The Instigator
lhsdebate
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 9/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,650 times Debate No: 5588
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

lhsdebate

Pro

First off I am a novice ld debater and i need practice so another ld debater would be great. So lets get started.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent. First i will start with some definitions. All definitions are from www.thefreedictionary.com.

mor�al (m�rl, mr-)
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.
1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals

per�mis�si�ble (pr-ms-bl)
adj.
Permitted; allowable: permissible tax deductions; permissible behavior in school.

Ok, so lets get started.

1st arguement- Life is valuable. When we are young we are taught that life is the most valuable thing. So saving the most lives would be the right and logical thing to do.
2nd arguement-Lives are lost on both sides. No matter which side you choose someone is going to die. There is no way around it.

With that I would like to begin this debate and good luck to anyone who accepts this debate
burningpuppies101

Con

Thanks to my opponent for the debate.

Some definitions that I present myself.
Moral: 1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e: capable of right and wrong action

Permissible: that may be permitted.

Therefore, morally permissible means that it is not forbidden to do a certain act, according to moral principles.

TOPIC ANALYSIS:
The way I see it, this debate is about whether or not it is ok to kill one person to save many more people. Let it be restated that all of these people are innocent people. They have done nothing wrong. The burden of this debate lies with my opponent. My opponent must prove that killing one INNOCENT person is morally justified to save many innocent people. My job is to disprove my opponents arguments. If I am successful in doing so, using any method I see fit, then I win this debate. I do not have to prove that it is not morraly permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent. I will do it anyways, to make a stronger case, but it is not required. What is required of me is that I refute all of my opponents arguments. If I am able to do that, I win the debate.

Now to refute my opponent's points:

1. Life is indeed valuable. It is so valuable, we can never justify taking it. If we try to justify taking life in order to save life, we are devaluing life. That is wrong. It is not the right and logical thing to do because we can never justify taking life, because it is so valuable. Nothing gives us the right to take life, not even to save others. If you do indeed justify taking life, then you are devaluing life itself, and that is wrong.

2. So? Just because less people will die does not justify killing that person in the first place. This is a utilitarianist view. This asks us to take an objective view of this action. However, that is not possible. We are not able to objectively look at the world, because we have a conscience. We all feel emotions. We all know that killing is wrong. Yet what my opponent seeks to do is show us that killing is not wrong.

My points:
1. You cannot justify killing. Killing is killing, and we can never justify doing it. In the situation provided by the topic, many of us would kill that one person to save many more. Yet some of us would not. We all know that killing is wrong. When you save the many more people, you are killing. If you are one of the people who would kill that one person, you would not do it without any hesitation. Most of us would be split, and would only do one thing or another because they feel they have no choice. If we chose to kill that one person, would we feel good about ourselves? Most would not. We would second guess ourselves. We would doubt our decisions. Our conscience would tell us that we are doing a immoral act in killing. Therefore, neither of the choices presented by the topic are morally permissible.

2. If you allow to kill one to save many, you are altering our system of morality. You are justifying killing. Also, whoever gets to decide could put us on a slippery slope. You could justify killing just about anyone, because we all have to potential kill many more innocent. Even if I am an innocent person, we all carry the potential to harm many others. Therefore, you could justify killing anyone. That is wrong.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
lhsdebate

Pro

1).I will start off with your first point. You are right you cant justify killing, killing is never right. But letting someone you know is going to die just die when you know you could have saved them is just as bad as killing them yourself.

2).No killing can never be justified but standing back and watching as someone is being killed when you could save them can never be justified nor moral. No matter what someone is going to die, it's just a matter of how many. In my opinion 1 person dying is better than many people dying. Even if it is just 2, 1 person dead is better than 2.

So to your refutes on my points:
1). Yes indeed life is the most valuable thing, but isn't 2life better than 1life. No matter how you look at it 2 or more is always more valuable than 1.

2).Yes killing is wrong, but letting killing happen when you can stop it is also wrong. We will be responsible for the deaths of all the people who die that we could have stopped. So no matter how you look at it we will feel guilty for someone's death.

By the way thank you for accepting my debate and I have had fun debating you.
burningpuppies101

Con

I'll refute my opponent's points, then move on to mine.

1. Thank you. You have just conceded when you said that killing is never right. That is what I am arguing. So if either way is still killing, like you say, then you have just proved my point. Because neither side is moral, and both choices are immoral, you have lost the debate. Here is a chain of logic for you:

Killing is immoral(conceded by you)
Killing can never be justified (conceded by you)
If you kill that one person, you are immoral (extension of logic)
If you do not, it is the same as killing those many others(you said it yourself)
Neither choice is moral(extension of logic)
You have to prove that killing that one person is moral.(Topic)
You have just conceded that that is not possible(you said it yourself that you can't justify killing)
I win.(extension of logic.)

2. Again, you concede because you have admitted that killing is never justified. You have said it can never be justified. Here is another chain of logic for you:
Killing can never be justified(conceded by you)
I win (extension of logic)

So to your refutes of my refutes of your points. (sorry, I just had to.)
1. Ok, but that doesn't prove why it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person.

2. Thanks. You just conceded. Killing is wrong, but letting killing happend when you can stop it is also wrong. So you just said yourself that either choice is wrong. Thanks for the debate.

So in the end, I provided points, the main one being that killing can never be justified. My opponent conceded that point. I have proved why his points also support my case. I win.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
lhsdebate

Pro

Thank you for the good debate i acecept that you have won this debate. I am using this to practice for my Lincoln-Douglas debate for school. I thank you for the arguements these will help me debate the con side
burningpuppies101

Con

Ok.... I just won the debate, due to my opponent conceding in his last round.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I hope we both learned something, and took something away from the debate.

-burningpuppies101
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
coughcough...youcanvoteforyourself...coughcough
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by King_Jas 8 years ago
King_Jas
lhsdebateburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
lhsdebateburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
lhsdebateburningpuppies101Tied
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 Cindela 8 years ago
Cindela
lhsdebateburningpuppies101Tied
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 padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
lhsdebateburningpuppies101Tied
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 symphonyofdissent 8 years ago
symphonyofdissent
lhsdebateburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
lhsdebateburningpuppies101Tied
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