Login/Sign Up




Should you kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?
Philosophy

patriotliberal
Aug 04, 2011
17 votes
14 debaters
6
2
1


+ Add Argument

7
YES (Utilitarianism)


carnifax
Aug 04, 2011
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Simple math equation. Will the human suffering you cause be less than the human suffering you prevent. If it will be less then you should be morally obligated to do that thing. If only people didn't have those pesky irrational emotions.


 
patriotliberal
Aug 04, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
As a brief intro to this debate, this is not only a debate of the question presented, but of the philosophies behind it. So, for those who don't know much philosophy, just argue about the question. For those of us who know much about philosophy, there will also be a debate within the debate.

I will be arguing that we should kill the one person.
My first regular argument is that even if you don't intentionally let the other people die, by letting them die (not killing the one person) you are still effectively killing them. If you see someone drowning in a lake, and you just watch and laugh, you have effectively just killed them.

My first philosophical argument is that deontology contradicts itself by not respecting human worth. It says everyone has infinite worth, yet we are not respecting the worth of each of the many people if we let them die.

 
patriotliberal
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
@lignito

You're forgetting that it is simply impossible many a time to use that logic. Sure, that'll lead you fine until you hit a moral dilemma. Then what? Say you're in a situation where you must harm someone's self worth (intentionally either way). What do you do? Freeze time and be stuck? No, you'd weigh each side and make a decision that way. Or make an emotional outburst and harm both...



 
accipiter
Aug 06, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lyagami Show

Although a little convoluted in his approach I think the premise is an interesting one.
"Would you kill one person to save a group of people"
The hypothetical situation is irrelevent. If that was your choice would you do it?
I would like to seem some justification for the killing of one person. Although I have to admit the arguments from this side require a straight forward answer with some reasoning.

 
rebirth
Aug 06, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Utilitarianism and Deontology are both wrong.

There is no moral system that is objective or universal. They are all fabricated by man and do not exist in reality. Morals are simply opinions and preferences varying by the individual's perspective.

There is no correct answer to this question.

 
carnifax
Aug 06, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reventonrage Show

Human suffering can easily be measured though not exactly. The suffering of the persons dying, the suffering of families the suffering of the killer ect. Killing 3 hardened criminals humanely with no family obviously causes less human suffering than bombing time square or torturing many many people. In most situations, the killing of 1 person to save many people will almost always lead to the least human suffering. In the documentary "the science of evil" they introduce a case study in which the brain activities of people asked these kinds of questions are monitered. In most cases, those who would kill to save many thought with the logic and ration part of the brain while those who would not thought with an emotion based part of the brain. Why would it ever be wrong to seek to cause the least human suffering and death possible?

 
humchuckninny
Aug 07, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lyagami Show

The first part of your post here ironically describes the flawed theme most of your posts tend to follow. The debate is meant to be oversimplified and straightforward. You are absolutely correct that the "vacuum" this question presume cannot exist due to the complexities of reality. Even if it DID exist, there's probably no way we could even KNOW about it.

But that's how the argument is SUPPOSED to be. In a debate forum you argue ex hypothesi, or from the assumption, in the question. Unfortunately, you choose to argue against the debate topic ITSELF. In formal debate, to argue for one side or another by arguing against the assumptions in the stimulus is considered foul, or "abusive."

It's interesting to debate whether or not the topic has valid assumptions, but not within the debate itself.

Finally, to hit one of your points straight on: let's say that one person IS yourself, in the case of martyrdom. One individual sacrifices themselves in order to save a group of others. And yes, that is all the information you have. What then?


 
carnifax
Aug 08, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reventonrage Show

I was merely trying to give hypothetical situations in which someone can reevaluate human suffering based on circumstances such as the nature of the people ect. many innocent lives have a greater value to society than just 1 innocent live assuming they equal in most ways such as family, talents ect. and killing once innocent to save several is almost always the best for society. It is my personal perception if you do not you are effectively killing many people instead of one person. Also in the "science of evil" section that i mentioned, it was the sacrifice of an innocent for many innocents (example: kill a crying infant to prevent a large groups detection by ciminals intending to kill them).

 
pgandal
Aug 09, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Alright, from what I can tell, carnifax is trying to provide a hypothetical case so some debating can actually happen, and several people on the right have responded, saying "in reality, there would be far too many factors influencing..." and so on.

The point of a hypothetical situation is to try and discern why you believe what you believe in a logical fashion. Hypothetical situations are staged in a vaccuum because we are not interested in figuring out which extraneous factors (such as oppression, law, or whatever else) have what effects.

In a debate about whether or not it is morally permissible to kill an innocent person to save several lives, the point should be to find whether killing is wrong in and of itself.

 
carnifax
Aug 09, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The reason why i said "my personal perception" is because it is my opinion and i didn't say it should apply to anyone else or that anyone had to agree but thank you for pointing out what i implied by adding the phrase in the first place. Anyone can identify to an extent what is good for society. Laws are good and meth is bad. Life is good and death is bad. Honest citizens are good and criminals are bad. If i can't take it upon myself to judge what is good for the world i live in then why can you? We just have different opinions. I would kill someone if i thought it would cause more good than bad and that is a very simple judgement for most people to make. Besides ripping into my judgement you haven't really justified your position that much. Why is it right to let many people die when you can save them by killing one person? Killing is a bad thing but it is a simple fact to me that many 1

 
pgandal
Aug 09, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lyagami Show

If you know the people, or some of them are younger, or whatever, then the thought experiment stops examining your views on killing-in-order-to-save and begins to address your views on relationships or the value of life based on projected lifespan.

Think of the train problem, the one that every intro philosophy student has heard: A train is racing down the track. There is no one on this train. It doesn't matter why, but no one can stop the train from the inside, and there is no one to injure on the train.

The train approaches a fork and you are standing next to a lever used to switch tracks. If you do nothing, the train will kill five innocent people. The only actions you can take are to do nothing, or to pull the lever and redirect the train onto the other track, killing only one innocent person.

For the purposes of this experiment:
1. you do not know any of the six people.
2. furthermore, after you decide, you will never see any of them, their families, or any one who knows them, ever.
3. no one will ever find out about the decision you made (no legal ramifications or personal judgements).
4. All of the six people are identical, so far as you can tell (same age, and whatever else you might consider important). In essence, all of these people have the same "value".


 
pgandal
Aug 11, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: accipiter Show

The typical discussion around the train problem is [*killing* one person] or [*letting* the others die]. By taking no action, you are not killing the group of innocents, as you did not set the train in motion. The debate is over whether or not it is morally *permissible* (as opposed to morally *required*) to pull the lever.

 
pgandal
Aug 11, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reventonrage Show

I should have been more specific; I don't mean to say that the debate should be about all killing, it should be about killing in order to save. The title is "should you kill one innocent to save the live of more?" Now we can dance around this all day and say things like "what if the one is your wife or father?", "what if one of the group of five is Hitler Jr.?" or "what if the group are all under 20, and the one is 97?" but this isn't judging whether or not we think we 'ought' to kill the one; it's judging what we think about killing our dads, Hitler, or how we value youth.

You can call hypothetical situations whatever you like, but if you're interested in debating something like this, you can't help but use them. The advantage of using a hypothetical like mine is that nearly all excuses are removed. You cannot say that someone is older or worse off, or a bad person. All the people are equal. Also, you won't get in trouble and you won't be guilted by relatives, nor will you be thanked or rewarded. Therefore, the only thing you need to consider in making your decision, is whether you find it acceptable to pull a switch and redirect a train at a person that was previously in no danger. Many see pulling the switch as unacceptable; killing one is worse than letting five die.Maybe you disagree with that, or maybe not. I figured that was the point of this debate.

 
pgandal
Aug 11, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reventonrage Show

Oh, I would also disagree with your statement that it is not killing but sacrifice. I would say it is sacrifice, but that sacrifice involves taking the life of the one, and that's the same as killing. Killing does not have to be murder.

 
thewow
Aug 13, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: accipiter Show

But the rest will be in danger .I apprectiate you but I will kill the innocent while save other innocent.

 
carnifax
Aug 13, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
All I have ever ment is that:
1: It is usually possible to make an informed choice on which action in the scenario will cause more harm
2: It is the responsiblity of that person to make the choice that will cause the least harm
3: Frequently, the choice that will cause the least harm is to kill one to save many, simply because 1 is less than any greater number.
4: There are scenario's where killing one person WILL cause more harm than good.

I honestly respect your position and see why you have a problem with my arguments but this is an issue that I really don't care that much about. Both choices are socially acceptable, are always up to the person in the scenario, and depend heavily on that persons own beliefs. Any confusion or bullsh*t on my side came from haphazardly adressing this issue as It isn't one i particularly am interested in. The reason why I think my position is better for society than the opposing point of view is that society should always place the needs of the group over those of the individual in order for the most people to live as well as possible. As a social species, the survival of the group is the greatest need. Humans are equal in most ways because we are all similar. Our values in society come from what we can contribute and almost always multiple people contribute more than one person. This is why I feel it is almost always better in society that one die rather than many.

 
pgandal
Aug 14, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reventonrage Show

Ok, I don't think you understand what a hypothetical is. No proof is needed for a hypothetical situation, because it exists entirely in my head. I don't need to prove that the people are equal, because I define every possible facet of the situation, and if I so desire, I can choose to make all of the people in danger, completely equal in every way, shape and form.

Furthermore, I am not making any argument. I am merely suggesting a framework for thinking about this problem in a more constructive way. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I was merely using those examples to justify me hypothetical's divergence from reality. The value of such a thought experiment is that it allows the user to analyse their own thoughts and opinions on the courses of action available.

I've taken intro logic as well, I didn't make a straw man, and my arguments aren't fallacious. I can say with certainty that I did not do these things because I was not trying to form an argument; what I was trying to do (before you jumped all over me, apparently spoiling for a fight, rather than a discussion) was suggest a framework to use when discussing the topic.

Finally, how does what I have written so far fall outside of the UoD? Again, I cite the title: "should you kill one to save more?" In the train problem, you are presented with the choice to kill one to save more. They sound identical to me. However, you have shown that I am entirely fallacious and not worthy of addressing (except to fling accusations at, and treat like a moron), so perhaps I am mistaken.

 
pgandal
Aug 14, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reventonrage Show

It wasn't my choice to use killing, I am merely complying with the UoD, as established by the OP.

In my opinion, "sacrifice" is more ambiguous than killing. What does this sacrifice involve? Money, time? No, it's a life. However you look at it, if you decide to "sacrifice one life" to save more, you are deciding to take a person's life. This is equivalent to saying "you are killing/deciding to kill that person". 'Kill' is clear and concise; 'sacrifice' is less so.

At best, the two terms mean the same thing. I would argue that "sacrifice" is sugar-coating it. Call it what it is. Dilemmas are supposed to be unpleasant.

 
pgandal
Aug 14, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: skiingfool435 Show

Heck no.

 
+ Add Argument

10
NO (Deontology)


accipiter
Aug 04, 2011
6 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: patriotliberal Show

At the risk of bursting your massive revelation into the human condition; there is no deep philosophical argument here. What you are proposing is neither unique nor complex.
Even by prefacing with the address to the great thinkers who have a philosophical bent the question comes down to the basics. As this debate goes on I will present more and more absurd and disturbing imagery to assist with the visual.
What you are proposing has been the justification of many of the tyrants throughout human history. (It even got an honorable mention some Star Trek episode or other. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one” or some such nonsense.)
By adopting this philosophy you are merely trying to abdicate personal responsibility. The taking of an innocent life is a personal choice. By making this choice there are consequences to be realized, either by other people or your own simple conscience.
I will let you state your case now with a clear understanding of the course of reasoning I will be following.


 
thales
Aug 05, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: carnifax Show

Morals aren't math.

Who are you to say that the suffering of each of the people in question has the same finite value?

 
reventonrage
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: carnifax Show

Just because you can give reasons for your argument, it does not make your argument any more rational than people who base theirs on emotions. Your reason is fundamentally flawed.

First, you have stated that it is a "simple math equation". Thales has rebutted against that point and I will not repeat his valid argument.

Second, you have proposed a one-sided hypothetical that the suffering one innocent person is less than that of the death of more innocent people. You have not considered the reverse situation. Therefore, your argument is deliberately skewed.

Third, you have posited a typical argumentum ad hominem when you talk about other arguing based on "pesky irrational emotions". From what I have read, this side of the debate has not argued anything based on emotions.

 
lignito
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: patriotliberal Show

I am going to answer each of your arguments:

About your "regular argument": it is not the same thing to kill actively than passively. Also, we tend to think in a human-logical way, building a link between two elements just becaouse they are near in time. How can you be sure about that the non-killing the one means that the others are going to die?

About your "philosophical argument" I say what you say it is not true: we would be not respecting the worth of that one person if we kill him just becouse we fear (we could be never sure) what could happen if he still alives. Becouse deontology says everyone has a worth which we cannot calculate no ona can takes that decision. At least trying to apper as if the way he chose was the correcto way.

 
reventonrage
Aug 05, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: patriotliberal Show

I think that you must be more specific when you mention "moral dilemma". What are you specifically talking about?
If you want to use this as evidence to support your claim that "it is simply impossible many a time to use that logic", then you need to be a little more specific.

 
lyagami
Aug 06, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: patriotliberal Show

You seem to be laboring under the pretense that no matter what the situation is that the person making the decision seems to be doing so in a vacuum and the only situation they would be responding to would be the ending of one life to save the lives of another group.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on whether your answering the question or are part of this kind of situation respectively), these types of situations are very few and far between. Many other factors give way in these instances. For example, there is the role of the group in this case and the dynamics that may have the oppressed rise in unison against their oppressors, there is also the negative effect that a group may have which would be the diffusion of responsibility phenomena.

Furthermore, the idea that the only choices to be had are: to kill the person or to not kill the person for the good of the group is flawed, there are almost always an infinite number of options that can be taken; In the case of the general public or the "man in the street" the individual will most likely narrow the decisions that he/she has to those that will try to produce the best outcome with the least negative harm coming to him/her. In the case of personal decisions let us not forget that there is also martyrdom to consider (heroism if you prefer), where the individual making the decision and the "innocent" individual to be killed in exchange for the safety of other may be one and the same person.

Personally I find the question intriguing just not within this type of example. Now had you used the classic "Would you kill one person in the name of medical science if it could produce or seriously further the development of a cure for *insert you horrible condition here*". At least in that situation it brings the moral question to the forefront and the lack of an active threat rules out the possibility of many of the split-second decisions or knee-jerk reactions that the individual is prone to in the heat of the moment.

 
lyagami
Aug 06, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: accipiter Show

Well, I still think its a little more complicated for instance:

Normally, I wouldn't trade ten Ryans for one Vecchio or one Caparzo. But, Vecchio peed on my jacket and Caparzo tried to get me to adopt a kid I didn't want. So it looks like I have more Ryans than I need.

Additionally, My natural justification would be more life equals greater value. So, sorry Mr. one innocent person ,but CLICK CLICK BOOM I let the stereo play, wasn't faded, not jaded, just a kid with a pad and pen and a big imagination.

I think that my reasoning speaks for itself frankly.

Breakdown: life (I) = important; more lives (G) = more important; personal relationship (X) = weighted variable

Hence if, I ^ X = G * (GI ^ X) /G then the One innocent person lives. Otherwise, the one innocent person dies.

There I believe that just about justifies it.


 
reventonrage
Aug 08, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: carnifax Show

You are positing a totally irrelevant argument here. Read the motion carefully. It says "innocent person". All your talk about "hardened criminals" is incongruous with the motion. Therefore, your whole argument about killing "criminals" and quoting "the science of evil" totally missed the mark. Please read the motion more carefully and rebut within the UoD.

Therefore, I think you know my reply to your question - "Why would it ever be wrong to seek to cause the least human suffering and death possible?". You are deliberately trying to twist your argument such that it fits the UoD only halfway and deliberately ignoring the other half of the argument of "innocent person", which would then make your argument moot.

 
jackfrost88
Aug 08, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
no, that would be sacrifice...save the sacrifice for cults and The Manson Family...sacrificing the life of another to save the lives of others is morally wrong and logically ignorant...That's like extinguishing one fire only to start more...the end result is the same-a fire was started that could have easily been prevented...an innocent life was taken so more life could be given...adding fuel to the fire

 
reventonrage
Aug 08, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: carnifax Show

If you want to give hypothetical situations, you should give situations that at least fit the UoD. Your rebuttal is not even remotely close to what has been described in the UoD. Furthermore, you definition of "nature of people" is absolutely vague and ambiguous.

Your assumption of "assuming they equal in most ways" is also ambiguous. What are these other ways? If they are "assuming they equal in most ways", what are the other ways in which they are not equal? And furthermore, what is the basis of this assumption? Why is there a need to assume this in the first place? The burden of proof lies with the person who is making these assumptions.

The same argument lies with the statement of "almost always the best for society". Who are you to decide what is "the best for society"? If it is "almost always the best for society", then what are the situations where it is not "the best for society"?

Furthermore, if it is your "personal perception", then why should it apply to all? Why should an innocent person die based on your "personal perception"? Most importantly, why is your "personal perception" the right one?

On your argument about the documentary, just because it has been reported in a documentary, it does not necessarily make it the right decision. Documentaries report facts, not opinions or moral judgements.

In the final analysis, your whole argument is very much subjective to your "personal perception", which does not make it necessarily true that your "personal perception" is the right one. The purpose of this debate is to come to as objective and logical a conclusion based on logical discussion and intellectual discourse and not "personal perception(s)", albeit we are looking at things throught different lenses (utilitarianism vs deontological ethics).

 
accipiter
Aug 09, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: pgandal Show

The argument is the same. Somebody dies as a result of your action. If you can justify it by applying numbers then it is your justification. In the case of the train or any other scenario if you are the one who chooses who lives and who dies then it is your decision and you live with it.

 
distort
Aug 09, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rebirth Show

While I agree that all moral systems are inherently subjective, I would still argue that there is a correct decision to be made. Let us operate under our agreement that morals do not exist in reality: it would therefore follow that they have both an individual and total real-world value of zero; none of them exist in reality, so they all have zero value in reality. This means that even taking into account issues of multiple moral systems versus a single moral system, the value of each side remains fixed at zero. This means that any decisions regarding morality are, as you have deduced, pointless.

However, we can still discuss things that do have real-world value; in this case, measurable damage to an individual as opposed to multiple individuals. We can take real-world measurements of the damage done to the individual in terms of physical damage done to that particular individual and damage done to the species as a whole in terms of population (basically, the death of any human lessens the total chance of survival for the species, and therefore can be seen as a form of damage to the species). We can subsequently do the same to the group of individuals and then compare the two sets of data. As should be obvious, the quantity of measurable damage for the individual will be less than the quantity of damage for the group. Therefore, choosing to kill the individual as opposed to letting the group die would be preferable to avoid a greater amount of damage.

To summarize, while I agree that there is no correct moral decision to be made, I also uphold that choosing to kill the individual is preferable in regards to what can actually be measured in the real world.

 
reventonrage
Aug 10, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: carnifax Show

I am beginning to suspect that you started to rebut my statement without even reading what I had to say clearly. My question to you was that why is your opinion necessarily right for society? Again, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the one who made those claims.

To answer your question on: "If i can't take it upon myself to judge what is good for the world i live in then why can you?"
This is simply a straw man argument because I have not posited any argument that my judgement is good for the world. The objective of my statement is to question what you have said. Answering a question with another question in such a fashion is pathetic at best.

Furthermore, I have not explicitly stated my position as yet simply because I find that this is a profoundly complex question that needs to be discussed in greater depth before I can make a clear judgement. I am just rebutting your statements.

Also, I think that you have not tackled any one of my questions in my last rebuttal. It would be better for you to address those questions to justify your position before your critique others. If you cannot even justify your stand, I don't think that you have any basis to critique others.

 
reventonrage
Aug 10, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: pgandal Show

Carnifax's hypothetical situation does not even fall within this UoD because the assumptions in the hypothetical diverge from that of the motion. Carnifax assumed that the person/s to be killed are criminals while those in the motion are innocent. Carnifax has deliberately twisted the hypothetical to make his argument more convincing instead of using a hypothetical example that actually fits in the UoD.

"In a debate about whether or not it is morally permissible to kill an innocent person to save several lives, the point should be to find whether killing is wrong in and of itself."
This statement is somewhat ambiguous as well. It is not "killing" per se that is in question. It is the idea of sacrifice - giving up the life of one innocent to save the lives of other innocent people. Both you and Carnifax seem to not understand the UoD of this debate. Either we have you trying to argue about whether killing is wrong in and of itself, which falls outside the UoD, or we have Carnifax trying to twist his words and change the underlying assumptions of the UoD to draw up a bogus and pathetic hypothetical situation.

 
skiingfool435
Aug 11, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: pgandal Show

Would you kill yourself to save X number of people?

 
reventonrage
Aug 12, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: pgandal Show

The advantage from your hypothetical situation is farcical. I think either I've not been clear enough or you can't read. Let me repeat myself again, YOUR HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION DIVERGES FROM THE UoD. SO IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND. I think that that should be clear enough.

You have posited a straw man argument in your first paragraph because, unlike you, I DID NOT make such a bold claim as to say that "what if the one is your wife or father" etc. You are trying to put words into my mouth. Since you obviously cannot back your argument that I have mentioned such things, your argument is fallacious. That which can be claimed without evidence can also be disclaimed without evidence. (I think the straw man argument runs into paragraph 2 because your talked about being "guilted by relatives".)

"All the people are equal."
Where is the proof of this statement? How would you know that they are equal? And even if they are equal, what does it mean to be "equal"? Is "equal" in a tangible or intangible sense?

You have not proven anything in your rebuttal. All you have done so far is to posit a fallacious straw man argument.

 
reventonrage
Aug 12, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: pgandal Show

Again, you have posited a straw man argument. I have never said that sacrifice is not a form of killing, neither have I said that it is. My rebuttal was a criticism of how your diction "killing" is ambiguous and it would be more SPECIFIC to say "sacrifice" instead. I have no idea how you arrived at this argument but it is fallacious.

 
accipiter
Aug 14, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thewow Show

If this is a matter of just numbers then what is the correct ratio? Would you kill one to save 2?

 
reventonrage
Aug 20, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: pgandal Show

Your opinion of "sacrifice" is utterly flawed. The idea of sacrificing money and time is a mere metaphor that is derived from the sacrifice of a life. I refer to sacrifice within the boundaries of this UoD, as any person learned in the English Language would, in terms of its original definition of the sacrifice of a life. The idea of killing is utterly ambiguous because it connotes a whole plethora of concepts and/or situations such as murder and manslaughter in addition to sacrifice.

In response to your hypothetical situation, I do not believe that you have proved beyond doubt that the principles of sacrifice in that manner mentioned should apply universally, in the context of this UoD. All you have proven is that this MIGHT be applicable to your single hypothetical situation, which might or might NOT occur. That is Kant's Categorical Imperative. I might add that Kant is a utilitarian philosopher and if your are on the side of utilitarianism your arguments should comply with the principles of utilitarianism, which your hypothetical does NOT. And here, you have the audacity to smoke your way through convincing nobody that your hypothetical is even applicable and/or logical in the scope of this UoD.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

debate equality god wins life love love wins personal belief philosophy religion straight together abortion actions america animal animals atheism Atheist belief chicken Christianity Death debate deontology ethics evil evolution existence Faith freedom god good happiness happy hope human humanity Humans justice Kill knowledge law lgbtq life logic Love meaning men mind morality morals murder peace people perception philosophy politics punishment reality religion rights science Sex Smart society suicide theism think time truth war world wrong