19. It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

Thank you, Brik, for the well wishes, and I too would like to welcome my opponent, the judges and other readers to this debate. For now I will agree with the proposed definitions as provided by Pro; however, I will dispute any interpretations as they arise. R.A: REBUTTAL It is impossible for two or more people to be equally innocent. I understand Pro's point that the topic does not specify any person(s) to be more or less innocent than another; however, the definition of innocent as being "not having committed any crime or action which warrants punishment by death" is faulty, at best. For instance, here in the States we may not deem adultery a crime to warrant punishment by death. In Saudi Arabia, citizens raised in a culture very different from ours would acknowledge the act of adultery as being worthy of a death sentence (to say the least). In this debate it is important to establish what is and isn't moral, and this morality must cross global borders in order to effectively represent the resolution. The problem is that people have opposing views regarding morality, and thus it is important as Con to not only illustrate but hi-lite those differences, in order to further evaluate how the resolution cannot be true. Think of it this way: let's assume that your mother is a good person and a great citizen. I can tell you that I am also a good person and a great citizen. But whose life would you rather sacrifice to save 5 others - my life or your mothers? Chances are that you would rather see me go. This proves that even if several people are all seemingly "equally" good, it is not always clear whose life should be the one sacrificed and whose should be saved; it would all depend on the person being asked. Pro has already established that no person is free of sin. Even if we were to compare the faults and flaws of several individuals, the likelihood of people agreeing upon another's exact value is impossible. This is indeed relative to the debate at hand. Consider the idea of George Bush's life being sacrificed to save the lives of 5 average, good American citizens. Some people might be happy that GWB was gone. Some would agree with the choice based on practicality (1 death verses 5), while others would disagree with the decision based on the fact that GWB is the President of the United States, and his death would have world-wide repercussions in addition to familial disdain. My point? Pro's assertion of the topic at hand means that this logic applies to EVERY "innocent" person, whether it's George Bush, Mother Theresa or your mom. By affirming the resolution, Pro is saying that hands down 1 death is better than 5, and he attempts to justify that logic by saying that all people involved would be "equally" innocent. However I have already established how all people involved cannot possibly be deemed equally innocent, and therefore his logic is flawed. CONTENTIONS: REBUTTAL 1. I disagree regarding Pro's example that Ray and Jocelyn are equally to blame for Tom's death. In example A, it was because of Ray's direct action that Tom died. In example B, Jocelyn's inaction may have RESULTED in Tom's death, but her inaction did not CAUSE the circumstance that led to his demise. Thus, it was Ray's direct action that was ‘worse' in comparison to J's inaction. Values in our own judicial system support this notion. Consider the example of one being hit by a drunk driver, Jeff. Nancy was at the party with Jeff when she noticed him grab his keys and leave the house. Knowing he was drunk, Nancy could have and should have prevented Jeff from driving under the influence. Instead, Nancy decided to mind her own business and thus failed to save the life of the innocent person who Jeff struck and killed. Although Nancy's conscience may not be entirely clear, the law would hold Jeff more accountable for his action than Nancy for her inaction. Additionally, we must consider the outside factors and circumstance that inevitably affect people's decisions. In Jocelyn's example, although she was ABLE to save Tom, she may not have known that she was able to do so, due to age/maturity, fear, psychological debilitation, etc. Thus it is not fair to place equal blame on both characters, and again Pro's logic does not stand. 2A. Forgive my jumping around a bit, but I do not deem this example as being pertinent to this debate given the parameters set forth by Pro in the RA. With his 3rd point, Pro suggests that, "It must be assumed that the lives saved could not be saved in any other manner than killing the one person." In this example, there are certainly other options the sheriff could execute in order to spare the life of the innocent citizen (i.e. have said person guarded, removed from town, lie about his death, etc.). For this reason I ask the judges and Pro to please disregard this flawed example. If Pro disagrees and wishes to debate it further, I will touch upon points that reflect government and the justice system, including ideas about democracy and utilitarianism. In other words, I will discuss how the sheriff's corruption could cause a distrust in government, and overall negatively impact the town if it promotes dishonesty in future endeavors. 2B. Again, this example does not reflect moral ideas regarding trust in authority (an ideal that has been upheld in varying cultures for centuries). Sure, utilizing the healthy person's organs to save the lives of five others sounds like a great idea... IF the healthy person gave the doctor permission, and chose to sacrifice their own life. If not, it's MURDER - unjustified murder. Also, if this were always an option, consider the amount of people who would be maimed and killed to ‘replace' or fix those who are sick/wounded. So although I sympathize with the misfortune of the few, it would be absolutely wrong to blatantly steal from one person in order to benefit the five. That's like saying everyone should be stripped against their will of all of their non-necessary possessions, and have them distributed to others who do not have those same luxuries. Let's remember, though, that this is different than a Republican/Conservative disagreement about the dispersement or amount of tax dollars. This is about someone's/people's lives. So ask yourself this: Would it be moral for you to walk into a hospital one day expecting minor surgery (i.e. removing your tonsils), and wind up dead because some doctor decided that taking all of your organs and donating them to people in need was the right thing to do? I think not. CON'S CONTENTIONS 1. The resolution asks us to agree that one death is better than five. These deaths affect the people who are still living; those left behind experience pain at the loss of a loved one. Now let us assume that Persons 1 - 4 have a combined total of 30 people who would be absolutely devastated if they were to pass away. Person 5 happens to come from a big family, and as a result, he alone would have a total of 40 people who would be crushed if he were to die. So in this instance, by letting the 4 innocent people die, only 30 people would be seriously affected. By letting 1 innocent person die to spare Persons 1 - 4, 40 people would be inconsolable instead of just 30. If this were the case - and Pro has already established the validity of hypotheticals in this debate - (we, so to speak) would be ‘better off' letting 4 people die in the place of 1, to spare the feelings and overall mood/negative actions or energy/output of 40 people. Again, this disproves Pro's logic. 2. I'll keep this brief. Consider the fact that people, unfortunately, are a burden to the environment. For every person that lives, the earth/society is depleted of space and resources. Thereby it is possible for me to argue that by reducing the population, we are in fact doing the world a service. I can expand on this point further if need be; think NATURAL SELECTION...