"Thou shalt not kill" should be changed to "Thou shalt preserve life"

"Let's exaggerate the situation. A man ties up twenty people and is about to chop off all of their arms and limbs. If you call the doctor now, they'd be able to save everybody, although their lives would be extremely miserable, and the man with the axe will escape into the woods. He hops in a boat, rows down the river, and is in a foreign country by midnight, never to be found by the authorities. " >> Of course, if the commandment said thou shalt preserve life, then you cannot kill him. However, god will ultimatley judge him and throw him into hell. I could, however, disable the person in hand and he could not attack them. I would have preserved the most life possible. "Two brothers stopping a serial killer wouldn't be preparing to kill him. They'd turn him over to the authorities. Also, you can easily overhear conversations. Now, let's say it's a little kid being kicked repeatedly by two gangsters. The situation is fairly obvious. Do you let the innocent kid be kicked to death, or do you kill the two gangsters? " >> Again, if the gangster will kill again, killing them there and then is justified. The gangsters will ultimatley be judged by god. "Now, it seems that my opponent would value the lives of 1,000 criminals over the lives of 999 innocent people. Let's say that 1,000 criminals teamed up to try to ruin the town, and ended up in a situation where they are all trapped in a room that is getting gassed (whoops) and the 999 innocent people that they captured are in the other room being gassed as planned. The criminals are gassing themselves by accident, while the 999 people are being gassed by the people who are gassing themselves. Which group of people should be saved? Obviously, the 999 innocents. " >> As I have previously stated, god will ultimatley judge the criminals for their actions. In the meanwhile, I would attempt to maximise the most life possible. Let the 1,000 people live. The 10 commandments does not give preference to a specific group with specific morals. "You can call the police, and have them lock up the other two for life, but if they were just going to be locked up for life, wouldn't it be better to kill them and save an innocent life? After all, there's not much point to a life in prison. " >> All life, according to the bible, is sacred, regardless of how it is lived. "Seeing as the law is supposed to be a reflection of morals, in anarchy, your set of morals is the set of laws. In a country with government, the people put together their morals to make the laws. " >> So, in anarchy everyone must interpret the 10 commandments and bible differently? Some content of the bible is contradictory to other parts. "Wrong. You'd do it in "Defence of others," so you can change the tracks. " >> Your stance states thou shalt not murder. Killing one person instead of two is murder, regardless of he persons morals. "But we should. We should protect the innocent from being killed at the hands of the guilty. If the guilty have to be killed to save the innocent, so be it. Remember, the guilty are the ones who start the mess in the first place. " >> So, under that ideology, 1,000 guilty people should be killed to save one innocent? And what of people with split personalities? Say one side of someone's personality wants to kill a gangster on probation, and the other side is a pacifist? We can't kill of one half of the person, and the person is both guilty and innocent? You would bee killing an innocent person as much as a guilty person. Under your stance, it would be justified to let the person with the split personality to kill the gangster, as it allows a guilty person to die rather than a guilty and innocent person. "two guys (A and B) tie up one person (C) to a railroad track, and then tie themselves on another railroad track. The train was originally going to hit A and B, but my opponent would have you redirect the train at C, even though A and B are in the middle of suicide, and C is an innocent victim. "Thou shalt not murder" allows you to use common sense and let the suiciders suicide, letting C live. " >> So, in this scenario, you propose to let people commit suicide and commit euthanasia, even when the bible states in is wrong? The obvious choice would be to divert the train tracks and institutionalise the suicidal people. "Remove the wildlife from the dilemma, and make the choice again. " >> Well, the arsonist isn't harming an lives directly. But what of the knock on effect? Would any reallocated people die? Would any people die due to tax hikes? If the answer is no, then the arsonist has hurt no one and does not deserve death. If he will indirectly hurt someone, or kill someone through arson, he deserves to be killed. "One million ants are coming at you, prepared to eat you. You have a can of bug spray, and you can kill them all, saving yourself. Do you save yourself, or let yourself die? Preserving life requires you to let yourself die. Not murdering allows you to kill the ants in self-defense. " >> The bible prohibits suicide, though it is not committing suicide. The bible states, in Genesis, that humans have rule over the animals. In the case of the arsonist, he was killing animals who weren't doing anything. In this case, you should be allowed to defend yourself, though it is unlikely you could kill a million ants with one can of bug spray :). "Let's put in some new numbers. Another country has three million people, and they are invading your town of ten thousand. You can nuke the invading army of eleven thousand, eliminating them and deterring the invasion completely, or you can let the invading army kill every person in your town. " >> Again, God will judge the invading army. If the army will kill more people, then you should be allowed to defend yourself. "I-am-a-panda, let's say that you are walking down the street, with nobody else there, when two thugs suddenly appear with guns pointed at you, with the obvious intent of killing you immediately. You are quick, and you can kill both of them to save yourself, or you can let yourself die. I ask you, what would you seriously do? Kill two people that are trying to kill you, or let yourself die? Is the fact that there is an extra thug really going to make you let yourself die? " >> Under the teachings of Jesus, he would allow the two thugs kill him. "You're driving through a desert, miles away from civilization. You run out of gas, so you get out, preparing to walk. A tough thug pulls up in a motorcycle, and demands that you hand over the keys to your car, along with your wallet. You have a gun in your pocket. If you hand over your keys, the thug will knock you unconscious, then empty the gas from his bike to the car, and load the bike onto the car, and drive off, using your driver's license to get to your house and rob it with your house keys. He then lives the rest of his life at a bar in Mexico. You'd wake up hours later, and spent two torturous days wandering through the desert until you arrive at a town, without your car, your wallet (which contained your credit card and debit card, and therefore, your life savings are gone by the time you get back to town), and your house keys, and therefore, everything that was in your house. " >> Again, Jesus would tell you that material items are nothing and that violence is not acceptable. But, you have posed the question in that it is one on one, and in that situation, the person with the worse morals should be disposed of. It is only in a situation where there is a greater number on one side we shoudl consider the side of pacifism. Thanks, Panda.