Exploring the Moral Permissibility of Sacrificing One for Many

Affirmative

- I argue that it is in fact morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many, I say this because the survival of the human race is now, and has always been the purpose of mankind on earth, and morality itself is constructed around achieving that goal. Human philosophy is always centered around the survival and happiness of humanity. Even religious philosophy is centered around those eventual goals. Arguments arise in the approach to achieving the goal, not the stated goal of happiness and survival of our species itself.

- Given the universal human goal of survival of our species I submit, and the fact that morality is a supportive result of that goal, one should accept that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

- It is either one or many. If one person doesn’t die, then many will die instead

- If one life is not lesser than that of another, then how is it not right to kill one to save more?

o If a serial killer/robber, robbed a bank and told someone to shoot another person or he will blow up the whole bank, killing many, what would be right? That one

person isn’t valued higher over everyone else.
- It is simple, only one person dying is better than many people dying.

When looking at the definition of morally, you have to see that the action of killing someone is allowable when you view the saving of the many people that takes place. NOW is when you must view the difference between realism and philosophy…ism? Realistically, moments that this resolution might come into play would be "heat of the moment" times. You must first realize that the person who kills the innocent to save the many innocent KNOWS that he is attempting to save the many innocent people… This alone makes the action allowable. It IS a good thing to save many people even if you have to hurt someone else to do it. As far as good "judgment" goes, saving the most people is the right thing to do which goes for both realistically and

philosophically.
- Throughout human history, mankind has struggled with the importance of the individual verses the importance of the species. Early in human history, mankind believed in deities and royalty and caste systems that stressed the value of a few at the expense of many. However, as we have evolved, mankind has begun to adopt a belief in individual freedom and inherent rights, that cause us to question the morality of killing any innocent person despite the outcome.

Negative
- The value of human life is immeasurable. Therefore, to say that we can be more productive in any way by saving the greater amount is neither logical, nor morally acceptable. How do you measure and compare the quantity of of x verses the quantity of y + z if you don't know the values of x, y, or z.

- We must not look at humans quantitatively, but qualitatively. Would you sacrifice a young 5-year old to save 5 90-year olds? Or what if the one innocent person we killed to save 3 people were to actually become the scientist who finds the cure to cancer and save millions of lives worldwide in the future? Humans cannot be judged as purely numbers on a comparative scale. Therefore, there are definitely instances where killing one person to save many others is not better, which goes directly against a utilitarian philosophy for the affirmative.