The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

'defense of others' too limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 59516
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

bob is a serial killer on the run and's shown every reason he'll continue killing. you see him by chance at a state park. a high reason to think if you try to call authorities he will get away. u have a gun- moral to kill him?

remember, 'defense of others' as a legal and moral system is often said to be only permissible if the pending harm to another is 'imminent' which usually is said to mean 'right about to occur'.
here we are talking just about morality.

all i'm trying to show is that it is *not inherently* immoral to kill him.
-I realize usually, there would usually be a lot of uncertainties that need established, the for sure ID of bob, that he was a serial killer, that he intends to kill again. but, it is possible that most of this can be known with a high degree of certitude, even 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. for example, if the man who sees bob saw him kill his brother, and neighbor, on separate occasions, and has other info on his killings, and his manifesto on future killings.
-sometimes you can shoot someone in the leg instead of killing them. if that seems possible, then bob shouldn't be killed. but my claim is basically "up to and including death" where death is a last resort, but sometimes necessary, and when it is, it should be done.

I realize that bob is not a jury when finding info even above and beyond 'a reasonable doubt'. but, he shouldn't need to be. the right to a jury first of all is to protect against the government, not a vigilante. and, if we rely on justice through the government to take its course, according to the hypo, there is a high probable chance bob won't get caught, and will kill again. so we see this as the necessary conclusion to someone who insists on "doing it the proper way".
is this acceptable as a necessary conclusion? no, no it's not.
jh1234l

Con

Con argues that because the hypothetical serial killer Bob has been shown to intend to kill people, it is not immoral for him to be killed for defense of others even if he is not an imminent danger to others.

As this is more of a moral/logical debate where sources are not the focus, let's debate by seeing the logical implications of Con's logic.

1. Logical Refutation

Let's first talk about a hypothetical second serial killer Joe. Let's say that Joe killed Bob, but did not know that Bob was a serial killer. Instead, Joe killed Bob because he wants to kill anyone he sees.

Then, lets say that in another scenario, Bob was killed by a Vigilante.

Both result in the same result: Bob dying. However, Joe killed Bob out of malice, while the Vigilante did it because Bob did bad things. However, if my opponent was correct, then the Vigilante is more rightful than Joe, just because he did it for the "defense of others". This is impossible, as both had the same result, but con's logic implies that the Vigilante is somehow more morally rightful than Joe.

Let's use an analogy. Say that A = B, and A = C. A is Bob being killed, B is the Vigilante,and C is Joe. In normal logic, B = C. However, in my opponent's logic,B > C, creating a paradox.

"sometimes you can shoot someone in the leg instead of killing them. if that seems possible, then bob shouldn't be killed. but my claim is basically "up to and including death" where death is a last resort, but sometimes necessary, and when it is, it should be done."

This is irrelevant to the contention that the killing of Bob is not immoral. All it means is that there are more moral choices than killing Bob.

2. Moral Alternatives

P1:
If there is a more moral alternative, then the less moral action is relatively immoral.

P2: The act of killing Bob is immoral, since there are more moral alternatives.

Justification for P2:

Death penalty convictions have been found to be false from time to time, and causes for false convictions include Eyewitness Errors and False Confessions. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...)

If wrongful convictions can happen in impartial courts, it can be assumed that it could also happen with vigilante justice, except there's even more wrongful convictions as vigilantes are not required to be impartial juries. Therefore, there is a chance for an unfair decision.

If there could be an unfair decision causing Bob to wrongfully blamed or getting too harsh of a punishment, then a better alternative is a fair court trial. In fact, con already gave an example of a better alternative: sometimes you can shoot someone in the leg instead of killing them. if that seems possible, then bob shouldn't be killed. but my claim is basically "up to and including death" where death is a last resort, but sometimes necessary, and when it is, it should be done.

C: The act of killing Bob is immoral.




Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
jh1234l

Con

extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con argues that if someone were to kill bob out of malice with no knowledge of his crimes, that would be wrong, and that shows that someone kiling bob out of defense is also wrong. this is just wrong of con. a person can have different motives with an objective act. if their motive is good, the act and the intent is good. if the intent is bad, the act is good but the intent is bad, and ti's still 'culpable'. (i'd say sinful but dont want to get too loaded terminology)

con argues if there are better ways to stop bob, they should be done, that doesn't infolve killing him. that is actually exactly what i said. i just pointed out that it's not always possible to stop bob without killing him, so i'm showing with that limited example, that it is not inherently wrong to kill bob.

as argued, killing bob is a matter of probability. if there is no uncertainty or next to it, killing bob is not inherently immoral. if there is uncertainty, it is no different than a jury playing the odds with someone's life. the only difference is one is a government body, and one is not. and there's the issue of 'imminency' as the only thing stopping someone from killing bob unarguably morally if a death is about to occur so self defesnse is needed.... and then compared to when the death willl occur soon enough. "soon enough" is close enough in terms of imminency, and a high probablity or next to certain ID of bob and the situation can still occur.
enough to show that it is not inherently immoral to kill bob.
jh1234l

Con

con argues that if someone were to kill bob out of malice with no knowledge of his crimes, that would be wrong, and that shows that someone kiling bob out of defense is also wrong. this is just wrong of con. a person can have different motives with an objective act. if their motive is good, the act and the intent is good. if the intent is bad, the act is good but the intent is bad, and ti's still 'culpable'. (i'd say sinful but dont want to get too loaded terminology)

Pro asserts that the intent does not affect the objective correctness of the act. However, that is wrong, as:

1. There is no objective "good" act, as morality can be argued to be subjective, and your argument that it is moral to kill Bob is an opinion rather than objective fact, and con has failed to provide a logical explanation on how it would still be moral even after my Round2 rebuttals.

2. Your argument assumes that the result is the only one that matters.

con argues if there are better ways to stop bob, they should be done, that doesn't infolve killing him. that is actually exactly what i said. i just pointed out that it's not always possible to stop bob without killing him, so i'm showing with that limited example, that it is not inherently wrong to kill bob.


How is it not always possible? And also, this is an inadequate rebuttal as I did prove that there are more moral alternatives, but you ignored it and instead asserted that it is not possible.

if there is uncertainty, it is no different than a jury playing the odds with someone's life. the only difference is one is a government body, and one is not.

However, a jury or government court will look at the objective situation, while a single vigilante would be more persuaded by emotion.

Also, it appears that pro had not looked at my justification for P2 from last round.

If wrongful convictions can happen in impartial courts, it can be assumed that it could also happen with vigilante justice, except there's even more wrongful convictions as vigilantes are not required to be impartial juries. Therefore, there is a chance for an unfair decision.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
due process
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cjh1234lTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, con's only one to provide sources, and his arguments were mostly unrefuted