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

Pro was unable to post his R3 argument in time; my arguments must therefore be extended, and the points that remain disproven from the Pro belong to me. In this final round, I will summarize/elaborate on some of my main arguments, and reaffirm why you should vote Con. -- TAKING INNOCENT LIVES Moral Relativism: Even if I agree that fundamental, universal morals exist, I also believe that particular circumstances in one's individual life/upbringing/culture/experiences would generate a particular feeling that not everyone would agree upon. Pro maintains that regardless of how people FEEL, there is one absolute moral right way/answer. Whether or not I agree with that is irrelevant; the point is that we are all human, and therefore none of us has the authority or the capacity of any kind to say 'this is right and this is wrong' with absolute certainty. If so, what would be the purpose of debate...? This brings me to my example of Joe and the innocent homeless folk. I have established that Joe and the homeless people in this particular example are as 'equally innocent' as possible in terms of their behavior and life choices. However different circumstances in each of their lives might cause us to value them in different ways. For instance, monetary value is one thing -- Joe is wealthy, healthy and has a seemingly bright future ahead of him, including upbringing his three children and continuing to be a good husband/son/brother/etc. Joe also has important ties to the community, whereas the homeless people live isolated lives in desolate solitude with no money, jobs, family, etc. So if a situation were to arise in which a doctor could choose to save beloved Joe or five homeless people in their 90s with no kids and AIDS and mental illnesses, well...? There might be some discrepancy as to who the doctor should save. We must remember that by affirming the resolution, we are saying that EVERYONE is of complete and utter equal value regardless of any circumstances in their lives, including the company they keep, family, friends, community service, etc. Acknowledging that certain (even one or two) circumstances have an impact on one's perceived value would encourage a vote for the Con here. And even if you don't agree with Con, keep in mind that this point should still go to me, as Pro completely dodged this argument by choosing instead to discuss moral relativism and taking my George W. Bush example out of context. My GWB scenario attempted to illustrate that one's wealth, health, power, etc. have an impact on how we as people value them (inherently). Pro argued this point by simply stating that the U.S. has survived other presidential assassinations in the past, though how America would fare the death of its President really has no relevance to this debate. What does have relevance is the fact that in SOME situations - however few and far between - it would be more beneficial to society (and morally the right thing to do) to not sacrifice one life for the sake of some others (afterall, Pro himself said that all Con had to do was justify the death of more than one innocent person in order to win this debate). Anyway, either way you look at it, debate-wise this point goes to the Con, as it was not refuted. ACTION vs. INACTION Pro did not refute any of my R2 arguments which successfully argued his R2 rebuttal. Through my examples, I have proven how direct action is more blameworthy than inaction. Additionally, I have pointed out how in a situation like Ray & Jocelyn's, even if Jocelyn wasn't present, Ray's actions would have resulted in Tom's death. However without Ray's action, Jocelyn would have never been at fault. Therefore this point of action having a greater value than inaction stands, and this point must also go to the Con. TWO SCENARIOS The Sheriff ~ What Pro suggests is giving one person ultimate power. He has repeatedly maintained that this is a moral issue and not a legal one -- this decision is up to the sheriff and him alone without anyone ever finding out. Pro has also asserted very sternly that moral absolutes absolutely exist (pun intended). In other words, there are definite right and wrongs. Fine. In that case, we must ask ourselves: Is it moral to LIE? No. Is it moral to KILL? No. Is it moral to kill UNJUSTLY? Certainly not. So what about this example makes killing someone the moral thing to do? Nobody can foresee that there would DEFINITELY be riots if the accused wasn't "sacrificed," nor should his life not matter or be ended simply because a bunch of rowdy and vengeful citizens are making threats. If that were the case - and if this were allowed/accepted - think of all of the people who would be "sacrificed" in our own society. The Doctor ~ What Pro is advocating in his example of a doctor sacrificing one life to save many isn't organ donation. It's MURDER. The topic doesn't say that it is morally permissible for one life to be sacrificed for the sake of others, but rather that it is morally permissible to KILL someone to save the lives of others. So again, to agree with the Pro here means that this logic has to apply to everyone in every situation. Imagine if you were in the position of the healthy person who it was decided would be sacrificed to save several others, but without your consent. Would that be okay? I highly doubt you'd think so. NATURAL SELECTION In response to what I wrote about natural selection (or even God's will, depending on how you look at it), Pro writes, "This point, however, justifies every population control from euthanasia and abortion to nuclear war, because they would all reduce the total amount of sufferers in Malthus's view. If the CON wants to uphold nuclear war as a moral maxim, by all means, go for it." This is completely untrue. I'm not saying that the U.S. should nuke a small country. What I'm saying is that I do not think it would be moral for some law official to decide on his own that my innocent life should be sacrificed in order to keep the peace. Nor do I think a doctor has the moral obligation to kill me because some unfortunate patients need my organs. How does this view justify nuclear war? And what does Malthus have to do with anything? This debate isn't about fancy psychology or statistics. We're discussing morality. I do believe in taking many steps to aid the sick and dying, but taking an innocent life in the process is not an option. To expand on an earlier point, what Pro suggests is essentially messing with fate. Last time I checked, people of faith should not be for taking innocent lives, suicide (even if the killing of one's self was voluntary, which the resolution does not suggest), etc. Should not God's will be done? We can only do so much; I don't think God would suggest killing an innocent human being of our own accord to satisfy our own wants and needs. To the non-religious, I'm sure the Social Darwinism theory at least somewhat applies. Again, this is not about sacrificing a few tax dollars to benefit the impoverished. Pro's stance okays taking an innocent person's LIFE, even if those who are dying have absolutely no connection to the person being sacrificed. If you buy this logic, it would mean that as humans we all have 100% moral obligation to each other to the point that we should risk our lives for strangers on the street. If you agree - fine. Good! But shouldn't that be your prerogative? Who has the right to take your life? GUILT Anyway you look at it, someone's going to feel guilty about something. Therefore the only thing we can take into account is right and wrong. If someone with lung cancer could survive with my lung, that's fine. But I don't believe that I should be killed because of it, and I don't think my family feels guilty about not wanting me killed because of that either... That said, I'm outta characters. I would like to sincerely thank my opponent for debating and judges for judging. Take care! -- L.