LD Debates

It's an LD debate. Don't know it? Learn it. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. I affirm. To clarify debate I offer the following definitions. Morally permissible: conforming to a standard of right behavior (Merriam Webster) innocent: harmless in effect or intention Value: Moral permissibility Justification: I choose moral permissibility because it is expressly stated in the resolution. The resolution asks for the morally permissible solution to this dilemma. Obviously it must be our value. Criterion: Kantianism Justification: Kant says "Inexperienced in the course of the world, incapable of being prepared for all its contingencies, I only ask myself: Canst thou also will that thy maxim should be a universal law? If not, then it must be rejected, and that not because of disadvantage accruing from it to myself or even to others, but because it cannot enter as a principle into a possible universal legislation, and reason extorts from me respect for such legislation...the necessity of acting from pure respect for practical law is what constitutes dignity, to which every other motive must give place, because it is the condition of a will being good in itself, and the worth such a will is above everything." This quote from Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals pretty much summarizes Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy. He argues that we should only follow maxims, or rules, if they can be made a universal law without contradicting our will. He goes on to explain that following this imperative simply because it's the right thing to do constitutes duty, which is synonymous to a good intention. So basically, even if an action has a bad consequence, the good intention, performed out of duty justifies the action. Contention 1: Our good intention in affirming the resolution justifies the action. Basically, saving lives is a just and noble action. If we intend to do this, we are doing our duty. If we unfortunately have to kill to perform this action it is permissible, so long as we intend to save lives, rather than killing. The death of the innocent person is simply an unfortunate consequence of our action. We did not intend to kill this person. Kant said "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found." The consequences of an action do not and cannot determine morality. The death of the innocent that the affirmative causes is an unintended consequence. The affirmative cannot be judged for this, they can only be judged on their intention. As the intention of saving lives is a noble and moral one, the affirmative is justified. Conclusion: In conclusion, the affirmative if justified in saving lives. This is undeniable. Unfortunately a bad consequence occurs, but as this was unintended, the affirmative cannot be judged. The affirmative conforms perfectly to the categorical imperative, therefore it is morally permissible. you must vote Aff.