The Instigator
konan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

is killing few people in order to save many people wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 43922
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

konan

Con

It is never morally permissible to do evil that good may come of it. Human life does not have a quantitative but rather an absolute value. Every individual human being has an infinite dignity and value and so cannot be bartered or compared with others. An individual may give his life sacrificially for the life of others, but no one has the right to take a life, howevermany lives may be saved by this action....
fro all friends...this is my projact at my college..so please help me out ,wating
CJKAllstar

Pro

Nelson Mandela killed 130 people during his time in the Umkhonto we Sizwe. A whole nation has now been saved. More people are happier, in peace, and more importantly, not suffering. By being inactive to preserve this morality, you are possibly letting people suffer, and you said "never", so inevitably letting people suffer. Life isn't quantitative, but the amount of people suffering is, and failing to stop more people from having the right to peace, to preserve this morality is the greater evil.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Yes he did. Wow.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Um, did DrySponge give a monetary value to life?
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
The value of a statisctical life is 790000.
Not infinte
Posted by phantom 3 years ago
phantom
You should be pro. Also word it as a statement, not a question.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
konanCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments and refuted con's well.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
konanCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Here's the problem with the qualitative vs. quantitative argument: infinity is a number that can grow. I'm serious here. If you have multiple infinities that are being snuffed out, that's a bigger harm than if you have one. Perhaps I'm mistaking something from Con's argument here, but it seems that comparison is not the issue here. We regard every life to be incredibly important. OK. Now Pro is saving more incredibly important lives than Con. OK. And the best response to this concern is that they have value. I don't see anything about deontology (using people as means) from Con, so I don't see how he's winning this debate.
Vote Placed by phantom 3 years ago
phantom
konanCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Not much of a debate. I didn't buy into con's, "value of life is not quantitative argument". Happiness, peace and loss of suffering can all be gained for many by killing a few. Sticking to con's morality the world would clearly suffer. Con never made much of an argument for his view on the value of life. Pro had more of an argument and a more appealing one.