» Home » Society
Resolved: It Is Morally Permissible To Kill One Innocent Person....
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. New debate resolution. I need some help with this one, guys.
 davidsuggs  18 Aug 2008 22:59
                           (What's this?)  Add to Firefox  RSS
The needs of the many ALWAYS outweigh the needs of the few , and in some cases the needs of the one.

I would kill one person if it meant the survival of hundreds, even thousands, of people. The greater good requires the one person to die, as it comes down to a numbers game. And as long as you have more people left than you lost, then you won the game
 
 Prometheus  29 Nov 2009 17:30
 Add a Comment
 
 
I'm for it because i personally don't think that allowing a bunch of people to die is moral. And the resolution is whether or not it is morally permissible. Allowable. And if you are in a position to save the people then saving them falls into the 'Morally Obligatory" category of the different types of moral standings.

And to the tram thing. Well if you are standing near the lever. You should pull it. If you are on the tram then you would have no idea that this doctor has the cure for AIDS. To put a twist on it. What if there was a doctor on the tram that is discovering the cure for cancer, and if you didn't pull the lever then he would die and all of his notes would be lost.

And is it really "COLD BLOODED MURDER" if you are saving lives? How could that be "cold blooded"? Wouldn't you regret taking the life of that man in the sandpit?
 
 ncalana  10 Oct 2008 03:07
 Add a Comment
 
 
Who you rather save millions or billions, for the greater good etc etc, this debate could go on until the end of time. End one life to save many sadly sometimes it has to be done it's horrific but necessary
 
 maugatar  20 Aug 2008 14:07
 Add a Comment
 
 
Blah blah blah this is an impossible dilemma--so I will say the ratio has to be at least 1 to 1,000 lives saved just for kicks; isn't that about how it works in the movies?
 
 grokit  19 Aug 2008 07:10
 Add a Comment
 
 
I've thought about this before; this is the example:

A tram is on a hill, and is out of control. You are standing next to a lever which will divert it into a sandpit, and thus save the life of everybody on board. However, there is a man in the sandpit. Do you actively end this mans life to save those of the people on board?

I personally hope that I would have the presence of mind to pull the lever, as what is one life compared to a dozen or more? Although, even better, I'd hope someone else could make the choice; or better still, that this situation would never arise. I don't think I'd know what to do, I'd probably just freeze.
 
 Snipex  18 Aug 2008 23:12
 2 Comments
 
 Would you consider that purposely killing the one man though? Or simply letting him die while you protect the people on board?
by  davidsuggs
 24 Aug 2008 23:29
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
This is one of those nonexistent theoretical scenarios whose logic is used justify societies most heinous acts throughout history. Really the only time it applies in real life is when a person is in an emergency situation and chooses to sacrifice or at least risk their own life to save others; unless we want to start shooting people with infectious diseases.
 
 finsch  29 Nov 2009 18:50
 2 Comments
 
 I agree but extreme hypotheticals do seem to be what is necessary to clarify moral principles
by  davidsuggs
 04 Feb 2010 00:29
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
If you purposely end anyone's life for any reason when you had the opportunity to do otherwise it is murder. COLD BLOODED MURDER

MURDER IS NEVER MORALLY PERMISSIBLE.

Sending people to space was not an intentional act of murder when challenger blew up. They thought they were going to make it there and back.

You have to make the choice where you believe you are saving everyone. (even if you believed wrong)

It is better to let the end result of your attempt at saving people decide who dies, than you deciding.
 
 Calvin  19 Aug 2008 03:44
 4 Comments
 
 I guess Calvin missed the tram.
by  justsumguy
 19 Aug 2008 03:53
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
The tram examples beg the question is it morally (I really don't care for the word) permissable to judge either decision.

This question may offer more resolution.
 
 justsumguy  19 Aug 2008 01:04
 Add a Comment
 
 
There are too many variables.
For example.
Let's take the tram scenario.
The man in the pit is amazingly close to discovering a cure for AIDS and keeps all his notes with him on his person.
While the people on the tram should live, the man could save millions.
I don't think this matter can ever be black and white.
There is no definitive line between right and wrong in this.
This is a grey area.
 
 ScottyRAWR  18 Aug 2008 23:42
 Add a Comment
 
Sign In / Sign Up
 For and Against Recent Activity
Related Debates
We Have Been Conditioned By Society To Think That Crime, Corruption And Dishonesty Is "the Way It Is....
We Shouldn't Change To An Official Language
Gambling Is Being Legitimized And Taken Too Far By Governments
Americans Need A Better Education System
Forandagainst Edit Words As Though They Are Christian Fundamentalist
Islam-the Most Hated Religion In The World
Sex Offender Registries Are A Form Of Double Jeopardy.
Utopia Is Impossible
Television Encourages Delinquency
It Would Bother Us More If They Used Guns
New Debates
People Making Moral Arguments Shouldn't List Page After Page Of Bible References.
There Is No Evil Only Illness And Defects
Are Power Points Usefull
Justin Bieber (for) Vs Nick Jonas (against).
You Have Just Lost The Game
Logan Lerman Is Better Then Justin Bieber.
Justin Bieber Is Hot.
I Fail To Grasp Why Society Does Not Intervene More Swiftly When A Child's Life Is At Stake.
Jerry Falwell Is In Hell.
A Smart God Would Invent Evolution.