Letting someone die is just as bad as killing them.

Thank you lr4n6ftw4eva for hosting this debate. Overview: My opponent has asserted that "Letting someone die is just as bad as killing them", thus all I have to do to win this debate is to demonstrate that scenario B is not the moral equivalent of murder. ======================================================== Contention 1: action =/= inaction. Def: Inaction - the lack of action. First, my opponent asserts that the moral equivalent of murder is inaction. Let me make a simple analogy. Your best friend is cheating on the test, and you just happen to know about it. The chances are, you will not report your friend (inaction), but you're probably not gonna help him cheat, are you? This is the moral equivalent of inaction in this case. The moral consequences of the first act (i.e not reporting or not helping) is obviously negative; however, it is obviously not the moral equivalent of the second act (murder, helping him cheat) My opponent has stated that they're THE MORAL EQUIVALENT!!! but as you can see, this example demonstrates that INACTION is not the moral equivalent of ACTION. In fact, as will be shown later, inaction remains outside of the realm of moral ethics. Remember, The burden of proof is on always on the affirmative. In this case, he must show WHY the person X's actions are equivalent of murder which he has not clearly shown, it's my job to simply defend it. ============================================================ Contention 2: Lack of an act makes my opponent's consequentialist interpretation null and void Consequentalist(teological) interpretation of such action advocated by my opponent NEEDS AN ACTION in order to give judgment; however, due to the lack of action. The consequence cannot be assessed properly with regard to the action. ==================================================================== Contention 3: Deontological defense Deontological view of ethics states that the morality of an act should be viewed in and of itself. Since the person X did not commit an action in scenario B, he or she is not at any fault since the action itself was not morally wrong, but the consequences were. ================================================================ Contention 4: Moral correctness does not justify an action! My opponent has stated that the moral correctness of saving one's life justifies action. If that's true, why are we not donating every penny we can to save starving African Children? (see http://www.utilitarian.net...). THE MORAL CORRECTNESS OF AN ACTION DOES NOT INHERENTLY JUSTIFY IT. THERE MUST BE ANOTHER FACTOR TO JUSTIFY IT, I.E SELF-INTEREST (which in this case, is lacking) That being said, we all have moral duty to save lives, no doubt about it, but does that mean we're necessarily compelled to DO IT? NO! If that was true, everyone would be donating every penny they had to help starving African children or going out and helping homeless people and become doctors or whatnot. Unless Lrn46ftw4eva is a peace corps volunteer in Africa, I doubt he could justify moral correctness = action. =================================================================== Contention 5: Saving Life =/= murder The proposed premise of the two acts in scenarios A and B are fundamentally different. Whereas scenario A's action is muder, scenario B's action is strictly saving a life. The extension of "murder" into scenario B's action is fundamentally flawed and unjustified characterization by my opponent using a teological or consequentalist view of ethics - one that is not supported by any reasoning or evidence. The fact is, person X in scenario B's actions can only SAVE SOMEONE'S Life, whereas his actions in scenario A is MURDER! There is a profound moral difference in the two. For example, Scenario A: There is a bunker with 10 people, and you throw a grenade in there that kills all of them. Scenario B: There is an active grenade in your bunker that's filled with 10 people. You can either a) Lay your body on top of the grenade and save everyone or b) Run out of the room and let the 10 people die. Clearly, running away in part B is not the moral equivalent of throwing a grenade and killing all ten people. (This is a rather brutal example - i know) =================================================================== Underview: Here is my summary i) An action is not the same as inaction when viewed morally (contentions 1,2 and 3) ii) Moral correctness does not justify an action (contention 4) iii) The two acts discussed by my opponent are not morally equivalent - he has over extended himself. (contention 5) However clouded person X's motives may be, it is simply not correct to say his inaction is the moral equivalent of murder, as demonstrated by my points above. That being said, THE AFF MUST SHOW WHY THE TWO ACTS ARE MORALLY EQUIVALENT!