Letting someone die is just as bad as killing them.

Neg asked for a proof that X's inaction was equivalent to his action in Scenario A. I provided that proof, "In short, X's actions/inactions led to the same result, ergo the actions are morally equivalent." In both scenarios he could have prevented a tragedy, in a A, by simply not killing the child, in B, by saving the child's life. In A, X's action caused the child to die. In B, X's inaction caused the child to die, therefore, there is no difference morally between the two. Ends justify means, and bad ends show that the means were wrong. Contention 1: "Let me make a simple analogy. Your best friend is cheating on the test, and you just happen to know about it. The chances are, you will not report your friend (inaction), but you're probably not gonna help him cheat, are you? This is the moral equivalent of inaction in this case. The moral consequences of the first act (i.e not reporting or not helping) is obviously negative; however, it is obviously not the moral equivalent of the second act (murder, helping him cheat)" This is slightly different, because in the second situation, you are furthering his cheating, and in the first, you just let it be. It would be the difference between say, letting 10 people die, and killing 11 people. Scenario produces a worse consequence. Even if we assume the outcomes do end up the same, then they would still be different, as acting to stop your friend from cheating could damage your friendship, and cause more harm.This scenario is different. Although, some responsibility is placed on you in A because, in effect you were helping him, because without your inaction he could not have succeeded. The difference between your scenario and mine have been outlined above, so this does not refute me. Contention 2: "Consequentalist(teological) interpretation of such action advocated by my opponent NEEDS AN ACTION in order to give judgment; however, due to the lack of action. The consequence cannot be assessed properly with regard to the action." The action was passive approval of the child's death, failure to act in favor of the child. It is an action, so I can give judgment. Contention 3: "Deontological view of ethics states that the morality of an act should be viewed in and of itself. Since the person X did not commit an action in scenario B, he or she is not at any fault since the action itself was not morally wrong, but the consequences were." Deontological defenses will fail. A deontological stance will lead to bad ends happening, and being justified. Example, if a deontological system prohibits lying, such as Kantianism, then we end up with situations, where I see a person being chased by a murderer, I see him hide. The murderer comes, and asks me where he is, in order to be moral I must tell the truth. My action, which will invariably lead to the death of the hiding man, are absolutely not the right thing to do, but deontology leads to this. It cannot be a correct system to use, ergo we must take consequentialism. And, as I have shown, in consequentialism, X's actions are equivalent. Contention 4: "My opponent has stated that the moral correctness of saving one's life justifies action. If that's true, why are we not donating every penny we can to save starving African Children? (see http://www.utilitarian.net......). THE MORAL CORRECTNESS OF AN ACTION DOES NOT INHERENTLY JUSTIFY IT. THERE MUST BE ANOTHER FACTOR TO JUSTIFY IT, I.E SELF-INTEREST (which in this case, is lacking)" You're not getting that from the article you cited are you? Because Peter Singer is one of the men who I got the idea for this debate from. I'll quote from the article to show you: "My next point is this: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. By "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance" I mean without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent. This principle seems almost as uncontroversial as the last one. It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is, from the moral point of view, comparably important." The money that X gets is not morally comparable to the death of the child, which Singer calls, "very bad." Contention 5: "Scenario A: There is a bunker with 10 people, and you throw a grenade in there that kills all of them. Scenario B: There is an active grenade in your bunker that's filled with 10 people. You can either a) Lay your body on top of the grenade and save everyone or b) Run out of the room and let the 10 people die." In this, you are allowed to run away, because your life is morally comparable to their's. Although it would be better if you killed yourself to save them, it is an unnecessary burden to force one to kill themselves. Oh, I forgot this quote, I loved this: "Unless Lrn46ftw4eva is a peace corps volunteer in Africa, I doubt he could justify moral correctness = action." I am too young to be in the peace corps, and even if I am being slightly hypocritical, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. If my parents were hippies, and they told me not to smoke pot because doing so is bad for the health, it doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they are hypocritical. "i) An action is not the same as inaction when viewed morally (contentions 1,2 and 3) ii) Moral correctness does not justify an action (contention 4) iii) The two acts discussed by my opponent are not morally equivalent - he has over extended himself. (contention 5)" i) I refuted all if those points ii) Refuted That iii) refuted that "However clouded person X's motives may be, it is simply not correct to say his inaction is the moral equivalent of murder, as demonstrated by my points above. That being said, THE AFF MUST SHOW WHY THE TWO ACTS ARE MORALLY EQUIVALENT!" I did show that. In summation, the outcome of A and B was the same, and in both scenario, X could have prevented this bad outcome, In A by not acting, and in B, by acting. Morally, this makes no difference, because X is at fault in both situations.