Murder is Okay under all circumstances

3. I brought up the artificial organs argument because it is a better alternative. Why should we rely on killing a few people in order to save the many, when we can potentially save the many without killing anyone? There should be much effort to create these artificial organs. 2. I think you mistook what I said about entitlement and organs. I wasn't saying that the dead person is entitled to their organs, and thus we shouldn't use the dead person's organs to give to someone else. I'll quote myself with what I said "It is certainly unfortunate that there are people out there who end up dying because of a shortage of organs, but nonetheless, they are not entitled to those organs." "They" refers to the people who end up dying because of a shortage of organs. I was saying that people who have bad organs are not entitled to someone else's organs. As for the analogy made about a room with nine people, it is still wrong for someone to kill someone, even if it is to save more people. Every single person there is entitled to life, and just because someone was (un)fortunate enough to have good-working organs, that suddenly means we should kill them in order to save other people? Again, I would argue it would be better to take volunteers. If a person willingly gives up their life to save more lives, that is good. But to actively kill someone to try to save others, when the person you're killing is not responsible for the suffering of those people, is immoral. If the person was responsible for the suffering of those people with poor organs, then it would be justified to kill them. Now, I close with saying that I thank my opponent for this debate. I hope they don't get the idea of murdering someone in order to get their organs passed onto someone else though... I feel like a position that my opponent has would result in someone concluding it may be a good idea to kill someone. Just keep in mind: you don't know who you're killing. You have have just killed someone who would have saved a dozen lives in their life time. I think my opponen't belief largely comes down to the view point of "the ends justify the means". The ends they propose is good: saving people's lives, but the means is terrible: killing people. There can be alternative means, such as making it that when someone dies, their organs go to someone who needs them, and they don't have a choice in the matter. I don't see why we should have a say over our organs once we are dead. 1. You're arguing that the murder is good because as result of it can be that the victim's organs can save more people. But again, this is a ends justify the means issue. I believe most people don't believe that the ends justify the means. Over all, it would still be immoral for a murderer to kill someone according to society. The fact that it is punishable, and we live in a republic, means that most people believe murder, no matter what ends come from it, is wrong. Now, as for my opponent comparing humans to animals, we are clearly not like animals. It may be seen as okay for an animal to kill another animal, but we all agree murder of another human is wrong. Life is precious. For all you know, you may have just killed the person who was going to perfect the artificial organ. Then that means the murderer just caused more people to die than who will live. More people will die over the years for not having artificial organs because there is a shortage of organs. If the murderer killed the person who was going to perfect the artificial organ, or the person who was going to find the cure for cancer, or whatever, I believe this cancels out the fact the victim's organs would be used for someone else. You never know what a person will accomplish in a life time. Them being alive may cause other people to continue living. Because of this uncertainty, even if murder allows people to get the organs they need, it can still result in a net negative loss of human life.