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

1 - 4. Whether moral relativism (the notion that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances -- Wiki) exists is not debatable, though moral subjectivism vs. moral absolutism is. Rather what is pertinent to this debate is the fact that due to an individual's own beliefs, their perception of what is more important or more valuable is unique to the individual. Say Person 1's life could be sacrificed in order to save the lives of Persons 2 - 5. One hundred people are given details about these five individual's lives, and are asked to judge whether or not it should be done. This can have one of two results: A - The majority of the people believe that Person 1's life should NOT be sacrificed to save the other 4. B - The majority of the people believe that Person 1's life SHOULD be sacrificed. In instance A, Pro's logic thus far would not stand. Why? Because the majority of people surveyed did not believe in sacrificing an innocent person's life. Shouldn't OUR (society's) values and morals be the basis for this debate? On the contrary, instance B proposes that most people DO believe in sacrificing one life for the life of the other 4. In that case, even if it were only the minority fighting for the life of the 1 innocent person, we must remember that morality is not exclusive to the majority -- just because only a minority of the people believe in something does not make it immoral. This example proves that moral relativism not only exists, but is important to keep in mind during this debate. Why? It demonstrates our incapacity as human beings to truly decipher 'the meaning of life' so to speak, and judge who does and does not deserve to live. Such a stance is advocated by people who are against the death penalty. The way they see it, no human being has the right to end the life of another. Those FOR the death penalty disagree, but keep in mind that they are opting to end the life of criminals convicted of heinous crimes. In this debate, we are discussing innocent people. My point? Because nobody will agree on whose lives should be taken and whose should be spared, the only moral thing we CAN do is choose to not take the life of an innocent person. Religious people would leave the fate of the other 4 in God's hands (let God's will be done); non-religious people would note the tragedy (of innocent people dying), however, believe in Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest)... or at the very least, just accept that human tragedy is an inevitable part of life. Purposefully taking the life of an innocent person is NOT an inevitable part of life. 5 & 6. Pro writes, "If my opponent believes that euthanasia should be legal and I believe it should be illegal, that has NO BEARING on whether it should actually be legal or illegal." But wait... I'm confused. Aren't our moral values the reason why we have laws in the first place? And aren't those same values and beliefs the basis for the laws that we enact? Of course there are discrepancies, but for the most part, this is what constitutes a democracy. Unless Pro believes in heteronomy under fellow man...? Anyway. Proposing the concept of sacrificing GWB for a group of innocent American citizens was another example in which my point was to prove that choosing who should live and who should die could get a little tricky. Because hypothetical scenarios have been deemed a-ok for this debate, let us move past GWB and onto another example to prove this same point. Imagine that there is one man, Joe, a father of two with a wife and another baby on the way. Joe is a man of great morals and accomplishment. He donates half of his income to charity, he volunteers 20 hours a week while still being a great parent, and by age 30 has already opened up his sucessful business. He is beloved and adored within his community, and everyone believes in him and his future. Now let us assume that innocent Joe's life could be sacrificed to save the lives of 4 other innocent people. These 4 other people are all in their 90s, have no children, mentally ill, HIV positive, handicapped and homeless. What do you think? Should Joe's life be sacrificed in order to save theirs? If you agree with Pro and his position regarding the resolution/morality, your answer would have to be yes. Like I said - the resolution is universal, and must be applied to EVERY innocent individual and in every scenario in order to warrant a Pro vote. In the past 2 rounds, Pro has acknowledged that the definition of innocent (as provided by his point 6) is, "not warranting death as punishment... the people in question are equally innocent in terms of life or death." My example stands, because I agree that all 5 people are equally innocent in terms of life and death, even though they do lead very different lives. 7 & 8. Again Pro attempts to place equal blame for Tom's death on both Ray and Jocelyn. His logic is, "if BOTH had made the opposite choice, Thomas would be alive in BOTH cases." This logic is again flawed. Simply because two different actions have the same result does NOT mean that both actions are morally equivocal. For instance, say that I have $100 sitting on my table. Ray decides to steal my $100 without my permission. The result is that I no longer have $100 on my table. In another instance, I have $100 on my table, and offer to give the money to Jocelyn. Jocelyn accepts my offer, and again the result is that I no longer have $100 on my table. In both situations, two different actions led to the same result, but both actions are not morally equal. In the first case, the choice was stealing/theft. In the second, the choice was accepting what was dealt. Similarly, by voting Pro the choice would be murder. The Con vote would be accepting what was dealt (so to speak) in choosing to not purposefully end someone's life. In Jeff and Nancy's situation, again these two individuals are not equally to blame. If Nancy had not attended that party, Jeff would have still driven home drunk and killed someone on the way. The result would have been the same without any of Nancy's involvement, making Jeff's direct action more blameworthy than Nancy's inaction. 9. Pro believes he should not be obligated to justify the killing of an individual if other options are in place; however, the resolution makes no distinction about this discrepancy. Further, it can be argued that there is ALWAYS an other option (even if the other option is even less moral or more destructive). 10. Pro believes the resulting lack of trust in authority argument cannot be made in objection to the doctor because "no one will ever find out that it has been done." Wrong. The doctor himself knows what he has done, which I will discuss further in a moment... 11. Pro mistakenly suggests that I have opposed moral relativism by stating that one should not steal from 1 in order to provide for 5. He brings up the dichotomy of, "is it more wrong to steal from the one person to benefit the five, or to allow the five people to die to benefit the one? Remember that INACTION and ACTION are equally blameworthy." This is FALSE because I have already explained how action is more blameworthy than inaction, therefore the action of stealing would be worse than voluntary inaction. 12. Pro's logic here is flawed, and I feel is a concession of this point and possibly the entire debate. He notes that the family's joy of the surviving innocent person (whose life was not sacrificed to save 4 others) would be superceded by the guilt of knowing that 4 other people had died. But wouldn't that same guilt be applied to the doctor who took an innocent person's life? And if that person HAD been sacrificed, the family members of the surviving 4 would in turn feel guilty for the 40 people who are suffering... so guilt cannot be a factor.