Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent
Debate Rounds (3)
First off I want to clarify some definitions: All definitions are from www.thefreedictionary.com.
mor�al (m�rl, mr-)
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.
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
Permitted; allowable: permissible tax deductions; permissible behavior in school.
Permissible: that may be permitted.
Therefore, morally permissible means that it is not forbidden to do a certain act, according to moral principles.
Ok now that that's over lets get started.
Topic Analysis: The way I see it this debate is bauot whether or not killing is moral. A simple version is would you be ok with killing someone.
1st argument: Killing anyone will never be moral no matter how you look at it. Killing can never be justified nor ok. Even if it is the right thing to do it isn't moral. Most of us probably would kill that 1 person but that doesn't make ok or moral.
2nd argument: To say that killing someone to save more people is morally permissible is devaluing life. A price can never be put on life, so killing 1 to save 2 or more is still not right.
Thank you for listening and thanks to anyone who accepts.
First I would like to add a few more definitions for moral and permissible
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
3. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
1. that may be permitted especially as according to rule
2. that may be accepted or conceded
With these new definitions and some of yours it can also be determined that morally permissible means: permitting certain acts based on the rules you use to guide your life and decide your conduct aka your morals.
Now to your first argument:
"1st argument: Killing anyone will never be moral no matter how you look at it. Killing can never be justified nor ok. Even if it is the right thing to do it isn't moral. Most of us probably would kill that 1 person but that doesn't make ok or moral."
As you can see my opponent stated that killing would never be moral but then stated that it could be the right thing to do. That is a contradiction seeing as doing the right thing is based on principles an aspect of morals. Also here's a direct quote from your list of definitions: "Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation."
And as I see it it would be wrong to just watch when you can save someone because you wouldn't be fulfilling your moral obligation. In fact you wouldn't even be in the middle you would be the exact opposite of moral immoral because you have an obligation to do what's right even if you don't like it and not doing what's right just to satisfy your selfish need to feel good about yourself for not giving the decision to end a life while saving two others. Saving as many people as possible that is the right thing that is the moral thing.
As for the second argument:
"2nd argument: To say that killing someone to save more people is morally permissible is devaluing life. A price can never be put on life, so killing 1 to save 2 or more is still not right."
Says you that's like saying that one person is more important than an entire nation. Here's a hypothetical situation: a fugitive from another country who will be sentenced to death if caught has come to your country and you catch him. His country finds out and demands that you return him and if you don't you risk starting war that would cost countless lives. Are you saying you would protect him?
Whether or not we want to admit it you can put a price on every life. Even if you want to say we are all equal to each other that just means two people are worth more than one end of subject.
Killing is the right and moral thing to do in certain situations and that's all there is to it.
(And with that I'll throw it back to lhsdebate for his response)
1st: For something to be moral it doesn't have to be right. Killing is never moral, ever. The question is whether it is moral not right which are two different things.
2nd: Just because turning him over is right that doesn't mean it is moral. His life is in your hands and if he dies it is your moral responsibility.
So Random_Man thank you for accepting and this round post your points.
Random_Man forfeited this round.
To makeup for the accidental and unwanted forfeit of round two I'll just argue points from both two and three.
You said "For something to be moral it doesn't have to be right." But how you discern right and wrong is based on your morals. Your fourth definition for moral states this "Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong" Also everyone has a different set of morals which means a different view on how valuable life is. So how can you say something is immoral when morals change from person to person.
"Just because turning him over is right that doesn't mean it is moral. His life is in your hands and if he dies it is your moral responsibility."
So are you saying you would turn him over?
Since what you're basically saying is that you don't use your morals to judge right and wrong what do you use?(you can use the comment area to answer that because I really want to know)
And you are correct when you say that it is your moral responsibility. It's your moral responsibility to save as many people as possible.
"Killing is never moral, ever"
So you're saying that if someone is trying to kill you or someone else and the only way to save your or another's life is to kill the person you should let them kill you.
Unfortunately my opponent underestimated me and automatically assumed I had resigned from the debate and did not post a last round. So I guess it's time for my finishing statement.
Killing is moral if there is a good reason behind it like being able to save more lives. Whether or not you want to believe it we are not all created equal but your worth is constantly changing depending on the situation. To not save as many lives as possible is even if it means the sacrifice of one is immoral. To put your need to feel good about not causing someone's death when causing it would save more lives is immoral.
Now I urge you to vote pro because I doubt many of you would say much different could you really say you would let 10 people die even if you could save them by killing one other?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by onewayortheother 8 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||3|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.