|
One thousand human lives are worth more than one human life.
It has a lot do to with your intentions behind the "killing" of that one person to save the others.
Would you kill Hitler to save all those millions of Jews? I think God would forgive you if you did.
On the other hand, if you hated that person and killed them purposely and then realized they could
help others because of their death, then that's not right. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Everyone gets to define their own morals, so if you say it is morally permissible then for you it
is.
Legally permissible? No. Ethically permissible? No. But morally permissible, it can be. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You are the volunteer, huh, lemonadee? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It CAN be true but it is not a given that it is true. For example: 1) Whether the innocent PERSON
CONSENTS or not is a big factor - some volunteer to be heroes, others may be horrified at the
thought. 2) TIME is a big factor - if you have only seconds to turn the steering wheel right or
left it may be more understandable that you turned the car into the one innocent person, but if you
premeditate for months and withhold the info of the murder to come from the pending victim it adds a
degree of conspiracy. 3) The QUALITY OF LIFE of those saved is a factor, because if you're killing
a very good person to save the lives of 20 murderers is it worth it? 4) The WAY THEY ARE KILLED is
a factor. Is forcing one person to die from horrific excruciating slow acid drips better than
letting 3 other people die from quick gun shots? 5) The COLLATERAL IMPACT of the lives lost is a
factor, for example one person may have 7 children and 2 grandparents utterly dependent on them for
survival, but the 3 others who could die may have no one or contribute nothing to the lives of
anyone else. 6) FALSE PERCEPTION is a factor - because perhaps no one really needs to die at all
and some crackpot is just dreaming up this either/or scenario. Consider a witch hunt in which
people claim there is one witch who has to die before s/he kills everyone else -- but perhaps there
really is no witch to start with. 7) AGE/LIFE POTENTIAL is a factor - killing 1 child with a full
life ahead of them so you can save 3 very old people who have just months left to live anyway is not
a very good trade.
BUT, if you have a volunteer, or you have a split second decision, or the loss of one truly does
save an entire city, and all those other factors I mentioned are mitigated, then yes it's justified
to kill the one person. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I want a neutral column...
Anyways, this reminds me of Chairman Mao Zedong, who used the ideology "kill 1 to save 1000"... This
sounds worth it, no?
The question then lies at 'innocent'... How would you define it, and who would you tell?
Fundamentally yes, but it depends. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I would say yes but i also depends on the probabilities of any given outcome, i.e. Ow likely is it
that killing A will save all of B? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Post the correct resolution please:
RESOLVED: It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent
people
i'm debating this too and I hope you didn't just post this up here so you could use the things
people said in your case...
I could tell people why I'm for this but I don't feel like typing up my whole affirmative case
haha
hope to debate ya soon :) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Depends on the situation, but usually yes! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
For all those that think this question is wrong, here is a hypothetical situation: A terrorist
flying a plane with 30 people is about to crash into a high-occupancy building (at least three
thousand people), not to mention the people that will be killed when this building collapses. Would
you give the order to have a fighter jet shoot down the plane? It is always a hard measure to weigh
when talking about taking a few lives to save many, and I hope I am never in that position, but if
it has to be done...then it has to be done. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Depends on the definition of moral. Morals in the sense of an accepted social conduct are determined
by lawmakers.
If you killed someone in America, you would probably be put on trial. If your defense was you had to
kill a person to save two people, you would probably be in trouble. If it was to save 2000 people,
you would probably be in less trouble. If it was to save 2,000,000 people, you would probably be a
hero.
If the definition is a religious one, we know how this can differ. Depends on the religion. Then it
depends if a segment of an accepted religion can create it's own more localized moral.
If I was in the debate, I would get in trouble because I would demand that Moral be defined.
Defining moral is a huge debate. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It CAN be morally justified but each circumstance has to be evaluated on its own merit and/or
probabilities.
For example, if some innocent guy is almost certainly about to accidentally lean against a nuclear
destruct button and your only chance to stop him in time is to shoot him from a great distance then
yes it's morally justified to pull the trigger. Sure, you may have some soul searching to do
afterward but you did the right thing. However, if it's just a slim chance the person is going to
accidentally hit that button then no you're not justified to shoot.
Also, you could never use basic math to justify a questionable move, i.e. "well I had to kill 2 to
save 10" - that's not good enough by itself. All the other reasoning must be weighed too. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree. This is often portrayed in films and games where the hero has to make a decision about
sacrificing the one he loves for hundreds of others (God of War: Chains of Olympus, only one I could
think of). The way the question is phrased confuses whether to concentrate on one point or another.
From the way the statement sounds, it is like saying you have to kill a random person to save
hundreds of other random people. Whereas the way I see it, you save hundreds of others whilst the
one person dies, but not of your hands. If the statement was phrased better then a better answer
could have been submitted. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Didn't we just do this last week?
I say one to one thousand, as a general guideline. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
All you can do it all you can do.
It's like being between a rock and a hard place.
I
f you had to make the decision, you would have to save the many, unless they were a bunch of eeerse
heeeels. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think it's all circumstantial, but generally, actively killing one innocent person to save a
hundred is just. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tough call. What you're saying is that even more innocent people will die if you don't kill the
innocent person?
I have to agree that it is moral. Immoral is being put in the position to have to make the
decision. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
No. This is evil, unjust, and plain wrong: I vote for the Individual - against The State. The
Individual, not the Collective.
You, are your own Moral Value. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It is never moral to take human life.
Two wrongs do not equal right within any Moral Equation.
Unless the person has committed a Capital Offense: First-degree-murder. Then it is a life for a
life, as payment, Justice would predicate this take place. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No it's not moral, murder is murder. However there may be times when perhaps murder is the only
logical decision. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm going to go a little over the top here and see if i can't get back to my high school roots (if
it were):
Killing one person to kill a thousand people simply means your killing one thousand and one
people... The true question seems to be whether or not that person is fighting to stay alive or a
rogue victim...
In either case (OMG THIS IS HILARIOUS) the person doing the massacre or homicide or killin is the
person thought to be pursuing the line of thought of whether or not it is "moral"...
More realistically... An innocent person never deserves to die unless being killed by a person who
is intimately tied to them and thusly the one to live with the guilt...
In other words unless your the one up to the task the question isn't for you and personally i say no
no one's life is worth sparing regardless of their innocence or the masses at risk... Short of one's
self... Which seems easier if still ultra-dramatic |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If you mean that as in, if there two burning buildings (one with one person and one with a hundred)
and you can only save one building, then yes. But if you mean that as in (if there's a burning
building with a hundred people in it and there one person sitting safely on the curb watching and
had to kill him to save the ppl in the burning building, then no. Which is what i think you mean.
You cant kill an innocent person to save other ppl. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
29 Aug 2008 21:53
Sign In
