Arguments against "Immeasurable life" Help on LD Debate!!!?
In class, we are currently debating on " It is morally permissible to kill one innocent life to save the lives of more innocent people."
I am debating on the affirmative side, and I have a problem with the contentions of the negative side.
They are always upholding the value of "Natural Rights"
and they are always talking about life.
They say things like life being immeasurable and life having infinite value.
What are things that I can attack against such contentions?
I can only say this proposition is wrong, because
1) who gives the killer the right to be the person who does the killing?
2) what principle gives anyone the right to be the "chooser", the person who chooses who dies and who lives?
3) the person chosen to die would have the right to defend himself. Let’s say he didn’t know he was chosen, but someone shoots at him and misses taking his life. The chosen person pulls out his own legal fire arm and kills the person who shot him. Now one person is dead. Does that satisfy the requirement that one person dies to save others?
4)The primary question, however, is >Who gives anyone the right to choose another and kill the other?< Nothing in natural law and the rule of law provides for the creation of a person who chooses who lives and who dies.
The affirmitive (your side) maintains that allowing a human to keep the life he owns may mean the death of others.
1) HOW is this to be decided when no one has a crystal ball?
The answer to that is the answer to the ethical problem considered here. The possibility that such a situation arises only when we see someone already taking innocent lives, such as Hitler did, or as Mugabe is doing.
Who is to say that killing Hitler would not have propelled Goering to do worse things as retaliation? Who is to say that killing bin Laden would not propel his followers to begin mass murders on an unprecedented scale?
I can only say this proposition is wrong, because
1) who gives the killer the right to be the person who does the killing?
2) what principle gives anyone the right to be the "chooser", the person who chooses who dies and who lives?
3) the person chosen to die would have the right to defend himself. Let’s say he didn’t know he was chosen, but someone shoots at him and misses taking his life. The chosen person pulls out his own legal fire arm and kills the person who shot him. Now one person is dead. Does that satisfy the requirement that one person dies to save others?
4)The primary question, however, is >Who gives anyone the right to choose another and kill the other?< Nothing in natural law and the rule of law provides for the creation of a person who chooses who lives and who dies.
The affirmitive (your side) maintains that allowing a human to keep the life he owns may mean the death of others.
1) HOW is this to be decided when no one has a crystal ball?
The answer to that is the answer to the ethical problem considered here. The possibility that such a situation arises only when we see someone already taking innocent lives, such as Hitler did, or as Mugabe is doing.
Who is to say that killing Hitler would not have propelled Goering to do worse things as retaliation? Who is to say that killing bin Laden would not propel his followers to begin mass murders on an unprecedented scale?
References :
if life is immeasurable then it’s best to have the greatest amount of people maintaining this "immeasurable life"
negative’s are just saying that life is of extreme value, but if that is the case then the most moral thing (according to utilitarian concepts) is the have the greatest amount of people having the this wonderful life.
that would make sense. wouldn’t it?
just make sure this argument is heavily warranted and you’re good to go.
i think what they are probably trying to argue is that you can’t put a price on life, and that because this life is of extreme importance we shouldn’t take it away from certain people just to save others. But ultimately, if the negative doesn’t make this point concisely, then you can just ask them if you agree that all lives are of equal importance. And then say because you ultimately save the greatest quantity of lives (because they are all the same quality) you are the most moral. or whatever.
try bentham.
he’s a great philosopher to use for this resolution.
References :