Zombie apocalypse- THW shoot your best freind who has been bitten by a zombie
Debate Rounds (3)
the assumptions that will be made is that you are the only band of survivors that you know, your numbers are few and that once bitten it is only a matter of time before you turn into a zombie.
@derjungfuchs It is and indeterminate time i.e we do not know
On side opposition we stand for whats not only in the best interest of society but what is the most morally permissible course of action. As so i have two points of contention today.
1. The person who's bitten, your friend is not yet a zombie and we believe that it is in the best interests of your group to not only respect his last wishes, but to also to uphold this sort of a moral standard. Side opposition believes that every person has an inherent right to life. We believe that this is an inalienable right and that it cannot be violated. If it were to be violated we feel that this violation is a detriment to the survival of our pack. This is because it sets up the precedent that it is morally permissible to kill of people in your group when you believe that there is a threat. By following this precedent when things like food ultimately become scarce, it would be justifiable to shoot people in order to try and preserve the survivability of the group. The other issue is that the proposed course of action is an affront to the core principles of society and we cannot allow such a beach to occur.
2. The person who has been bitten is your friend. This is someone who has been fighting along your side and we feel that we should respect their last shed of dignity before their inevitable death and that we need to respect their last wishes. We believe that by respecting their last wishes we ultimately take the moral high ground and allow people to have their last moments in a sense of peace, not with their friends pointing guns at them.
"In the best interest of society, and the most morally permissible course of action." These two statements are often polar opposites of each other. For example, when a murderer is convicted of crime, would it not be said that by executing him, you are acting in the interest of society? However, as a society we choose to not execute him, based on moral principles. I will make clear how this relates to the debate at hand, further in my response.
Now, in response to your arguments.
1. You argue that by killing a bitten member of your group, you are directly going against certain morals that guide and govern your group. I will argue that this is not true.
When you kill a bitten member of your group, it is done under the assumption that your friend will turn into a zombie, and directly endanger your group. You are not setting a precedent to kill each other in danger of starvation, because the original act was out of necessity. When you kill your bitten friend, you are saving yourself from a possible horrific, and gruesome death. The group will understand the difference between killing out of necessity, and out of convenience. (Killing in face of starvation.)
2. You argue that by not shooting your friend, you are respecting his last wishes. This is done under the assumption that said friend would choose to have a few hours of peace, in exchange for damaging the survivability of the group. You would be correct if this was modern day, however this is a post apocalyptic world. There is every chance that this member would understand the threat he poses, and choose for you to shoot him. In summary, there isn't a direct correlation between respecting your friend, and not shooting your friend.
3. By shooting your recently bitten friend, you are possibly saving him from a slow, painful, and horrific existence. To survive in a post-apocalyptic world, you must realize that the hard choice is sometimes the better choice. You must understand that modern world moral standards are no longer at play, and that by shooting your friend, you are doing him a favour. As well as increasing your own chances of survival.
In conclusion, I argue that letting your friend live, is not equal to acting "in the best interest of society" and "in the most morally permissible course of action." In the best interest of society is staying alive, and a bitten friend can harm you. The most morally permissible course of action is respecting your peer's wishes, and your bitten friend could likely wish to be shot.
1. The idea of a zombie eating you is one that surely by this time in the apocalypse is nothing new to you. We believe that since your group has survived at all you must have dealt with zombies at some time or another. Also given the fact that it is an apocalypse, we believe that there are millions of zombies out there and do not believe that a million plus one is that much more deadly. Also you can do things such as tie down the friend or form a firing squad around him or even simply run away, We simply object to the idea of killing your friend while he's not yet a zombie. Also we can use the time while hes turning into a zombie to learn about things such as how long it takes someone to turn into a zombie.
In response to this idea that convenience and necessity, we feel that the distinction you've brought up is invalid. In both cases, the group is faced with a very real chance of extinction, and that in both cases people will kill each other. Moreover, we feel that when a small group is faced with a situation such as a scarcity with good, people's paranoia and fears begin to kick in sapping them of their rationality. Their interest in preserving their own lives causes them to mistrust others, and as such will believe that in times of scarcity due to their own interests and lack of rationality in this case, kill others to try and save themselves and/or the group.
I think that my opponents 2nd and 3rd points can be amalgamated into one point about the last will of your dying friend.
we believe that on there are two cases and on hour side of the house we have the best solution to both of these.
Case A. Our friend does not want to die.
Under our side of the house we respect your friends last wishes and are willing to uphold his human rights and are willing to wait until he turns into a zombie first before shooting him. We don't think that there are any risks associate with this as i have already addressed it in my first point. On our side of the house we have both the upholding of moral principles as well as the safety that is present on the government side of this case. We also feel that this is your friend someone who has survived the apocalypse with you up until now. We feel that you should treasure his memories and last moments and not spend it pointing a gun at him, threatening him while he is on the verge of death.
Case B. Our friend wants to die.
In this case then we feel that it is a decision that your friend is making and that he has the ability to hoour his decision. We feel that if your friend was truly in such a state that he wanted to die, he should have the freedom to do so. However, this doesn't mean that we should shoot him. We have no right to be deciding the fate of our friend for him and that it is within his realm of control to pick how and when he wants to go. To reiterate, as we have no right to be choosing for our friend, the decision, if it is to kill him, should rest in his hands.
Your argument is based on the fact that one additional zombie does not pose much of a threat to an already hardened group. However, let me paint a scenario for you.
You run into your previous companion, who is now a full fledged zombie. Considering the group left him alive based on humane decisions, it is a viable scenario that they decide to spare his life. (As you pointed out, this decision could be affected by growing dearth of rationality.) As we do not know how strong or smart these zombies are, it is entirely possible that this group of survivors is injured in an attempt to escape. With this conclusion, the cons of taking the moral high road outweigh the pros.
Or perhaps like con suggested, you tie up your bitten friend. Is it really the more humane, and morally acceptable to tie up your friend? Con's original argument was that your friend deserves to live his remaining moments in a sense of peace. Having your few friends in the world tie you to a tree, in the middle of no where is certainly not peaceful. In addition, by tying him up, you are condemning him to suffer, alone, slowly dying of starvation, until someone else kills him.
In summary, I firmly believe that by allowing your friend to live, you are endangering yourself, and condemning said friend to suffer.
As a side note, this stands to be my first ever debate. Thanks for making it a good one! I evidently have a lot to learn.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.