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

">> Of course, if the commandment said thou shalt preserve life, then you cannot kill him. However, [G]od will ultimatley[sic] judge him and throw him into hell. " My opponent is now only saying that his new commandment would restrict one from saving twenty people from a lifetime of misery by killing one person. Just because God will judge him eventually, doesn't mean we shouldn't ship his life off to God right now, sparing twenty from torture. My opponent is basically going by the idea that life trumps all, and the life count is the only thing that matters, ignoring pain, guilt, responsibility, and the sense of survival. Morally, that just doesn't make sense. "I could, however, disable the person in hand and he could not attack them. I would have preserved the most life possible. " No, I gave you this one situation. If you shoot him, he dies, or the shot isn't enough to deter him from his goal. My scenario, my options. You can't just create another option. ">> Again, if the gangster will kill again, killing them there and then is justified. The gangsters will ultimatley[sic] be judged by god. " According to my opponent, the fact that the gangster brought a friend with him spares his life. He'd let an innocent child die to spare the lives of two gangsters that wanted the child dead. What kind of law enforcement policy would that be? ">> As I have previously stated, god will ultimatley[sic] judge the criminals for their actions. In the meanwhile, I would attempt to maximise[sic] the most life possible. Let the 1,000 people live. The 10 commandments does not give preference to a specific group with specific morals. " So, my opponent would also have you save the 1,000 criminals from the death that they were about to bring about themselves rather than save the 999 innocent townspeople that the criminals wanted dead. In effect, that decision would make the criminals successful in their venture to kill the townspeople. Had they not accidentally locked themselves up, the 999 could have been saved, but no, apparently, one extra criminal means that they should be saved, even though it's their own fault that all of this happened. That's not moral at all. ">> All life, according to the bible, is sacred, regardless of how it is lived. " Also, while all lives are sacred, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are all equally sacred. And again, this is just encouraging gangs to have more numbers. ">> So, in anarchy everyone must interpret the 10 commandments and bible differently? Some content of the bible is contradictory to other parts. " Source? Also, there isn't really much of an option under anarchy. Everybody would define murder for himself or herself and then live without performing murder. Hopefully, they'd make the moral decision, but hey, it's anarchy. ">> Your stance states thou shalt not murder. Killing one person instead of two is murder, regardless of he persons morals. " No, because "Defence of others" allows you to kill one person in defense of the other two. "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. " Obviously, we don't know this until he pulls a gun on the gangster. In that case, because the split-personality guy is the one who is guilty right now, we kill him. The gangster isn't doing anything wrong right now. ">> So, under that ideology, 1,000 guilty people should be killed to save one innocent? " Only if the 1,000 guilty people are all trying to kill this innocent person in this situation, and all 1,000 guilty people need to die to save the innocent person, and no policemen would die trying to kill the 1,000. "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. " Wrong. In this specific situation, the gangster is perfectly innocent, while Mr. Split just pulled a gun on someone. Guilt and innocence is by situation. ">> 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[sic] the suicidal people. " We either let them commit suicide or let them commit murder. Murder is much worse, as it takes away the life of somebody that wants to live. My opponent would want to save two people that want to die in favor of one person that wants to live. If the two suiciders could be saved without killing anybody else, then we do that, but the fact that we can't means that we shouldn't. My opponent would have three people unhappy rather than three people happy. ">> 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. " How are we supposed to know how many people will indirectly be killed? Again, my opponent values one life over the entire town (minus the people) when the arsonist is very, very guilty here. Letting the arsonist succeed wouldn't really put a stop to arson. ">> Again, God will judge the invading army. If the army will kill more people, then you should be allowed to defend yourself. " God can judge the invading army even quicker if we nuke them. And no, the army will not kill more people. They just want to take over the town. Also, this decision just led to the death of Christianity, as I mentioned earlier. That's just great. ">> Under the teachings of Jesus, he would allow the two thugs kill him. " My opponent refers to himself in the third person. This question was to him, not to some hypothetical person. By specifying an un-sourced teaching of Jesus that would supposedly require him to die, he's basically saying that Christians should let themselves die, but he should get to live. He's trying to change morals without even being willing to follow them. Now, I, personally, would shoot the two thugs in self-defense. I'd like to see any sane person willing to die in this situation. ">> 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[sic] consider the side of pacifism. " My opponent again cites Jesus' teachings without a source, not even a verse. Material items are not nothing, as they are necessary for subsistence. Unnecessary violence may be unacceptable, but self-defense certainly is. My opponent is not answering my question himself, which is strange. In conclusion, "Thou shalt not murder" would be a better commandment than "Thou shalt preserve life" because it allows for the innocent to more consistently be saved in any given situation. By my opponent's proposition, the guilty men walk alive while the innocent man dies. He's advocating a strength in numbers, which only encourages trying to add more people to your side. My opponent's ideology even requires one to value suiciders over a man that wants to live, even though all three could be happy, and "Thou shalt preserve life" makes them all unhappy. In addition, my opponent doesn't even sound as if he'd be willing to follow his own proposition, which he thinks that all Christians should follow. All in all, "Thou shalt not murder" makes more sense, because it allows for moral decisions to be made to know who doesn't deserve to die, and who does. Thanks.