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 used to be mixed about an issue like this but now I have changed my mind.  Sacrificing the few in order to save the many is logically the correct answer.  The goal is to minimize casualties.  One outcome, one person dies.  The other outcome, one thousand people dies.  Obviously having one person die is better than having one thousand people die.

Another answerer asked if you would kill yourself to save others.  Although it would be difficult, I think it is only right to kill yourself.  First of all, all people should be given the same rights.  Why should my right to live outweigh the right to live of more than one person.  Secondly, I don't have the right to kill another.  I think everyone would agree that it is more permissible to kill oneself than another.  this contradicts what I say in the previous paragraph but in that case, death will result in either way.  It is best to minimize casualties.   In a situation such as that, I believe that I should hypothetically sacrifice myself for others, but I'm not saying I wouldn't be selfish.  If the situation every actually happened, I don't think I would be so quick to righteously save the others.

Answer 2

No.  It is never morally permissable to kill anyone.  It is forgivable to kill people, (because we don't know what we're doing) but never permissible.  

Christ (who was innocent) himself died in order that we (who are not innocent) may live.  

Answer 3

I know you asked for an affirmative stand point, but it seems to me you got some good answers already. your lesser of the two evils view makes complete sense. but I will say this if I were debating on the neg side: you can't give a quantitative value on human life. yes, mathematically, one human life is less than 5 others. but that statistic gives nobody the right to morally justify the ending of that one life. nobody. so careful if your going to say that one life is less important that five, ten or 1000 others. no one has the right to give a numerical value to life. it would be interesting to debate you. you know that nationals this yr are in hawaii right [not saying I'm going to make it. i don't even know...junior year's gonna kill]? anyways, all the best!

Answer 4

why would you state your points here

now everyone knows your points and you will easily lose a debate round

just saying

Answer 5

this one's tough.nobody here on earth has permit to kill regardless of what.however ,i think it depends on the situation.in religion,though shall not kill,period.in human law,most of the times u pay,exept for self defense(in which u have to have a strong evidence and witness).why kill an innocent to save more?if that person was innocent that only means he did not do anything wrong.how do u know killing that person will save more lives?it's like saying i will kill hitler before he came into power even though i don't have any idea if he will be a great leader(most german at that times believe so) or become an evil anihilator( say holocaust for one).

Answer 6

i think about it like this, and it may sound selfish, but im sure it applies for about everyone, deep down. would u kill yourself to help a couple of other people live? i dont think you would, and i myself wouldnt either

Answer 7

Ha ha, I like how I have a fellow LD debater wanting opinions as well. I just want to throw out there though....You really have to get away from the religious aspect. A judge usually won't buy "the christian way" in a round because that may not be able to hold very well. Lets say for example... a larger man has blocked a door and there is no way of getting him out of it. There are 30 people trapped inside the room that he has blocked. Dehydration will set in all too quickly unless he is somehow shrunk or cut to be made smaller..... so do we let him die to save the lives of 30 people... or do we let 31 people die because this man is not willing to be a sacrifice for the "greater good."

Don't stone me to death on here.... I was just throwing out a situation and by no means advocate killing people.  

I would offer you some values and criterians but I haven't built up a sufficient aff or neg case yet (I know, I'm falling behind)

Best of luck to you in this season though!

Answer 8

I will not debate the topic here, but there is one irrefutable fact.  If it is not moral, than every combatant, in every war that has been fought, committed an immoral act!

Answer 9

Humans should not play God.  Next time we say, is it ok to kill 100 to save 1000, or 1000 to save 10000.  Heck, how about the whole country to save an even bigger country.

But wait... isn't that what American military is already doing in Iraq? Kill Iraqis to save possible future American casualties?

Answer 10

oh my god, i hope i never have to judge any of you on this topic

Answer 11

Like they did Jesus?  I don't think it can ever be acceptable to kill someone....for one innocent person to sacrifice for many others, maybe....like soldiers.

Answer 12

yes if you are God.

otherwise no.

Answer 13

i don't think so.  sometimes you have to make a call for the greater good.  there are obviously people who disagree and i don't know the exact circumstances you're thinking about, but i couldn't live with myself i had the opportunity to save thousands of lives in exchange of a few.  it's a very difficult situation.  in essence, you are indirectly killing people by standing on the side and doing nothing.    

Answer 14

I  have  long  been  a  proponent  of  the  theory  that,  we  don't  know  the  future.  I  could  not  be  convinced  that  ( The Saved  )  

ones  in  your  scenario  would  live  very  much  longer  than  the  ones   (  Killed  ).

  Also,  when  a  persons  death  equals  extended  life  for  others,  isn't   exile  usually  a  viable  option ?

   How  does  it  always  happen  that  a  good  question  spawns  a  plethora  of  others?