Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

RFD for "killing one to save many" debate

tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 9:23:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I. Resolution

"It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people"

http://www.debate.org...

II. Procedural Matters

a. Disclaimer:

Con asked me to vote on this debate, but I have no bias whatsoever towards either debater since this did not affect my decision. I personally side with Pro's position in this debate, but as I said, I have cast away all biases in writing this RFD.

b. Burdens:

The topic is normative, since it regards whether something is "morally permissible." It would be incoherent to presume either side to be true, and unfair to arbitrarily impose a greater burden on any one debater, so the burdens of persuasion are equal. Pro's burden of persuasion is to show that killing one innocent person is morally justified to save more innocent people. Con's burden is to show that it is morally impermissible to kill one innocent person to save more.

III. Arguments

a. PRO:

Pro argues from the perspective of utilitarianism ("util."), grounding it in the idea that all desires boil down to attempts to reduce pain and increase pleasure. He adds that morality is about finding what is "good," and pleasure is the best measure of that objective "good-ness." He constructs his case on that framework, saying it is more likely that killing one to save many would bring greater pleasure and less suffering, and under that, it is permissible to do so (though not necessarily the best or only thing to do).

b. CON:

Con brings up two conditions by which Pro can affirm the resolution (which is, more or less, correctly stating the burden). Those are: (1) when one is forced to kill either one person or many people, and (2) when there is an option between inaction causing the deaths of multiple or killing one to save the others. About the first condition, Con says one of those is "less immoral," but both are immoral... which almost seems like a concession, because when one is "forced" to do something, it is permissible (which Pro brings up in clash; I will go in detail on this later). As for the second model, Con says it is immoral to kill one innocent person in itself because of responsibility, and argues from deontology ("If you didn't kill that 1 innocent person, then it is not you who kills those other innocent people, therefore it is not you who would be responsible for their death."). Con then proceeds to justify deontology by saying no individual "deserves" death because of their innocence, and says something about one of the two being "less immoral." Con doesn't explain the distinction between "permissible" and "less immoral," so Con seems to be saying there is no moral action in that scenario. Con still doesn't explain their warrant for deontology (since they don't explain what "deserve death" means or how any action can be intrinsically immoral).

IV. Clash

Pro powerfully attacks Con's justification for deontology by saying Con frequently says killing an innocent person being immoral is "obvious" without proper justification. Pro continues by showing that his justifications for util. are much stronger than the warrants given for deontology which are mostly appeals to the obvious. Pro applies this to the argument from "responsibility." Con's responses to Pro, while mostly correct observation (e.g. Con did provide a moral framework), miss the point of Pro's rebuttal. Con still fails to elucidate how responsibility provides any proper framework for morality, or how his framework is stronger than util.

Con's responses to Pro's argument is a semantic attack on who the "killer" is, saying the person who redirected the trolley did not "kill" anyone, so it isn't an instance of "killing" people. Con then responds to the Spock example by saying "suicide" isn't an act of "killing" either. I don't buy either of these semantic arguments because "kill" means "cause the death of." That's implied. Pro adequately refutes the attack on the Spock example by showing that Spock killed himself and the res. does not imply "killing someone else" at all. Pro also shows that Con essentially conceded the utilitarian reasoning by explicitly saying: "It is obvious that saving many is better than saving one." Con's final point of clash is that killing one to save many doesn't solve util. because killing one produces net suffering anyway. But, as Pro correctly notes, this misrepresents util. because the framework is about "maximizing pleasure and minimizing harm." Since harm/suffering is minimized, Pro wins this issue as well.

V. Outcome

Con merely attacks Pro's examples and constructs a weak framework from deontology that isn't properly justified. Con fails to weigh his framework against util. and has no direct attacks on util. at all. Pro proves that util. outweighs Con's framework on proper warrant, and under util., regardless of the validity of Pro's specific examples, killing one to save many is morally permissible. Pro wins.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:08:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 9:23:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
I. Resolution

"It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people"

http://www.debate.org...

II. Procedural Matters

a. Disclaimer:

Con asked me to vote on this debate, but I have no bias whatsoever towards either debater since this did not affect my decision. I personally side with Pro's position in this debate, but as I said, I have cast away all biases in writing this RFD.

b. Burdens:

The topic is normative, since it regards whether something is "morally permissible." It would be incoherent to presume either side to be true, and unfair to arbitrarily impose a greater burden on any one debater, so the burdens of persuasion are equal. Pro's burden of persuasion is to show that killing one innocent person is morally justified to save more innocent people. Con's burden is to show that it is morally impermissible to kill one innocent person to save more.

III. Arguments

a. PRO:

Pro argues from the perspective of utilitarianism ("util."), grounding it in the idea that all desires boil down to attempts to reduce pain and increase pleasure. He adds that morality is about finding what is "good," and pleasure is the best measure of that objective "good-ness." He constructs his case on that framework, saying it is more likely that killing one to save many would bring greater pleasure and less suffering, and under that, it is permissible to do so (though not necessarily the best or only thing to do).

Proved that overall happiness is not promoted, hence not moral even according to util.
Does "less suffering" promote OVERALL HAPPINESS or does it decrease it? If it does, regardless of being less or more, then it is immoral according to util.
Furthermore, nothing about "less suffering" was mentioned in Pro's framework of util. The only thing was to see if the overall happiness is increased or not. If it did, then it is morally permissible, but if not, then it is not permissible according to util. Pro provided. FYI!

b. CON:

Con brings up two conditions by which Pro can affirm the resolution (which is, more or less, correctly stating the burden). Those are: (1) when one is forced to kill either one person or many people, and (2) when there is an option between inaction causing the deaths of multiple or killing one to save the others. About the first condition, Con says one of those is "less immoral," but both are immoral... which almost seems like a concession, because when one is "forced" to do something, it is permissible (which Pro brings up in clash; I will go in detail on this later).

I wrote: " But even if in extreme cases one decided to kill one innocent person so that many innocent people were saved, then at most it could be LESS IMMORAL, hence still immoral, therefore not moral which implies it is not morally permissible.."

The point I was making is obvious, something immoral cannot be morally permissible. I do agree that in such extreme cases one can have "an acceptable excuse" to kill 1 so that many were saved, but this acceptable excuse doesn't make it moral, hence morally permissible.

As for the second model, Con says it is immoral to kill one innocent person in itself because of responsibility, and argues from deontology ("If you didn't kill that 1 innocent person, then it is not you who kills those other innocent people, therefore it is not you who would be responsible for their death."). Con then proceeds to justify deontology by saying no individual "deserves" death because of their innocence, and says something about one of the two being "less immoral." Con doesn't explain the distinction between "permissible" and "less immoral,"[1] so Con seems to be saying there is no moral action in that scenario.[2]

[1] I did explain that an innocent person doesn't deserve being killed by definition of innocence and him having right for life and those close to him not deserving being hurt. So, doing so is distinctly not right and distinctly wrong. According to definition of "moral" in R1, something that is distinctly wrong is not moral.
Furthermore, being permissible and being morally permissible are two different things. My concession is at most for being "permissible" or having acceptable excuse, not for morally being permissible. This was explicitly stated in my arguments.

[2] I don't think so.. Repeatedly saying that it is at most "less immoral", hence still immoral seems to be saying there is no moral action in that scenario?

Con still doesn't explain their warrant for deontology (since they don't explain what "deserve death" means or how any action can be intrinsically immoral).

I wrote: " But even if in extreme cases one decided to kill one innocent person so that many innocent people were saved, then at most it could be LESS IMMORAL, hence still immoral, therefore not moral which implies it is not morally permissible.."

IV. Clash

Pro powerfully attacks Con's justification for deontology by saying Con frequently says killing an innocent person being immoral is "obvious" without proper justification.

Rule #1: Follow the definitions.

DEFINITIONS

Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

Please pay attention to "ethical" part of the definition of moral. Is it not ethically obvious that killing an innocent person in normal conditions (e.g., where there is no saving of anyone else for example, the first time I used the word "obvious" for) is immoral? How fair is it to barely assert that it is "appeal to obvious" and further materials provided in explaining it?

Pro was barely asserting that, weren't they?

1. Pro fails to explain why "appeal to obvious" must be wrong.
2. Pro fails to explain how what I said was "obvious" was not obvious.
3. I did address Pro's claim about my "appeal to obvious" in R4..

Pro continues by showing that his justifications for util. are much stronger than the warrants given for deontology which are mostly appeals to the obvious.

I refuted Pro's arguments even according to util. in R3.. I don't see anything in your RFD about what I wrote in R3, especially in "A POSSIBLE OBJECTION" section.

Pro applies this to the argument from "responsibility." Con's responses to Pro, while mostly correct observation (e.g. Con did provide a moral framework), miss the point of Pro's rebuttal.

In round 4?!

Con still fails to elucidate how responsibility provides any proper framework for morality, or how his framework is stronger than util.

1. The resolution is not about which framework is stronger.

2.
Rule #1: Follow the definitions.

DEFINITIONS

Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

3. I evaluated the arguments of both of us both according to definitions and according to util. and showed that in both cases "killing 1 innocent person" is immoral (even if it was less immoral as compared to more immoral things).. So, something immoral cannot be morally permissible. I don't see what is unclear to you here.

4. Even if responsibility didn't provide any proper framework for morality, read my arguments under "A POSSIBLE OBJECTION" in round 3.

[to be continued...]
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:17:52 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:08:56 AM, ssadi wrote:
Proved that overall happiness is not promoted, hence not moral even according to util.
Does "less suffering" promote OVERALL HAPPINESS or does it decrease it? If it does, regardless of being less or more, then it is immoral according to util.
Furthermore, nothing about "less suffering" was mentioned in Pro's framework of util. The only thing was to see if the overall happiness is increased or not. If it did, then it is morally permissible, but if not, then it is not permissible according to util. Pro provided. FYI!

You have completely misrepresented utilitarianism and misunderstood Pro's entire articulation of it. Util. is not merely about "increasing happiness," it is about "minimizing suffering" as well. Whichever led to *less* suffering, or *more* happiness, wins.

I wrote: " But even if in extreme cases one decided to kill one innocent person so that many innocent people were saved, then at most it could be LESS IMMORAL, hence still immoral, therefore not moral which implies it is not morally permissible.."

I took that into consideration, but you failed to demonstrate that killing is inherently immoral - which was a major factor in your burden of persuasion.

The point I was making is obvious, something immoral cannot be morally permissible. I do agree that in such extreme cases one can have "an acceptable excuse" to kill 1 so that many were saved, but this acceptable excuse doesn't make it moral, hence morally permissible.

You failed to prove that killing is always immoral. Pro had a more flexible framework that they justified. You failed to address the warrants to Pro's framework, and your justification for killing being inherently immoral was weak/under-explained.


As for the second model, Con says it is immoral to kill one innocent person in itself because of responsibility, and argues from deontology ("If you didn't kill that 1 innocent person, then it is not you who kills those other innocent people, therefore it is not you who would be responsible for their death."). Con then proceeds to justify deontology by saying no individual "deserves" death because of their innocence, and says something about one of the two being "less immoral." Con doesn't explain the distinction between "permissible" and "less immoral,"[1] so Con seems to be saying there is no moral action in that scenario.[2]

[1] I did explain that an innocent person doesn't deserve being killed by definition of innocence and him having right for life and those close to him not deserving being hurt. So, doing so is distinctly not right and distinctly wrong. According to definition of "moral" in R1, something that is distinctly wrong is not moral.

No, you merely *said* an innocent person shouldn't be killed. "Doesn't deserve" does not imply "morally wrong." You failed to explain the connection between "deserving" and morality.

Furthermore, being permissible and being morally permissible are two different things. My concession is at most for being "permissible" or having acceptable excuse, not for morally being permissible. This was explicitly stated in my arguments.

I didn't factor the "concession" into the decision.

[2] I don't think so.. Repeatedly saying that it is at most "less immoral", hence still immoral seems to be saying there is no moral action in that scenario?

Sure, it is "less immoral" is fine. You still didn't explain how it was immoral. That forms the crux of my decision. See this:

Con still doesn't explain their warrant for deontology (since they don't explain what "deserve death" means or how any action can be intrinsically immoral).

I wrote: " But even if in extreme cases one decided to kill one innocent person so that many innocent people were saved, then at most it could be LESS IMMORAL, hence still immoral, therefore not moral which implies it is not morally permissible.."

Once more, that's irrelevant, since you failed to demonstrate killing is inherently immoral outside of stuff about "doesn't deserve it," which is incoherent. "Doesn't deserve" merely means "lacks reason." Util. had a *much* stronger justification than your weak one.


IV. Clash

Pro powerfully attacks Con's justification for deontology by saying Con frequently says killing an innocent person being immoral is "obvious" without proper justification.

Rule #1: Follow the definitions.

DEFINITIONS

Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

Please pay attention to "ethical" part of the definition of moral. Is it not ethically obvious that killing an innocent person in normal conditions (e.g., where there is no saving of anyone else for example, the first time I used the word "obvious" for) is immoral? How fair is it to barely assert that it is "appeal to obvious" and further materials provided in explaining it?

No, it is not "ethically obvious" that killing an innocent person is inherently immoral, and to that end your argument is nonsense.


Pro was barely asserting that, weren't they?

1. Pro fails to explain why "appeal to obvious" must be wrong.
2. Pro fails to explain how what I said was "obvious" was not obvious.
3. I did address Pro's claim about my "appeal to obvious" in R4..

This is irrelevant. I didn't even factor any of the "obvious" refutation -- you're missing the point. The point was this: "Con fails to adequately justify that 'undeserved' is the same as 'immoral'" is the crux of Pro's response.

I refuted Pro's arguments even according to util. in R3.. I don't see anything in your RFD about what I wrote in R3, especially in "A POSSIBLE OBJECTION" section.

And I addressed that above.

1. The resolution is not about which framework is stronger.

Pro crafted a framework and made arguments according to that. You crafted a framework and made arguments according to that. You both accepted your arguments given that either framework was true. As such, the one with the stronger framework wins.

The reason you lost the debate is simple: you failed to show that killing is always immoral, and failed to sufficiently elucidate that when one is responsible for killing X, it's immoral. Pro sufficiently warranted that (a) maximizing pleasure and minimizing harm is important, and (b) killing one to save many does that. Note that "maximizing" means to the **greatest possible extent**. It doesn't need to be "positive," only *more* positive to be permissible under util.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:21:06 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Ssadi, you've misunderstood. Here is the crux of my RFD:

"CON fails to demonstrate that killing one is always, unconditionally immoral. CON says something about a person not 'deserving' death and when one is 'responsible' for a death one has committed an immoral act, but fails to warrant it. PRO shows that pleasure and pain are intrinsically desirable and undesirable respectively, and on that basis 'maximizing' pleasure (i.e. ensuring *most* possible pleasure) and 'minimizing' harm (i.e. ensuring *least* possible harm) solves morality. PRO says killing one to save many does not maximize pleasure and minimize harm since it has a negative result in the death of one, but util. says that whatever maximizes benefit and minimizes harm, regardless of whether the end is a net negative or positive, is morally permissible. PRO's stronger framework means PRO wins."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:48:12 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 9:23:36 AM, tejretics wrote:

Part 2

a. Disclaimer:

Con asked me to vote on this debate, but I have no bias whatsoever towards either debater since this did not affect my decision. I personally side with Pro's position in this debate, but as I said, I have cast away all biases in writing this RFD.

IV. Clash

Con's responses to Pro's argument is a semantic attack on who the "killer" is, saying the person who redirected the trolley did not "kill" anyone, so it isn't an instance of "killing" people.

Is it?

Con then responds to the Spock example by saying "suicide" isn't an act of "killing" either. I don't buy either of these semantic arguments because "kill" means "cause the death of." That's implied.

I wrote in round 3:

"The resolution is whether killing any innocent person is morally permissible or not to save lives of many innocent people, whereas Pro"s first example is about one"s sacrificing his own life, not killing another or any innocent person. Therefore, it cannot be generalized to "killing one (i.e., anyone) innocent person".

Shortly, Pro"s first example doesn"t affirm the resolution in general, exception is a special case where someone sacrifices his own life to save others, regardless of what the concept of morality is."

Wasn't that worth to be considered? :(

Pro adequately refutes the attack on the Spock example by showing that Spock killed himself and the res. does not imply "killing someone else" at all.

1.
Neither does the res. imply sacrificing.. The resolution is about a general condition of "Killing 1 (i.e., any)...". I was arguing that even in we considered it as "killing" Spock's example cannot be generalized to "killing 1 (i.e., any)..", therefore it doesn't affirm the general form of "Killing one (i.e., any) innocent person..." of resolution.

More information:

Universal Generalization

"What this rule says is that if P(c) holds for any arbitrary element c of the universe, then we can conclude that [for all] xP(x).

If, however, c is supposed to represent some specific element of the universe that has the property P (e.g., Spock's example in our case), then one can not generalize it to all the elements. For example, if P(x) means "x is fast", then all it means is that an unspecified element represented by x is fast. It does not necessarily mean that everything in the universe is fast."

http://www.cs.odu.edu...

2. I showed that Spock's example is not moral even according to util. in round 3.
(NOTE: My arguments about Spock's example were my rebuttals to Pro's cases, not my arguments to negate the resolution).

Pro also shows that Con essentially conceded the utilitarian reasoning by explicitly saying: "It is obvious that saving many is better than saving one."

Even if it was, then it is not a concession for affirmation of resolution.
Furthermore, I did object to util. in round 3 (before Conclusion)

Con's final point of clash is that killing one to save many doesn't solve util. because killing one produces net suffering anyway.

Where no happiness is promoted!!

But, as Pro correctly notes,

"Correctly" according to what?
What they were saying in later rounds was contradictory to what they provided in round 2 for util.

this misrepresents util. because the framework is about "maximizing pleasure and minimizing harm." Since harm/suffering is minimized, Pro wins this issue as well.

Pro wrote:
"Utilitarianism demonstrates that an actions morality is determined in "proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

The reverse of happiness was produced, no overall happiness was promoted.. The point was that less sadness was produced since a person died.. So, less sadness or less reverse of happiness is still sadness or reverse of happiness, hence still immoral.. Less immoral doesn't mean moral, does it? Refer to my arguments in rounds 3 & 4 please.

V. Outcome

Con merely attacks Pro's examples and constructs a weak framework from deontology that isn't properly justified.

I don't think that in order to rebut Pro's arguments I have to show that what they say is wrong. It is enough to show that they don't affirm the resolution, isn't it?

For example, if I say that 3 is less than 5, therefore the resolution is negated.. Should my opponent attack my argument that 3 is less than 5 or should they show that this doesn't affirm the resolution? Enlighten me please..

Con fails to weigh his framework against util. and has no direct attacks on util. at all.

I don't need to.

1. The util. framework doesn't affirm the resolution by itself.
2. I showed that Pro's arguments don't affirm the resolution even according to util.

Then why should I waste my space in arguing against util.?

3. I did point the flaw/paradox of tuil. in round 3.

Pro proves that util. outweighs Con's framework on proper warrant,

I didn't provide any specific framework, I rather used the definitions provided only. And if a comparison of frameworks was an issue, then Pro's is against Rule #1... Because we had to follow the definitions...

and under util., regardless of the validity of Pro's specific examples, killing one to save many is morally permissible.

I showed that it is not even under util.

Pro wins.

You call it an unbiased and sincere RFD?
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:52:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:48:12 AM, ssadi wrote:
I wrote in round 3:

"The resolution is whether killing any innocent person is morally permissible or not to save lives of many innocent people, whereas Pro"s first example is about one"s sacrificing his own life, not killing another or any innocent person. Therefore, it cannot be generalized to "killing one (i.e., anyone) innocent person".

Shortly, Pro"s first example doesn"t affirm the resolution in general, exception is a special case where someone sacrifices his own life to save others, regardless of what the concept of morality is."

Wasn't that worth to be considered? :(

That explicitly misstates the burden. The res. says "morally permissible," and even if it is morally permissible in some circumstances, Pro wins. Furthermore, if that is justified, then util. is bought *in principle.*


Pro adequately refutes the attack on the Spock example by showing that Spock killed himself and the res. does not imply "killing someone else" at all.

1.
Neither does the res. imply sacrificing.. The resolution is about a general condition of "Killing 1 (i.e., any)...". I was arguing that even in we considered it as "killing" Spock's example cannot be generalized to "killing 1 (i.e., any)..", therefore it doesn't affirm the general form of "Killing one (i.e., any) innocent person..." of resolution.

More information:

Universal Generalization

"What this rule says is that if P(c) holds for any arbitrary element c of the universe, then we can conclude that [for all] xP(x).

If, however, c is supposed to represent some specific element of the universe that has the property P (e.g., Spock's example in our case), then one can not generalize it to all the elements. For example, if P(x) means "x is fast", then all it means is that an unspecified element represented by x is fast. It does not necessarily mean that everything in the universe is fast."

http://www.cs.odu.edu...

"Suicide" is an act of "killing." It is "killing" an innocent person. It's that simple.


2. I showed that Spock's example is not moral even according to util. in round 3.
(NOTE: My arguments about Spock's example were my rebuttals to Pro's cases, not my arguments to negate the resolution).

I *completely* addressed this in my RFD.


Pro also shows that Con essentially conceded the utilitarian reasoning by explicitly saying: "It is obvious that saving many is better than saving one."

Even if it was, then it is not a concession for affirmation of resolution.
Furthermore, I did object to util. in round 3 (before Conclusion)

Con's final point of clash is that killing one to save many doesn't solve util. because killing one produces net suffering anyway.

Where no happiness is promoted!!

But, as Pro correctly notes,

"Correctly" according to what?
What they were saying in later rounds was contradictory to what they provided in round 2 for util.

this misrepresents util. because the framework is about "maximizing pleasure and minimizing harm." Since harm/suffering is minimized, Pro wins this issue as well.

Pro wrote:
"Utilitarianism demonstrates that an actions morality is determined in "proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

The reverse of happiness was produced, no overall happiness was promoted.. The point was that less sadness was produced since a person died.. So, less sadness or less reverse of happiness is still sadness or reverse of happiness, hence still immoral.. Less immoral doesn't mean moral, does it? Refer to my arguments in rounds 3 & 4 please.

I have explained above how, in util, "morally permissible" does not mean "producing a net good," it means "maximizing" good and "minimizing" harm, i.e. to whatever extent "good" is possible and lack of harm is possible in a given situation.

I don't think that in order to rebut Pro's arguments I have to show that what they say is wrong. It is enough to show that they don't affirm the resolution, isn't it?

This is absolutely wrong. The burden of persuasion is equal. You have to show that killing one to save many is immoral, he has to show it is morally permissible. You failed to fulfill your burden, whereas he fulfilled his burden.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:54:15 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
In short, (a) you didn't show that killing one to save many is immoral, (b) failed to contest util, and (c) failed to prove that, under util., Pro didn't fulfill their burden.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:01:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Here's why you lost the debate, in short:

(a) You failed to prove that "killing one" is immoral. You said "innocents don't deserve to die," but failed to link this to morality. "A deserves to die" means there is a reason for A to die. So if innocents don't deserve to die, it means there is no reason to kill them. That doesn't necessarily make it immoral. You failed to show that being directly responsible for death is inherently immoral in all cases.

(b) You failed to respond to the justifications given for util. and didn't dispute it at all; Pro had strong warrants to believe in util., so I bought it.

(c) You've misunderstood what is "morally permissible" under util. Under util., action that maximizes benefit (i.e. increases benefit to whatever extent possible) and minimizes harm (i.e. decreases harm to whatever extent possible) is moral. It doesn't mean the end has to be net positive; action can cause net harm, but it can still *maximize* benefit.

For those three fundamental reasons, you lost the debate. And, even if (b) and (c) were wrong, I would have tied the debate because you didn't fulfill your burden of persuasion.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:03:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:17:52 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:08:56 AM, ssadi wrote:
Proved that overall happiness is not promoted, hence not moral even according to util.
Does "less suffering" promote OVERALL HAPPINESS or does it decrease it? If it does, regardless of being less or more, then it is immoral according to util.
Furthermore, nothing about "less suffering" was mentioned in Pro's framework of util. The only thing was to see if the overall happiness is increased or not. If it did, then it is morally permissible, but if not, then it is not permissible according to util. Pro provided. FYI!

You have completely misrepresented utilitarianism and misunderstood Pro's entire articulation of it. Util. is not merely about "increasing happiness," it is about "minimizing suffering" as well. Whichever led to *less* suffering, or *more* happiness, wins.

) I used what was provided by Pro in round 2.. Any edition in later rounds is unacceptable as per structure set.

I wrote: " But even if in extreme cases one decided to kill one innocent person so that many innocent people were saved, then at most it could be LESS IMMORAL, hence still immoral, therefore not moral which implies it is not morally permissible.."

I took that into consideration, but you failed to demonstrate that killing is inherently immoral - which was a major factor in your burden of persuasion.

I was arguing that killing an innocent person is immoral.. I don't see anything unclear here..

The point I was making is obvious, something immoral cannot be morally permissible. I do agree that in such extreme cases one can have "an acceptable excuse" to kill 1 so that many were saved, but this acceptable excuse doesn't make it moral, hence morally permissible.

You failed to prove that killing is always immoral. Pro had a more flexible framework that they justified. You failed to address the warrants to Pro's framework, and your justification for killing being inherently immoral was weak/under-explained.

I was not claiming so. I was arguing that "killing an innocent person" is "immoral" regardless of how big its immorality is..

As for the second model, Con says it is immoral to kill one innocent person in itself because of responsibility, and argues from deontology ("If you didn't kill that 1 innocent person, then it is not you who kills those other innocent people, therefore it is not you who would be responsible for their death."). Con then proceeds to justify deontology by saying no individual "deserves" death because of their innocence, and says something about one of the two being "less immoral." Con doesn't explain the distinction between "permissible" and "less immoral,"[1] so Con seems to be saying there is no moral action in that scenario.[2]

[1] I did explain that an innocent person doesn't deserve being killed by definition of innocence and him having right for life and those close to him not deserving being hurt. So, doing so is distinctly not right and distinctly wrong. According to definition of "moral" in R1, something that is distinctly wrong is not moral.

No, you merely *said* an innocent person shouldn't be killed. "Doesn't deserve" does not imply "morally wrong." You failed to explain the connection between "deserving" and morality.

"Innocence" does that for sure!

Furthermore, being permissible and being morally permissible are two different things. My concession is at most for being "permissible" or having acceptable excuse, not for morally being permissible. This was explicitly stated in my arguments.

I didn't factor the "concession" into the decision.

) Wasn't it a part of your reasons for your decision?

[2] I don't think so.. Repeatedly saying that it is at most "less immoral", hence still immoral seems to be saying there is no moral action in that scenario?

Sure, it is "less immoral" is fine.[1] You still didn't explain how it was immoral.[2] That forms the crux of my decision. See this:

Con still doesn't explain their warrant for deontology (since they don't explain what "deserve death" means or how any action can be intrinsically immoral).

I have discussed this in length in round 4 under "2: Less Immoral".

Keep [1] in mind, read the following and then compare with [2].

I wrote:
"To remove confusions, think of moral things as positive numbers and of immoral things as negative numbers. For example, -1 is less negative than -10, but -1 is still negative. Similarly, "less immoral" still means "immoral" since it is still a negative number."

Read Con's concession that none of their examples promotes any happiness:

"This resolution in question implies a lesser of two evils scenario, that is to say whether my case or my opponents, the end result is innocent life being lost. Neither scenario of itself will produce happiness due to this circumstantial nature."

Then I replied:

"Exactly! It is good to see that Pro agrees that killing 1 innocent person to save many doesn"t produce any happiness since an innocent person is dying. And according to our definition of "moral" in R1, it is still immoral to kill 1 innocent person since he doesn"t deserve it by definition of innocence."

And now compare this to util.:

"...wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

Isn't it clear yet?
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:08:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 12:03:50 PM, ssadi wrote:
I was arguing that killing an innocent person is immoral..

You just asserted it. You didn't "argue" it or prove it.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:09:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:08:56 AM, ssadi wrote:

Pro's articulation of util: "Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:28:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:17:52 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:08:56 AM, ssadi wrote:

Sure, it is "less immoral" is fine.[1] You still didn't explain how it was immoral.[2] That forms the crux of my decision. See this:

In addition, is less bad not bad? See this:

Person A kills 10 innocent people and person B kills 1 innocent person. Isn't it obvious that killing 1 is a less crime than killing 10? Doesn't being less crime make killing 1 innocent person still a crime? I think you are trying too hard not to understand.. Compare [1] and [2] with this. Or you can compare my example of -10 and -1..

) I really don't know what to say.. You don't have to think like a robot, so that I had to provide proof for everything I said, such as how less immoral is still immoral.

Con still doesn't explain their warrant for deontology (since they don't explain what "deserve death" means or how any action can be intrinsically immoral).

Should I provide definition for what "deserve death" or "deserve being killed" is? Is that what you are asking for?

I wrote: " But even if in extreme cases one decided to kill one innocent person so that many innocent people were saved, then at most it could be LESS IMMORAL, hence still immoral, therefore not moral which implies it is not morally permissible.."

Once more, that's irrelevant, since you failed to demonstrate killing is inherently immoral outside of stuff about "doesn't deserve it," which is incoherent. "Doesn't deserve" merely means "lacks reason." Util. had a *much* stronger justification than your weak one.

Killing an innocent person for no reason is inherently immoral, this was what I referenced and "failed" to explain. The rest was comparing if the condition in our resolution changes that or not.

Don't agree that killing an innocent person for no reason is immoral?

IV. Clash

Pro powerfully attacks Con's justification for deontology by saying Con frequently says killing an innocent person being immoral is "obvious" without proper justification.

Rule #1: Follow the definitions.

DEFINITIONS

Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

Please pay attention to "ethical" part of the definition of moral. Is it not ethically obvious that killing an innocent person in normal conditions (e.g., where there is no saving of anyone else for example, the first time I used the word "obvious" for) is immoral? How fair is it to barely assert that it is "appeal to obvious" and further materials provided in explaining it?

No, it is not "ethically obvious" that killing an innocent person is inherently immoral, and to that end your argument is nonsense.

Isn't "killing an innocent person inherently (for no reason?) is not obviously immoral" nonsense?

Pro was barely asserting that, weren't they?

1. Pro fails to explain why "appeal to obvious" must be wrong.
2. Pro fails to explain how what I said was "obvious" was not obvious.
3. I did address Pro's claim about my "appeal to obvious" in R4..

This is irrelevant. I didn't even factor any of the "obvious" refutation -- you're missing the point. The point was this: "Con fails to adequately justify that 'undeserved' is the same as 'immoral'" is the crux of Pro's response.

Undeserved is not true and not neutral, hence wrong.. So, immoral by definition provided in R1.

I refuted Pro's arguments even according to util. in R3.. I don't see anything in your RFD about what I wrote in R3, especially in "A POSSIBLE OBJECTION" section.

And I addressed that above.

And I re-addressed that above.

1. The resolution is not about which framework is stronger.

Pro crafted a framework and made arguments according to that. You crafted a framework and made arguments according to that. You both accepted your arguments given that either framework was true. As such, the one with the stronger framework wins.

The reason you lost the debate is simple: you failed to show that killing is always immoral,

Why should I show that killing is "always" immoral? You are playing with words.
Isn't it enough to show that killing an innocent person is immoral?

and failed to sufficiently elucidate that when one is responsible for killing X, it's immoral.

When X is innocent and doesn't deserve being killed, then one doesn't have any right to kill him.. Therefore, killing him is distinctly wrong according to "the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong". Therefore it is not moral, hence immoral, hence not MORALLY permissible.

Pro sufficiently warranted that (a) maximizing pleasure and minimizing harm[1] is important,

"minimizing harm" was provided in later rounds which was not allowed according to rules and structure set..

and (b) killing one to save many does that.

Not "maximizing pleasure" part which was initially presented as util.

Note that "maximizing" means to the **greatest possible extent**. It doesn't need to be "positive," only *more* positive to be permissible under util.

Maximize: "to increase to the greatest possible amount or degree", this definition is in accordance to the first part of explanation of Pro before "Put another way..."

Is decreasing to -1 an increase?
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:31:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 12:28:57 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:17:52 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:08:56 AM, ssadi wrote:

Sure, it is "less immoral" is fine.[1] You still didn't explain how it was immoral.[2] That forms the crux of my decision. See this:

In addition, is less bad not bad?

As per util, it is morally permissible to reduce harm.

Take this situation. A ship is going to sink. You have a choice to save one person or two people on two different decks. Both would be "bad," but the second is moral as per util. It causes an *end* of net harm, but it is still morally permissible.

Whatever "reduces" harm is morally permissible. It is impossible to eliminate harm entirely in any situation, so util. is all about *reducing* harm.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:32:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Ssadi, I get your point, and you're still wrong.

If action A accomplishes *bad,* but it **reduces** harm, it is morally permissible.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:52:14 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:52:51 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:48:12 AM, ssadi wrote:
I wrote in round 3:

"The resolution is whether killing any innocent person is morally permissible or not to save lives of many innocent people, whereas Pro"s first example is about one"s sacrificing his own life, not killing another or any innocent person. Therefore, it cannot be generalized to "killing one (i.e., anyone) innocent person".

Shortly, Pro"s first example doesn"t affirm the resolution in general, exception is a special case where someone sacrifices his own life to save others, regardless of what the concept of morality is."

Wasn't that worth to be considered? :(

That explicitly misstates the burden. The res. says "morally permissible," and even if it is morally permissible in some circumstances, Pro wins. Furthermore, if that is justified, then util. is bought *in principle.*

1. In rebuttal to Pro's arguments I showed that none of their examples are morally permissible according to util. they provided in round 2. No edition to framework/s is allowed as per rules of the debate.. Pro or you cannot add "less harm" to util. later after round 2 and then analyze the arguments accordingly.

2. And the resolution states "killing 1 (i.e., anyone)..". "Some circumstances" cannot be generalized to "anyone".

You are claiming that the resolution is affirmed as follows:
Since it is morally permissible for one to kill himself to save many innocent people, then it is morally permissible to kill any innocent person to save many innocent people.." I showed that it doesn't follow.

The "permissible" part is not about "is there an innocent person" that can be killed to save many, so that if there was, then the resolution would be affirmed..

Pro adequately refutes the attack on the Spock example by showing that Spock killed himself and the res. does not imply "killing someone else" at all.

1.
Neither does the res. imply sacrificing.. The resolution is about a general condition of "Killing 1 (i.e., any)...". I was arguing that even in we considered it as "killing" Spock's example cannot be generalized to "killing 1 (i.e., any)..", therefore it doesn't affirm the general form of "Killing one (i.e., any) innocent person..." of resolution.

More information:

Universal Generalization

"What this rule says is that if P(c) holds for any arbitrary element c of the universe, then we can conclude that [for all] xP(x).

If, however, c is supposed to represent some specific element of the universe that has the property P (e.g., Spock's example in our case), then one can not generalize it to all the elements. For example, if P(x) means "x is fast", then all it means is that an unspecified element represented by x is fast. It does not necessarily mean that everything in the universe is fast."

http://www.cs.odu.edu...

"Suicide" is an act of "killing." It is "killing" an innocent person. It's that simple.

"suicide" is an act of "killing", but "killing" is not always an act of "suicide"..!! Proving something for killing can apply to suicide as well, but suicide cannot always applied for killing, killing is a general form where suicide is a specific case of killing.

2. I showed that Spock's example is not moral even according to util. in round 3.
(NOTE: My arguments about Spock's example were my rebuttals to Pro's cases, not my arguments to negate the resolution).

I *completely* addressed this in my RFD.

According to Pro's and your edition of "less harm" to util. in later rounds (after round 2).. It is not allowed as per rules!

Pro also shows that Con essentially conceded the utilitarian reasoning by explicitly saying: "It is obvious that saving many is better than saving one."

Even if it was, then it is not a concession for affirmation of resolution.
Furthermore, I did object to util. in round 3 (before Conclusion)

Con's final point of clash is that killing one to save many doesn't solve util. because killing one produces net suffering anyway.

Where no happiness is promoted!!

But, as Pro correctly notes,

"Correctly" according to what?
What they were saying in later rounds was contradictory to what they provided in round 2 for util.

this misrepresents util. because the framework is about "maximizing pleasure and minimizing harm." Since harm/suffering is minimized, Pro wins this issue as well.

Pro wrote:
"Utilitarianism demonstrates that an actions morality is determined in "proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

The reverse of happiness was produced, no overall happiness was promoted.. The point was that less sadness was produced since a person died.. So, less sadness or less reverse of happiness is still sadness or reverse of happiness, hence still immoral.. Less immoral doesn't mean moral, does it? Refer to my arguments in rounds 3 & 4 please.

I have explained above how, in util, "morally permissible" does not mean "producing a net good," it means "maximizing" good and "minimizing" harm, i.e. to whatever extent "good" is possible and lack of harm is possible in a given situation.

"minimizing harm" is a later edition that cannot be accepted!

I don't think that in order to rebut Pro's arguments I have to show that what they say is wrong. It is enough to show that they don't affirm the resolution, isn't it?

This is absolutely wrong.

This is absolutely true! (You are missing the part "in order to rebut Pro's arguments")

The burden of persuasion is equal. You have to show that killing one to save many is immoral,

In my own arguments, not necessarily in my rebuttals to my opponent's arguments.

he has to show it is morally permissible.

In their own arguments, not necessarily in their rebuttals to my arguments.

You failed to fulfill your burden, whereas he fulfilled his burden.

I proved you wrong!
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:54:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:54:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
In short, (a) you didn't show that killing one to save many is immoral,

Being permissible doesn't mean being morally permissible.

(b) failed to contest util,

I did contest the util. Pro presented in round 2.. Later editions were unacceptable as per rules and structure set.

and (c) failed to prove that, under util., Pro didn't fulfill their burden.

I did prove that, under util. presented in round 2, Pro didn't fulfill their burden.
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 12:58:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 12:54:49 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:54:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
In short, (a) you didn't show that killing one to save many is immoral,

Being permissible doesn't mean being morally permissible.

The topic: "Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?"

(b) failed to contest util,

I did contest the util. Pro presented in round 2.. Later editions were unacceptable as per rules and structure set.

Pro says in R2 explicitly: "Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall."


and (c) failed to prove that, under util., Pro didn't fulfill their burden.

I did prove that, under util. presented in round 2, Pro didn't fulfill their burden.

No, you didn't, and I have explained that above.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:00:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 12:52:14 PM, ssadi wrote:
"suicide" is an act of "killing", but "killing" is not always an act of "suicide"..!! Proving something for killing can apply to suicide as well, but suicide cannot always applied for killing, killing is a general form where suicide is a specific case of killing.

That's why I didn't weigh the *example.* The examples are irrelevant. I weighed the framework and the application of the res. to the framework. Quite simply: (a) you didn't prove that killing one to save many is immoral, (b) you didn't adequately contest util ("maximizing benefit and minimizing harm," which is the same as "producing most possible happiness;" even if it doesn't produce net happiness -- "most" doesn't mean there has to be happiness at all), and (c) Pro linked util adequately to the res.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:02:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:21:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
Ssadi, you've misunderstood. Here is the crux of my RFD:

"CON fails to demonstrate that killing one is always, unconditionally immoral.

I showed that it is immoral if 1 is innocent!!

CON says something about a person not 'deserving' death and when one is 'responsible' for a death one has committed an immoral act, but fails to warrant it.

Follow the definitions and rules!

PRO shows that pleasure and pain are intrinsically desirable and undesirable respectively, and on that basis 'maximizing' pleasure (i.e. ensuring *most* possible pleasure)

Nothing is mentioned about "possible pleasure". It was stated that if something "tends to promote overall pleasure".. Later editions are not acceptable according to structure of the debate.

and 'minimizing' harm (i.e. ensuring *least* possible harm) solves morality.

This part was added later after round 2, which is unacceptable..

PRO says killing one to save many does not maximize pleasure and minimize harm since it has a negative result in the death of one, but util. says that whatever maximizes benefit and minimizes harm, regardless of whether the end is a net negative or positive, is morally permissible.

We don't find this definition in round 2, FYI! However, it was explicitly stated that the "overall happiness" has to be promoted.. And "overall happiness has to be promoted" literally means "the end is a net positive".

PRO's stronger framework means PRO wins."

Even if it is irrelevant to resolution?
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:07:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 1:02:42 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:21:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
Ssadi, you've misunderstood. Here is the crux of my RFD:

"CON fails to demonstrate that killing one is always, unconditionally immoral.

I showed that it is immoral if 1 is innocent!!

No, you didn't. You just *asserted* it. There's a difference between "showing" and "asserting."


CON says something about a person not 'deserving' death and when one is 'responsible' for a death one has committed an immoral act, but fails to warrant it.

Follow the definitions and rules!

Morality = following right conduct (or something similar)

This has *nothing* to do whatsoever with "deserving" death or "responsibility."


PRO shows that pleasure and pain are intrinsically desirable and undesirable respectively, and on that basis 'maximizing' pleasure (i.e. ensuring *most* possible pleasure)

Nothing is mentioned about "possible pleasure". It was stated that if something "tends to promote overall pleasure".. Later editions are not acceptable according to structure of the debate.

In the *same* R2, it was clarified: "Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall." There's a difference between "most" or "maximal happiness" and "actual happiness." This means if an action replaces (-10) happiness with (-1) happiness, it is morally permissible.


and 'minimizing' harm (i.e. ensuring *least* possible harm) solves morality.

This part was added later after round 2, which is unacceptable..

No, it wasn't - "lack of pleasure" is the same as harm.

For the record, adding it after R2 is fine. You're the contender -- you have no right whatsoever to create rules and structure. But even if I bought the rules and structure, Pro clearly wins.


PRO says killing one to save many does not maximize pleasure and minimize harm since it has a negative result in the death of one, but util. says that whatever maximizes benefit and minimizes harm, regardless of whether the end is a net negative or positive, is morally permissible.

We don't find this definition in round 2, FYI! However, it was explicitly stated that the "overall happiness" has to be promoted.. And "overall happiness has to be promoted" literally means "the end is a net positive".

Thus is from R2: "Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall." "Most" means "greatest in amount or degree."


PRO's stronger framework means PRO wins."

Even if it is irrelevant to resolution?

It isn't irrelevant to the res., and I have **clearly** explained how.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:08:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 12:58:36 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:54:49 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:54:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
In short, (a) you didn't show that killing one to save many is immoral,

Being permissible doesn't mean being morally permissible.

The topic: "Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?"

) Exactly!

(b) failed to contest util,

I did contest the util. Pro presented in round 2.. Later editions were unacceptable as per rules and structure set.

Pro says in R2 explicitly: "Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall."

) Exactly! What does "produce" mean? What does "overall happiness" mean?

There are two situations:

1) 1 person dies! -> No overall happiness is "produced".
2) More than 1 people die! No overall happiness is "produced".

and (c) failed to prove that, under util., Pro didn't fulfill their burden.

I did prove that, under util. presented in round 2, Pro didn't fulfill their burden.

No, you didn't,

Yes, I did.

and I have explained that above.

and I have re-explained that above (in this post)..
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:10:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 1:08:19 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:58:36 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:54:49 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:54:15 AM, tejretics wrote:
In short, (a) you didn't show that killing one to save many is immoral,

Being permissible doesn't mean being morally permissible.

The topic: "Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?"

) Exactly!

(b) failed to contest util,

I did contest the util. Pro presented in round 2.. Later editions were unacceptable as per rules and structure set.

Pro says in R2 explicitly: "Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall."

) Exactly! What does "produce" mean? What does "overall happiness" mean?

There are two situations:

1) 1 person dies! -> No overall happiness is "produced".
2) More than 1 people die! No overall happiness is "produced".

You are so wrong. We aren't talking about "overall happiness." "Overall happiness" is entirely distinct from "most happiness overall." The latter means, among everything being considered (i.e. over all of them), "most" (i.e. "greatest in degree") happiness is produced.

I'm done engaging with you, since you've clearly misunderstood the debate.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:12:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 12:08:18 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:03:50 PM, ssadi wrote:
I was arguing that killing an innocent person is immoral..

You just asserted it.

It is obvious beyond any reasonable doubt!

You didn't "argue" it or prove it.

I did.. Repeating:

One has no right to kill an innocent person, it is wrong according to principles of right conduct. Therefore, it is immoral by definition provided in round 1..
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:12:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
"Overall happiness" has nothing to do with "most happiness overall." In the former, it means net happiness, in the latter it means greatest happiness among all competing situations.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:13:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 1:12:35 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:08:18 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:03:50 PM, ssadi wrote:
I was arguing that killing an innocent person is immoral..

You just asserted it.

It is obvious beyond any reasonable doubt!

You didn't "argue" it or prove it.

I did.. Repeating:

One has no right to kill an innocent person, it is wrong according to principles of right conduct.

You have to **prove** that. This is absolutely not true.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:18:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 12:32:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
Ssadi, I get your point, and you're still wrong.

If action A accomplishes *bad,* but it **reduces** harm, it is morally permissible.

If only it reduced any **existing** harm.. It is not morally permissible if the overall harm is increased PLUS the rights of others are violated.. Other conditions such as many people being saved can at most be *an excuse* for A to be accomplished. This doesn't change the fact that the rights of an innocent person are violated which is still wrong according to principles of right conduct. Accomplishing A can at most be permissible if there was a strong excuse, but not moral, hence not morally permissible.
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:19:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 1:18:55 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:32:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
Ssadi, I get your point, and you're still wrong.

If action A accomplishes *bad,* but it **reduces** harm, it is morally permissible.

If only it reduced any **existing** harm..

There is an existing harm if a person is *forced* to kill one to save many; if that person doesn't kill one, then the others' lives are at risk (i.e. an existing harm).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:27:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 12:01:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
Here's why you lost the debate, in short:

(a) You failed to prove that "killing one" is immoral.

I didn't have to do so. Why are you repeatedly dropping the part "innocent"?

You said "innocents don't deserve to die," but failed to link this to morality.

The link is the definition of "moral" in R1.

"A deserves to die" means there is a reason for A to die. So if innocents don't deserve to die, it means there is no reason to kill them.

Which means doing so is wrong according to principles of right conduct!

That doesn't necessarily make it immoral.

No, it does, even according to util. The overall happiness is decreased!

You failed to show that being directly responsible for death is inherently immoral in all cases.

Why should I do so? Isn't it enough for me to do so only for the case where the dead one was innocent and didn't deserve it?

(b) You failed to respond to the justifications given for util. and didn't dispute it at all; Pro had strong warrants to believe in util., so I bought it.

I did dispute the util. given in R2, the rest is unacceptable according to rules and structure.

(c) You've misunderstood what is "morally permissible" under util. Under util., action that maximizes benefit (i.e. increases benefit to whatever extent possible) and minimizes harm (i.e. decreases harm to whatever extent possible) is moral. It doesn't mean the end has to be net positive; action can cause net harm, but it can still *maximize* benefit.

Later editions are unacceptable!

For those three fundamental reasons, you lost the debate. And, even if (b) and (c) were wrong, I would have tied the debate because you didn't fulfill your burden of persuasion.

That is the main point I felt to disagree to your RFD. At least my arguments and rebuttals were not less persuasive and less convincing than Pro's.. This is actually what I am arguing for.
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:30:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 1:27:29 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:01:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
Here's why you lost the debate, in short:

(a) You failed to prove that "killing one" is immoral.

I didn't have to do so. Why are you repeatedly dropping the part "innocent"?

Okay, you failed to prove that "killing an innocent" is immoral.


You said "innocents don't deserve to die," but failed to link this to morality.

The link is the definition of "moral" in R1.

Moral = "according to the principles of right conduct"

What does killing innocents have to do with "right" conduct? What determines an objective "right"?


"A deserves to die" means there is a reason for A to die. So if innocents don't deserve to die, it means there is no reason to kill them.

Which means doing so is wrong according to principles of right conduct!

Prove it. What does "deserve" have to do with "right conduct"?


That doesn't necessarily make it immoral.

No, it does, even according to util. The overall happiness is decreased!

Util isn't about "overall" happiness. It's about *maximizing* happiness.


You failed to show that being directly responsible for death is inherently immoral in all cases.

Why should I do so? Isn't it enough for me to do so only for the case where the dead one was innocent and didn't deserve it?

"Didn't deserve it" has nothing to do with "principles of right conduct."


(b) You failed to respond to the justifications given for util. and didn't dispute it at all; Pro had strong warrants to believe in util., so I bought it.

I did dispute the util. given in R2, the rest is unacceptable according to rules and structure.

No, you didn't.


(c) You've misunderstood what is "morally permissible" under util. Under util., action that maximizes benefit (i.e. increases benefit to whatever extent possible) and minimizes harm (i.e. decreases harm to whatever extent possible) is moral. It doesn't mean the end has to be net positive; action can cause net harm, but it can still *maximize* benefit.

Later editions are unacceptable!

It wasn't a later addition; further, later additions *are* acceptable. You don't get to define the rules.


For those three fundamental reasons, you lost the debate. And, even if (b) and (c) were wrong, I would have tied the debate because you didn't fulfill your burden of persuasion.

That is the main point I felt to disagree to your RFD. At least my arguments and rebuttals were not less persuasive and less convincing than Pro's.. This is actually what I am arguing for.

No, your arguments were less persuasive than Pro's.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 1:34:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 1:13:25 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 1:12:35 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:08:18 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/11/2016 12:03:50 PM, ssadi wrote:
I was arguing that killing an innocent person is immoral..

You just asserted it.

It is obvious beyond any reasonable doubt!

You didn't "argue" it or prove it.

I did.. Repeating:

One has no right to kill an innocent person, it is wrong according to principles of right conduct.

You have to **prove** that.

What do you want for "proof"?

This is absolutely not true.

You don't have to be like a computer program in preparing your RFD..

Please tell me, do Pro's examples affirm the resolution according to util. they provided in round 2 only or not?
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36