It is morally justified to purge, (annihilate) a city with a level 4 infection outbreak.

I thank the con for his well thought out case. I agree with my opponents pre-case observation. However i would like to analyze individual parts of the statement. "Moral principles dictate how we ought to act in situations regarding the rights and well being of our fellow humans." Of course i agree, but when we are talking about our "fellow humans" we are not only talking about infected persons within ground zero of said "Outbreak", We are also pertaining to humans outside of the infection zone. So in this case what is the most the viable option? By bombing the city right away we dissolve the chance of the virus ever slipping out, and in the end save millions upon millions of lives. It is justified to purge the city because it is much safer than an attempted quarantine. Therefore meeting my teleological standpoint of the ends justifying the means. "Practicality may be a consideration in morality, but the task of ethics is not to tell us the most efficient way of doing things." Again i agree with the statement. However my case never stated that ethics would tell us the efficient way of doing things. My case is primarily states that if a city is infected with a level 4 outbreak, purging it would be a much safer option. I don't argue efficiency, I'm simply arguing that in the end i will preserve the most life. Now is that efficient in a way? Yes of course. But it isn't exactly the same scenario as digging with your hands vs. digging with a shovel. We are talking about human life and how it will be impacted through out both of our cases. "We should favor the course of action that achieves a satisfactory result with the fewest moral problems even it is somewhat more costly or difficult." I actually have to disagree with this statement. Shouldn't our actions be weighed on which decision is more costly? Basically what my opponent is stating is that even if 4 other cities succumb this to infection it is a more "Acceptable" solution. Now my question for my opponents case, what does satisfactory of others have to do with the issue of morality? Bombing an infected zone would of course enact some question from a large majority. However does that alone tell you it it now immoral? Of course not, in my case i am stating that it is justifiable and moral to purge the city, because we are saving more lives than we are ending. My opponent goes further to state that disease are not as dangerous as i presented by bringing in an example of smallpox, and it being close to eradicated. However this is not the same with the other viruses mentioned. He also states that since we have a drug that protects monkeys from Ebola, it is not much of a threat. However, we are not monkeys, and we still have not found a cure that will work on humans. So this piece of information is mostly irrelevant. Next my opponent argues that thermobaric weapons are too expensive, and not that effective. However the alternative is not as cost effective. Quarantining, and treating infected citizens is only delaying the inevitable. The disease is incurable at this point in our medical knowledge, and in the end quarantining and an attempted treatment is literally just throwing money away. Also the longer we try to quarantine the much larger risk of the disease escaping the city will be. As it is not limited in it's ways of traveling. His 3rd observation is based on the premise that the action would have international repercussions. I will not deny this. However it will have even larger repercussions if we allow said disease to spread. Losing one city is not as bad as losing half or even an entire country. He also states that it is questionable that the military would perform such an action. However lets take a look at two events that could be view as inhumane, that have been carried out by the military. Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, killing roughly 300,000 civilians. During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed 20,000,000 US gallons (80,000,000 L) of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of Operation Ranch Hand.[2] The program's goal was to defoliate forested and rural land, depriving guerrillas of cover; another goal was to induce forced draft urbanization, destroying the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, and forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, thus depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base and food supply.[3][4] There is absolutely no question that the military would be able to do this task without question as mass slaughter and herbicide are two of the many cruelties that the U.S military has enacted. My opponents proposal is to quarantine the infected zone. However i will cross-apply my arguments made previously and say that Quarantine only delays the inevitable. The people will die regardless and if we keep a pro-longed quarantine, there is a much higher chance that the disease will get out and rapidly spread upon more cities. Also my opponent states that we can thwart the spread of disease with the processes we use now, in the resolution, a massive outbreak has already occurred. This debate is over how we should control it. My opponents way of controlling the outbreak only delays the inevitable and brings even more pain among the infected who have to go through the horrific stages of the disease. It is morally justified to put these innocent people out of there misery, then make them suffer for nothing, which is what will happen by trying to quarantine the city. He argues that the black death happened a long time ago, and we have advanced far in the medical field. So what about the influenza outbreak? This is a much more recent outbreak and it killed nearly 40 million people. My opponent next states that by purging the city I kill four times the amount of people then if we just quarantined. However i would like to stress that if one tiny mistake is made, the small outbreak could turn into a nationwide epidemic. By siding with the con solution, you are willing to risk the security of an entire country rather one city. Next my opponent states that we should not kill someone just because they have a dangerous disease. However i will further stress that once you contract Ebola, or any of the other level 4 disease, there is no cure. People with the strains will die regardless. The difference is whether they suffer or not, and by siding with the con you only pro-long their suffering. I give it to the con. SOURCES http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...