Let's Debate!
Forums › General Discussion › Let's Debate!-
Alright so we haven't had a good debate here in a while, so I figure we should have one!
Topic: Is it morally permissible to kill one person for the good of many?
Pick your side and go!
-
I don't want to start anything so I will keep my opinion to myself, but will be interested in what the community thinks...
-
If that peson has already violated others' right to life, yes.
-
Depends on what you mean by the " good of many". To save the lives of many, then yes.
-
Killed by the government Via trial then execution or just in the heat of the moment by someone witnessing the violation of someone else's right to life?
-
Yes. Humanity is and always has been for the better of the group. Everybody looks out for their niche or kin. In history, you can give multiple examples of one death that benefitted many, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
-
OneThumbBastard wrote:
I believe a drug crazed man eating another man's face would be deemed an "appropriate" circumstance.Morality is a quintessential human construct: right vs. wrong. You find it nowhere else in the animal kingdom. That being said, you actually are asking this question: is it right or is it wrong to kill one person for the good of the many?
Personally, I have no problem with it at all. I can envision several circumstance where it is not only right, but appropriate.👍
-
No one has the right to take a life, regardless of whether this right is being broken at the same time. There is no correct answer for this question. Both yes and no are flawed, but I tend to lean on yes.
-
An eye for an eye and the world goes blind
-
It would be best to put the question in terms similar to this?
Is it morally permissible to kill an innocent to save a group of people?
An example is shoving an person in front of a car to slow/stop it from hitting a group of children. -
Morality is completely relative. What might be considered reprehensible in one culture may be accepted and normal in another. It has everything to do with your beliefs.
-
Well for example:
There's a train track. You have your hand on the lever that can change the track. If you push it up it will kill 3 of your most loved family/friends. If you pull it down, it will kill 15 random people you don't know.Idk about you guys, but I know you would all like to think you would sacrifice your family for the others.
-
There are really two ways to view it, 1) Realistically and 2) Philosophically… I will use both as a tool to prove that it is indeed morally permissible to kill one innocent to save many innocent people.
-
I. More people live on the pro side.
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. -
II. More people die on the con side.
When you say that it isn't morally permissible to try to save people (which is really what you are doing), you have to see that the many people will end up dying. In other words, more people are killed.III. Example: Train Tracks…
If there are 10 people on track A and 1 person on track B and a train is heading on track A, it would be morally permissible to use the switcher to track B to save the many innocent people…--> When you combine these two things, you MUST see that both realistically and philosophically, it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.
-
It's all depending on how you were raised.
Some will say yes, some will say no, but when the time comes, people react on instinct more often than not. And our instinct tells us one death to save many is acceptable. -
ང༐བℵཇ🔥💢👣 wrote:
I would probably save my family. Like I said, people look out for themselves and their own.Well for example:
There's a train track. You have your hand on the lever that can change the track. If you push it up it will kill 3 of your most loved family/friends. If you pull it down, it will kill 15 random people you don't know.Idk about you guys, but I know you would all like to think you would sacrifice your family for the others.
-
OneThumbBastard wrote:
Morality is a quintessential human construct: right vs. wrong. You find it nowhere else in the animal kingdom. That being said, you actually are asking this question: is it right or is it wrong to kill one person for the good of the many?
Personally, I have no problem with it at all. I can envision several circumstance where it is not only right, but appropriate.👍
Completely wrong!! Look up the social aspects of apes and other monkey species. The care for their young just as we, they care for the elderly just like we do. They some signs of social construct. Gain knowledge before debating. Opinions have no place in debates
-
ང༐བℵཇ🔥💢👣 wrote:
Well for example:
There's a train track. You have your hand on the lever that can change the track. If you push it up it will kill 3 of your most loved family/friends. If you pull it down, it will kill 15 random people you don't know.Idk about you guys, but I know you would all like to think you would sacrifice your family for the others.
You watched this on the discovery channel. I saw this as well and I say yes kill one to save many. I believe in survival as a species, so saving 10 is worth saving one and I would push a person on the tracks. Morally and ethically is makes all the sense in the world to save more then save few.
-
Hebrew Hitman wrote:
Are you daft? Apes are not monkeys.OneThumbBastard wrote:
Morality is a quintessential human construct: right vs. wrong. You find it nowhere else in the animal kingdom. That being said, you actually are asking this question: is it right or is it wrong to kill one person for the good of the many?
Personally, I have no problem with it at all. I can envision several circumstance where it is not only right, but appropriate.👍
Completely wrong!! Look up the social aspects of apes and other monkey species. The care for their young just as we, they care for the elderly just like we do. They some signs of social construct. Gain knowledge before debating. Opinions have no place in debates
-
Now as for my family, it depends on high person haha joking :) but in all seriousness I would save any one of my family members rather than save 10 random people. Because I have a responsibility to that person, like tribes used to do in ancient times. May sound primitive but love for a family member is stronger than empathy for the 10 others and their families
-
Okay HH....
On the up track, we have 15 murderers, rapists, and thieves, male and female. On the down track, we have you. You can say whatever you want right now, but screw you, I'm pulling the lever down. One sacrifice to save many, right?
-
Bah, I'm going to bed, I hate debates
-
Hebrew Hitman wrote:
Actually reddit, the person onང༐བℵཇ🔥💢👣 wrote:
Well for example:
There's a train track. You have your hand on the lever that can change the track. If you push it up it will kill 3 of your most loved family/friends. If you pull it down, it will kill 15 random people you don't know.Idk about you guys, but I know you would all like to think you would sacrifice your family for the others.
You watched this on the discovery channel. I saw this as well and I say yes kill one to save many. I believe in survival as a species, so saving 10 is worth saving one and I would push a person on the tracks. Morally and ethically is makes all the sense in the world to save more then save few.
There problably got it from discovery. -
Water is a commodity! That's why you pay for it lol the only right you have is air and even that can be taken away.
-
The topic was about human morality and how it is part of our evolution, watch it! It is pretty good there's another about the lack of free will, really good science in these.
Bruener- yes take my life and save many. Morality should have no exceptions. I would gladly lay my life on line in that scenario. Might take some coaxing and maybe a shove but who to say that my life is more valuable than theirs?
-
🔰ℬཞüęℵǿཞ🔰 wrote: Are you daft? Apes are not monkeys.
He's daft. Obviously he's never seen video of chimps gang killing a member of the group out of boredom, or because it's not strong enough.Social instinct does not mean morality.
That said, humans go through stages of moral development.
1. No clue or motivation to be moral.
2. Learning that some actions will be met with punishment if caught, but still no self-morality.
3. Desire to not disappoint care givers, but still no desire to self-apply morals for the sake of goodness.
4. Self awareness of right and wrong and a desire to be moral for the sake of it.
Which stage do you think other primates attain?
-
Another famous behaviourist said that from ages roughly 0-11, morals are a list of immutable rules. These rules cannot be altered. There is no reasoning or decision making. The rules come down from god or parent and cannot be changed.
Ages roughly 12-dead, we see the rules of morality are more gray guidelines that can be changed when society thinks it necessary. Also, rules can be broken for the greater good and still be an act of goodness.
Same concept as the 4 stages mentioned earlier, but a more simple model.
Really, you can read the answers above and estimate the age of the authors based on their perception of morality, but unfortunately many people take way too long to get to stage 4, if they ever do.
-
🎸₩℣ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸 wrote:
Well saidAn eye for an eye and the world goes blind
-
🍃⚡Πατнαπ⚡🍃 wrote:
In the land of blind Huns, the one-eyed warrior is king.🎸₩℣ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸 wrote:
Well saidAn eye for an eye and the world goes blind
That actually has some truth to it, and isn't just bumper sticker wisdom.
Justice is a valid need in human society. The legal code of Hammurabi is long dead, and has never existed in western culture.
So WTF are you guys high fiving about?
-
Hebrew Hitman wrote:
Rights cannot be taken away. Rights exist even when a person's rights are violated.Water is a commodity! That's why you pay for it lol the only right you have is air and even that can be taken away.
The rights we have are deemed to exist even if they are not recognized by human authority.
This is why the Declaration of Independance and Constitution do not specifically list all human rights, and simply define which of your rights the government may not disregard.
Rights are not granted by human government according to the principles of our founding. They are granted by a higher moral power.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC