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

Question

I disagree with the statement, but i do have some agruement points. Not enough. Any statements to help win my case?

Answer 1

Yes it is, it is possible to pass anything off as permissible. Research Nihilism.

Everything is relative and no ultimate truth can be made.

Answer 2

I would have to agree with you; this seems to be kind of an awkwardly phrased resolution. Morality is subjective and by stating that it is "morally permissible" implies that there is some universal moral code that this is permissible by. You may be able to run an off case by saying that what is moral for one may not be for another, so the resolution can not be achieved. Same time my class just picked this up today so I may be talking out of my a$$; regardless good luck :P

Answer 3

That's a statement, not a question ding-a-ling.

Answer 4

would it save TWO innocent people?  or a million?  are you talking about an active murder?  or killing by not-acting?  (leaving one mountain climber behind so the rest of the group lives)  

what are your other options?  will sacrificing yourself save ALL Of them?

it's situational.  God expects you to use that melon residing on your shoulders.  pray you'll never have to make that decision, and be slow to judge others who must.

the answer is Yes.....depending on many factors.  

Answer 5

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Answer 6

It depends. Are all lives equal? From a Utilitarian or Teleological perspective, it is. But there are other opposing views. Deontology goes against it. There's a theory called the Categorical Imperative, which is really interesting. It depends on whether you have a moral system built around end-justify-means or means-justify-ends.  

Answer 7

This depends on which moral framework you prefer, a utilitarian perspective or a deontological perspective.

I think a persuasive argument as to why it is not morally permissible is that it undermines our personal moral intuition.   For example, if you agreed with that statement, it would suggest going up to someone on the street, murdering them, and then taking their organs to donate to dying people.  This is obviously something that is very morally repugnant.

Answer 8

There is only one person that can decide that.

Answer 9

dude do some research..and that does not mean going on yahoo answers..look on databases

stop being lazy

Answer 10

The short answer is no, but do it anyway.

I've seen this question answered in a number of ways. Some people say they would only kill if they knew about the person, or if they could get permission, or if they could kill themselves instead. Maybe the single person will cure cancer, and maybe one of the ten will start another world war, so what gives an individual the right to decide, and so on. These are all just ways of avoiding the issue.

First let's clarify the issue. There is no other way to save innocent lives unless you, and only you, kill another person. No slippery 'but what if's'. Second, let's agree that murder is immoral. Now, if they are truly random, innocent people, then consider the outcomes. You can sleep easy at night and not kill anyone, but then good luck trying to explain your morals to the ten grieving families without coming off as high and mighty. I'm sure the fact that you don't feel guilty will soften the blow of never seeing their loved ones again. The other family will of course thank you, maybe send you a fruit basket even. The alternative is to live with the guilt of murder, be forever shunned by society as immoral, and deal with one angry family. But maybe you will get ten fruit baskets.

I referred to the families rather than the individuals, because death really only affects those who survive. Whether in heaven, h**l, limbo, or reincarnated as bugs somewhere in the south pacific, the people who die are out of the equation.

Life isn't fair, and a lot of absolutist moral codes have trouble getting around this fact. Sometimes everyone looses. Face it, you are just as much a victim of the situation as the people whose lives are in question. I think it is ultimately greedy to put your own sense of self-righteousness first. The immoral, right thing to do is kill the person, and accept your innocence as a casualty, and hope that the fruit baskets continue to get sent when you get to h**l.

All that being said, I don't think I could do it, that sense of moral self-righteousness runs pretty deep.

Answer 11

It seems to me that would be playing God.

Answer 12

Every life is equally valuable - how do you value one over the other

What criteria is used to determine who is sacrificed - is this right or is it biased?

Not supported by any law or precedent - why don't we kill everybody infected with HIV/AIDS that will protect everybody else

Answer 13

People have been killed / sacrificed for the greater good since mankind crawled out of the slime.

As far as the moral implications, I am not qualified to have an opinion on that.

Anyone that has ever planned a battle had to consider "acceptable losses" and " colateral damage"

Answer 14

For anyone who wants to know, it is a debate topic.

If you disagree, it is probably because of Deontology, which basically says that it is the means that count, not the end. So even though you are saving lives, you are still taking a life, which is wrong. Additionally, you could argue that all lives are precious and cannot be weighed against each other, as such you can not determine whether killing one to save the others is morally right or not.

If you agree, you are probably determining by Consequentialism (Utilitarianism is a form of Consequentialism). Which says that the ends justify the means. Yes you are killing a man, but you are also saving more people's lives, so you should try to save as many lives as possible, thus you should kill the innocent.

Anotheargumentnt is the kill the scientist to save the old ladieargumentnt. Which according to Consequentialism you should save the scientist. That is just a possible refutation.