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

Question

This is the Lincoln-Douglas debate topic for Sept/Oct in competitive debate...

so, I was considering the ideas of "Two or more lives are greater than one life" and "If we have the power to save, then they would otherwise die (lesser of two evils)" for the Affirmative contentions, however, how exactly could I explain those two ideas with more depth?

Also, does anyone else have some ideas for Affirmative arguments: Values, Criterions, and Contentions?

Please don't say Utilitarian because it has no limits on the conditions for which it could apply. =]

Answer 1

i know there has been more causalities from the war in iraq than 911

Answer 2

No its not, not if you are a christian anyway.

Answer 3

Aff Case: Prioritarianism (Utilitarianism with adjustments for relative economic/political/etc. status)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=brai...

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

These sites don't answer the question directly, but may be useful.

Neg. Case:

1.  Counterexamples to Aff's plan.

2.  Killing is bad

3.  It is ethical for an uninvolved individual to decide the fate of others.  Hitler believed what he was doing was for the greater good.

About the case you're writing:

Two or more lives are not always greater than one life.  Two lives > 1 life on average.

When writing your case, remember it refers to "innocent" people.  Not any people.

Those "two" ideas you have are basically the same.  Use "human life" as your value, and "Conserving life leads to more life" as your criterion.

As for the point of view argument, note that the killer could be in either the innocent victim, or the saved lives.  It is not implied that the killer is in neither category.

Please email me if you come up with anything original.

Answer 4

The value of life depends on POV, i.e., my own life is more precious to me than yours and your family's combined. Therefore, it is not morally permissible for anybody but me to decide if I want to sacrifice my life to save others.

Politicians use the 'lesser of two evils' argument (most often factually false, anyway) to justify misery they and their armies (hint, hint) cause. Somohow, the person making such an argument never sacrifices his/her own life for greater good. It is always suckers taking the flack. And the ideology wraps this injustice up in very warm and cosy mumbo jumbo.

Answer 5

This situation was on a show on PBS two nights ago. They did an experiment and most people would let one person die to save the lives of four if they didn't have to directly kill them but if they did have to directly kill the one person they wouldn't do it and would let the group of 4 people die. I wish I could remember the show for you. I will try to find it. It would give you some good studies to observe on this topic.

ADD: Here is a link to the trolley problem. You may have already seen this.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs0E69krO...