It is morrally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other......

>>>>I would like to begin this round by reminding the voters of some key statements that I made that went unattested by my opponent. "The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives." "A morally permissible action changes to each circumstance." and "The resolution implies that all other options have been exhausted." First of all my opponent failed to prove that inaction isn't wrong. I will again address this later. Second, my opponent failed to address my circumstancial justice statement and this will also come into play later. Third, because my opponent excepts that all other options have been exausted he must agree that this includes the possibility that the many will survive if you do not kill the one. Chance has no factor in this debate. Simply because it is unreliable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First off, the part where you mentioned "The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives," went uncontested because (a) The statement is obvious. The resolution implies that the debate is inaction vs action, so why do I need to address the fact that you want to repeat it? ___and___ (B) I don't have to prove ANYTHING except it isn't morally permissable. I could adopt the side saying "It isn't morally permissable, but you do it anyways" if I really wanted to. All I have to do is prove why you're wrong, which i'm doing. The resolution is if an action is just or not. All I have to do is say it isn't and state why, not to uphold a completely different argument and plan something else that should happen instead. Being an LD debater. You should know this isn't how LD works, that's how POLICY debate works. Second off, chance is unreliable? Chance has no factor? The resolution in itself is proof that we're debating things with a slim chance. The proposition on offer is if the action of killing someone is ok if you are doing it to save other people. For instance, life guards are there TO SAVE, pacemakers are there TO SAVE, doctors are there TO SAVE.... Do you see where I'm going with this point? It isn't a cause ===> effect (If you kill they're saved), it's more of an Action ===> consequence sort of thing (If you do this, is it ok?). And the reasons why it isn't ok is: 1) It isn't possible for you to prove the people will be saved. You must look at the resolution and apply it to real life if you're attempting to apply real morals and values to it. Like I said before, don't expect the result of something to be absolute. It is impossible for the person to know that if they kill the innocent, no matter what, it will save more people. They are merely speculating that if they kill the innocent, it MAY save the other people. 2) Killing is wrong. No matter how you look at it, killing this innocent man is wrong. It is a direct infringement upon his rights. TIME AND TIME AGAIN, I see you mention the word "sacrafice." In no way, does the resolution imply that the innocent being is sacraficing his life! If he did, arguing in the first place would be null and void because the person is telling you what to do. It doesn't say, "It is morally permissable to kill an innocent person who's willing to die for the cause, in order to save more innocent people," so don't try to add that in your side. It speaks of killing, not being willing. So take the action for what it is, MURDER. and 3)Utilitarianism (what you're trying to instill) doesn't become just if you're not including individual rights. You can't vote on something, for the sake of utility, that will harm the minority if the majority gets its vote, and then call it justice or say it's just. "You can't have 10 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for dinner" __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>>>He begins with an example story. First of all the resolution defines all parties in this debate as innocent. Thus if the "fat" man were to not be willing to give up his life then he would be selfish and that story would not apply to the resolution. Next is the fact that the one person to be sacrificed could very well be in the trolley and would thus die due to non-action anyway. All in all, a realistic example isn't practical in this debate due to the excessive variables. So allow me to pose a more efficient one. You have three innocent people. An unknown cause is about to surely kill two of them and possibly the third. The only way to save the lives of the two is to kill the third. If the third is killed the two WILL survive. The resolution states "in order to save the lives..." not "to possibly save the lives..." thus someone WILL die in this situation. For the rest of this debate I will use this most appropriate idealogical example. Selfish, huh? The fact that you're calling him selfish because he doesn't want you to kill him to compensate for the bad luck of the other few IS INSANE. Plus, how does this make him no longer innocent. Moreover, if you decide you want to prove why this is selfish, what's wrong with him being selfish when it comes to someone taking his life for an unreliable, unrelated, unjust, and unpredictable cause? You stating "The resolution states "in order to save the lives..." not "to possibly save the lives..." thus someone WILL die in this situation. For the rest of this debate I will use this most appropriate idealogical example." Holds no water in an argument with me. You've seem to forgotten, I'm not for the resolution. I'm looking to find fallacies within the resolution and prove why the resolution is wrong. So you stating "But the resolution says so" doesn't mean anything to me for the simple fact that TO ME THE RESOLUTION IS WRONG SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT SAYS. One the reasons why it's wrong is because we can predict the future in the actual event. Only when we're in the "pretend phase." >>>I will dispose of my opponent's definition of morality and provide a more accurate one. Morality is the distinction between good and evil when evil is present in all choices. Thus the moral choice is the one that presents the most good and/or the least evil. Mine: Morality being defined as the concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct. Yours:Morality is the distinction between good and evil when evil is present in all choices. Thus the moral choice is the one that presents the most good and/or the least evil. -Hmmmm... Which definition seems to be ridiculed with opinion in order to skew the arguments to one side, and should thus be thrown out? Should't be too hard to figure out here. But this isn't even the striker. The funny part is how you have basically said the EXACT same thing as mine, but have added the "my side is right" into your definition and then saying yours is more accurate. The underlying point in the definitions is that we're distiniguishing if the act of killing someone is good or bad. This said, how is yours more accurate? >>>>My opponent uses the idea of the ends do not justify the means. This is false. As I have proved. No matter what means are used, there is some negative result in the given situation. Since morality is as I have defined it, the best of the choices despite the means, we must agree that killing the one to save the many is the morally justified path. You're arguing something TOTALLY different than what you're suppose to be saying. This debate isn't about the ends at all! it boils down to if the action of killing is bad