would be a reason for the holocaust. So essentially, preserving life is a fallacy in terms of the resolution. The morality of an action ought to be based on the action itself, i.e. killing, not the possible outcome, which might turn out horrible, it s impossible to tell.
Danielle

Pro

:: RE: TOPICAL OBSERVATIONS ::

1. My opponent suggests that morality is normative. That is in fact his opinion - not a fact. However since I hastily chose to agree upon all provided definitions (I should've known there would be a catch -- that's what you get for valuing actual debate over petty wording), I'd like to point out that even using the concept of normative morality as a definition, one might disagree that killing is always wrong, therefore negating killing as being absolutely immoral. Thus what I must prove in this debate is that killing is not always immoral. Once I do that, I don't have to prove anything other than the resolution here. Further, I'd like to offer a new definition for the word moral/morally in this debate:

Moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles

My definition is superior than Con's because it offers the possibility of normative morality, but does not explicitly define it as such. Thus this definition is the most fair and leaves the most room for interpretation of a moral argument, which is what this debate is really about. He can keep normative morality as a part of his criterion, but to define 'moral' as such would be misleading. Just because Con believes in normative morality does not mean that everyone reading this does, so a universal definition should be agreed upon here. It is not too late to adopt a new definition; however, even on Con's terms I will prove why his thinking here is false anyway, so this is merely a suggestion.

2. Con notes, "Killing must be proved moral rather then necessary to affirm the resolution." All I must prove is that killing is not ALWAYS immoral in ANY situation to negate Con's entire point. I also don't have to prove that killing is moral in this situation (described in the resolution) - I must simply prove that killing is morally permissible (acceptable under moral guidelines) given the circumstances.

3. Con's 3rd point is completely redundant, and he adds, "Just because a larger group of people may lose their lives, does not make the action of killing an innocent automatically moral." Even if you agree that killing is ALWAYS immoral, it does not change the fact that sacrificing one to save others would be morally PERMISSIBLE. Permissible means acceptable. Note: the agreed upon definition of morally permissible applies more to the term 'moral' than it does to permissible.

4. Con says, "With the intention of wanting to kill an innocent to save their own lives, they are not innocent anymore, because they have the intention to kill. Therefore, the affirmative must prove that intending to kill is a moral intention." <-- I have no idea what this has to do with the resolution. The resolution is not asking whether or not the 'few' people who will be saved are willing to sacrifice one's life in order to save their own. Instead, the resolution is asking IN GENERAL whether or not it would be morally permissible to sacrifice one's life to save others. It makes absolutely no indication that those 'few' have any idea, opinion, knowledge or capability of the situation.

Thus, Con's attempt at proving the 'innocent' people aren't really innocent is a desperate stretch. Further, if you want to be technical, Con's flawed definition of innocent reads, "free from the action or intention of committing moral or legal crimes," when in reality, no person is really free from the act of EVER committing or thinking about immoral crimes (especially if morality is normative). Thus I highly discourage nitpicking here and instead promote the actual debate...

:: CASE REBUTTAL ::

Con's entire case rests on one sole principle - "Killing can never be claimed as a moral action, even though how necessary that action might be, that doesn't validate it being moral." His point here is that using the criterion of normative morality, killing is always wrong, so the resolution is impossible to affirm. This is not the case.

The resolution implies a situation in which a choice must be made: let one die or let a few die (we'll continue to use 3 people in this example). Whether or not one actually makes the choice of sacrificing one to save three, the situation still exists in which a choice must be made. Thus one can choose to do nothing about it, but by choosing inaction, that person will be responsible for all three deaths. Now Con's stance on normative morality indicates that KILLING IS ALWAYS WRONG. If you believe him, then you agree that allowing three people to die is morally impermissible. I have established how inaction in this scenario = killing, and going into the final round, Con has not disagreed. Thus Con attempts to depict killing as always wrong; however, in this situation he would prefer three people be killed as opposed to one.

Moving on, consider the action of killing in self-defense to protect, say, your child. If you understand not only the necessity but the moral obligation of killing in self-defense here, you can see why killing is not ALWAYS wrong. And if you agree that killing is not ALWAYS wrong - if you can think of a situation (any situation) in which killing would be somewhat acceptable (or the right thing to do) - than you agree that killing is not ALWAYS immoral, because the necessity of it makes it morally preferable, thus negating Con's entire case. Again, "The end may justify the means, as long as there is something that justifies the end." Something justifies the end here (self-defense), and something justifies the 'end' in the resolution. This resolution deals not with what is moral vs. immoral, but rather which option is MORALLY PERMISSIBLE or rather which is MORE MORAL than the other. This is a debate about a choice - not morality in general.

:: DEFENDING MY CASE ::

1. Human worth.

A --> "I argue that human worth (in terms of morality) is unquantifiable" says Con. I agree, and was in fact including numerical value in this debate to prove a point and make my argument cohesive - not to imply that human life OR morality can be absolutely defined mathematically. I've already explained that.

B --> No, turn Con's point against HIM. If every life is worth 100% then three lives together would = 300% ...not in terms of each's individual value, but rather their value combined.

2. The preservation of life.

Con argues this point by posing a hypothetical: Would it be moral to kill every person with AID's in that it will not spread? More people would probably be saved, but that doesn't make it moral. This analogy is unacceptable. First, it does not relate to the resolution of one life vs. a few lives. Instead, it aims to kill MILLIONS of people. Two, it does not prove that millions more would be SAVED. It suggests it, but it is not absolutely certain, whereas the choice posed in the resolution is more matter-of-fact. Con cannot back-up this flawed example.

3. Responsibility.

Con agrees that the one who must make a choice has a responsibility... meaning Con has no qualms about making this person responsible for three deaths. Again I ask: is it better to be responsible for one death or three? Would you rather kill one person or three? And Con agrees that inaction = killing. He also attempts to prove that 1 death = 3 deaths (See: his RE Point 1B) which is blatantly false.

Con also writes, "The negative is not saying that we should let them die, I am arguing that killing is immoral, which negates the resolution." Some trickery here... the resolution implies that we cannot save 'the few' without killing the one person. Further, again, the resolution deals with which choice is MORALLY PERMISSIBLE - it's not asking you to agree that killing in general is morally acceptable. It's taking one situation and asking if a certain action is appropriate.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrO

Con

"Thus what I must prove in this debate is that killing is not always immoral."

--> I believe that is a fair enough burden on my opponent. Furthermore, moral normality should be extended, as she did agree to the definition.

"Moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles"

--> I my opponent wishes this to be the definition, I consent. However, normality ought to be the implied basis.

"Con notes, "Killing must be proved moral rather then necessary to affirm the resolution." All I must prove is that killing is not ALWAYS immoral in ANY situation to negate Con's entire point."

--> I'm sorry, I will be clearer with my Ob. 2. I was saying that the action of killing one innocent is indeed an action that is necessary on behalf of the killing agent, however necessity does not make something automatically morally permissible. The negative does not have the prove that the agent cannot kill under necessity, rather he will receive a moral stain for doing so.

"The resolution implies a situation in which a choice must be made: let one die or let a few die (we'll continue to use 3 people in this example). Whether or not one actually makes the choice of sacrificing one to save three, the situation still exists in which a choice must be made. Thus one can choose to do nothing about it, but by choosing inaction, that person will be responsible for all three deaths. Now Con's stance on normative morality indicates that KILLING IS ALWAYS WRONG. If you believe him, then you agree that allowing three people to die is morally impermissible."

--> This is where my opponent fails. My opponent assumes that since one option will lead to deaths, this makes the other action automatically moral. The negative is not saying that letting people die is moral either. The negative is saying that essentially BOTH outcomes are immoral. Killing one innocent, is inherently immoral. Letting people die, is immoral as well. But to negate, all I have to prove is that killing one is immoral. My opponent makes a logical fallacy when she says that oh, since more people will die, that automatically makes the other option morally permissible. E.g. I know some classmates have cheated on a test. If I tell the teacher, who has asked me if I knew, I will get the kids who have cheated and the innocent kid who was cheated off of in trouble. (In my school both get in trouble, don't ask me why, I have no idea). If I lie, I will help the innocent kid, but if I tell the truth I will get him in trouble. What ought I to do? Lying is an immoral action, because it is the privation of truth. However, getting someone innocent in trouble is not moral either. See, both actions are immoral, however I choose to lie to save the innocent. But BOTH actions were immoral. Saving did not make my action of lying moral, just because I was in a moral dilemma. I was necessary, rather then moral. Tie this to the resolution. It is necessary to save more, however that doesn't make the action of killing moral. Both outcomes are immoral. That is the negative's side. To negate the resolution I need to prove killing immoral, which I have done through my 4 sub points, which were dropped. Extend these.

My oppoent then brings up Self-Defense.

--> Again it is necessity vs. morality. My opponent even said killing in self-defense is necessary. Necessity does not equate morality. Killing your attacker is not moral, because you killed him. However killing him was necessary.

"I argue that human worth (in terms of morality) is unquantifiable" says Con. I agree, and was in fact including numerical value in this debate to prove a point and make my argument cohesive"

--> My opponent has agreed that morality cannot be quantified. She jsut said it made her point cohesive. Regardless, the debate is on morality. Morality is unquantifiable. Extend my attack.

"No, turn Con's point against HIM. If every life is worth 100% then three lives together would = 300% ...not in terms of each's individual value, but rather their value combined."

--> you don't add them. They are 3 separate 100%'s. By killing one, you have diminished a 100% human worth ratio. Thus, you are not upholding human worth, because you have taken away 100% of it. Drop her Sub-B.

"Con argues this point by posing a hypothetical: Would it be moral to kill every person with AID's in that it will not spread? More people would probably be saved, but that doesn't make it moral. This analogy is unacceptable. First, it does not relate to the resolution of one life vs. a few lives. Instead, it aims to kill MILLIONS of people. Two, it does not prove that millions more would be SAVED. It suggests it, but it is not absolutely certain, whereas the choice posed in the resolution is more matter-of-fact. Con cannot back-up this flawed example."

--> It is not flawed, it is actually very valid. By killing everyone with AID's at this time, you have saved millions of people in the future, from dieing and contracting it. Also, the resolution says more. More is an infinite amount more then the 1 specified. According to your logic, killing the people with AIDS which would end up saving more people, is morally permissible. Extend my point.

"3. Responsibility."

--> I agree, they have a necessary responsibility to save the 3 people. That doesn't negate the immoral nature of killing. If I was in this implied situation, I would save the 3 people. however I would know that I have killed, which is an act that can never be morally permissible. Again, it comes down to necessity vs. morality.
==============================================================================

[Extensions]

1. "If human life had no value, killing in general would not be wrong or immoral." This statement right here calls for an automatic negation. As you can see from my case presented, I argue that the reason for a negation is because killing can never be moral, as is both of our VC's. Killing may be a necessary way to achieve her VC, but that doesn't make it the intrinsically moral way of doing it. My opponent has agreed that the act of killing is "wrong and immoral."

--> My opponent did not even respond to this in her last round. I have already claimed this as an automatic negation. Since she dropped it, it is necessary to negate. By dropping, she has agreed to my statement.

2. All Sub Points in my case. all have been dropped, thus extending my contention for the remaining rounds.

3. Logical Flalacy. At the end of my rebuttal in my last round I quote:

"My opponent wishes to maximize life, and preserve it. But how do we know it will be preserved. E.g. what if Hitler was in the larger group before his rise to power? He would have killed 10 million people. Therefore, killing the larger group would be a reason for the holocaust. So essentially, preserving life is a fallacy in terms of the resolution. The morality of an action ought to be based on the action itself, i.e. killing, not the possible outcome, which might turn out horrible, it s impossible to tell."

Extend this overview argument.

*As LD debaters know, extensions/drops cannot be brought up since they were dropped for a round. Therefore, my opponent has agreed to them, and they last till the end. No attack from this point forward refutes them.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Danielle

Pro

:: CASE REBUTTAL ::

We both agree that the agent should kill the one to save the three under the basis of necessity; however, Con's point is that the agent will receive a moral stain for doing so. I may or may not disagree. The point here is not whether the agent will receive a moral stain, but whether or not killing the one to save the three is morally permissible... which essentially comes down to - IS THE KILLING OF THE ONE PERSON JUSTIFIED?

Now, Con took an interesting approach at arguing the neg. In doing so, however, he has agreed that killing the one to save the three is in fact the right thing to do. He even goes so far as to consider it the 'necessary' decision. Now, if something is morally necessary, than it is obviously morally PERMISSIBLE. Whether it leaves a "moral stain" or not is irrelevant, as the resolution only asks whether or not a certain action is acceptable. Con agrees that it is.

:: EXTENSIONS ::

1. In regard to dropped arguments, personally, I feel no need in arguing about something that has little relevance to any of the main arguments. For instance, in his previous round, my opponent discusses morality vs. necessity regarding an example of tattle-tailing on a peer who has cheated on a test. While I recognize his attempt at offering an example to prove his point, I also have the ability to rationalize that I can argue his point without referring to his specific example... which I did, when I already dismantled his point about morality vs. necessity up there in my Case Rebuttal.

2. But just to make sure all of my bases are covered - I wouldn't want there to be any confusion - I will respond to my opponent's so-called dropped arguments. First, Con accuses me of not responding to his point, "Killing may be a necessary way to achieve her VC, but that doesn't make it the intrinsically moral way of doing it." I did in fact respond to this in the previous round, as it is, after all, the entire premise of his sole contention. For instance, in R2 I exclaimed, "Even if you agree that killing is ALWAYS immoral, it does not change the fact that sacrificing one to save others would be morally PERMISSIBLE" with permissibility actually being the deciding factor of the resolution. Further, if you re-read my entire Case Rebuttal from R2, you can see how I did in fact thoroughly argue my opponent's point.

3. Next, my opponent says that I dropped all of his sub-points. Well, his sub-points included arguments regarding the 'point' system of human worth (I responded to that), and the argument of 100% vs. 300% (I responded to that too). So as you can see, I did in fact respond to all of these arguments, and therefore find the accusation of this matter abusive and dishonest -- Con is trying to turn your attention away from the true facts of this debate.

Nevertheless, let me take the time to respond to Con's sub-points now, since they are undoubtedly in my favor anyway. Well Con's first Sub Point A is that, "Morality cannot be quantified... the debate is on morality. Morality is unquantifiable. Extend my attack." Then Con's Sub Point B reads, "By killing one, you have diminished a 100% human worth ratio. Thus, you are not upholding human worth, because you have taken away 100% of it." So what is Con doing with his Sub Point B? He is, in fact, attempting to put a quantitive value on human worth as it pertains to morality. In doing so, he completely negates his entire Sub Point A.

It seems that Con is trying to have his cake and eat it too, by first saying you cannot measure morality, and then trying to make his point using "100% vs. 300%" to make his case. So, if you buy his Sub Point A, then you absolutely cannot buy his Sub Point B. If you understand MY point regarding Sub Point A (that using numbers sometimes makes describing our points easier and more cohesive), then you must apply that point to me, as well as consider my rebuttal for his Sub Point B. My rebuttal reads, even if I agree that by killing one you have diminished 100% human worth ratio, I also acknowledge that by killing three, you have diminished 100% human worth THREE TIMES... meaning times three... meaning 300%, and I am once again correct.

4. Finally, Con says that I did not respond to his argument regarding the logical fallacy, for which he used Hitler as an example. Truth be told, I ignored this argument because I did not find it pertinent to the debate or any of the main points. Here's why: Con brought up the argument that assuming Hitler was in a large group before his rise to power (... yeah, this gets confusing...), uh, something about killing the larger group and killing 10 million and the Holocaust? Say what? I pretty much ignored this and concentrated mostly on his clarified point, which reads:

"So essentially, preserving life is a fallacy in terms of the resolution. The morality of an action ought to be based on the action itself, i.e. killing, not the possible outcome, which might turn out horrible, it s impossible to tell."

Okay, well first of all, preserving life cannot be considered a fallacy in terms of the resolution or this debate. Why? Because Con already agreed several times throughout the debate that preserving life should be upheld, for instance when he considers saving more lives the NECESSARY thing to do. Well if saving lives was not necessary or moral (which Con has agreed to), then how can the notion of preserving life be a fallacy or turned against the resolution, such as Con attempted to do with his Hitler example? Hmm?

Moving on, Con's final statement is essentially reiterating his entire sole contention of this debate - the morality of an action ought to be based on the action itself, and not the possible outcome. So again, I will make the point that in terms or morality or "moral stains," my opponent may be correct. Perhaps normative morality does exist. None of this is the point. The point here is whether or not a certain action is morally permissible, i.e. justified.

:: CONCLUSION ::

So the question remains: Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of 3 innocent people? Well Con agrees that upholding life is important, and that saving the 3 lives is "necessary," so I would say that yeah - killing one to save three is morally permissible. Because in committing the immoral act of killing, you do not have immoral intentions. You have noble intentions. And while that may still make your sole act of killing immoral (Con's point), at the same time, given the situation implied by the resolution, it is in fact the MORAL option... meaning the affirmative stands - it is morally permissible.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HondaWang 8 years ago
HondaWang
Just commenting on the fact that the 2AR would require almost 400 wpm to read within 3 minutes. That's just a bit of a stretch considering most policy and LD rebuttals max out at around 330-360 wpm. I can only get close to 400 wpm after practicing a card many times over, and that's only one card.
Posted by joco2k814 8 years ago
joco2k814
I believe that AFF may have been correct, but NEG argued the case much better and earned the win
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
lol, i would be at a disadvantage then. You already have my case. ^^ I'll thinka bout it. My aff. and Neg are both done.
Posted by Bushido 8 years ago
Bushido
Yo CiRro, i liked your case. It was good. I actually just finished my aff case on this topic and was wondering if you ever wanted to go up against and a pretty darn good aff case
(In my opinion) then let me know. Other than that both had really good argument.
Posted by xeberus 8 years ago
xeberus
Amazing. Just amazing debate, Con wins.

Con is wrong.
Posted by water123s-Mother 8 years ago
water123s-Mother
. . . I'd do her.

Your comments must be at least 25 characters in length.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
For a cow; sure.

For a human; not so much.

The three stomachs (cow) kind of make it less (human).
Posted by Seltz 8 years ago
Seltz
For a cow or for a human, any way you look at it, she's hot.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Whoa, seems like PublicForum has a problem with Lwerd.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Attractive for a cow.....
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
CiRrODanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
CiRrODanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by xeberus 8 years ago
xeberus
CiRrODanielleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Seltz 8 years ago
Seltz
CiRrODanielleTied
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 CP 8 years ago
CP
CiRrODanielleTied
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 numa 8 years ago
numa
CiRrODanielleTied
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 LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
CiRrODanielleTied
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 dashdustrider 8 years ago
dashdustrider
CiRrODanielleTied
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 Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
CiRrODanielleTied
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