CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do you think you deserve jail in this situation?
Imagine you were in a boat with Steve, Angelo, Marcelo and Stacey without any food'n water for 10 days, all of you were hungry then you guys started an idea to sacrifice one man to die ,unconincidencly Angelo (Angelo is a innocent 17 year old young man with no family) was dying at that time because he drank the saltwater from the sea so Steve started to stab Angelo multiple times without its consent and then you all ate him in order to survive until you reach a land after 3 days, after a day of staying in a condominium all the three of you were charged guilty by act of murder that you have done. Do you think you deserve being in jail with your reasons?
A rather ambiguous scenario, seeing as you didn't commit the act yourself and were in an emergency situation. Many details can be lost when you've been without food or water for 10 days. I couldn't answer one way or another. In turn, I have a scenario for you;
Let's say someone kidnaps you, straps a collar bomb to you and orders you to rob a bank for him, without harming any civilians; in return he will allow you to live. He gives you a gun and, upon entering the bank, you get extremely nervous and start fidgeting with the collar and realize it isn't strapped as tight as you thought it was. You manage to slip the collar up over your neck and, instinctively, you turn around and throw the collar as hard as you can behind you and run out of the bank. The force from the collar hitting a piece of furniture in the bank causes the bomb to activate, which end up killing 3 people. Are you responsible for their deaths?
Yes I am, no matter what reason if I kill innocent it is still called homicide whereas I'll be called a killer, according to the criminology studies if I kill someone unintentionally I can still be imprisoned for the crime called 'manslaughter' in 10 months or worse,in 10 years
There's a fact that they were another option that cannibalism and killing such as fishing, hunting birds, etc at that time. You see, if its with consent and Steven ask Angelo 'Can I kill you? We need food in order to survive' with a response of 'Yes' will you (referring to people on this side) consider it moral?
By its very definition it is premeditated murder. Now the tricky part comes in to play, were they in international waters? How far from shore where they? Three days seems like they could have been in waters where the law doesn't apply, so it's very possible they wouldn't be charged.
I think this one can be started with a simplistic utilitarian outlook. Had the person not been killed and eaten, all would have died. In this case, an act of murder and cannibalism has saved lives, thereby it should be the favourable action.
But the scenario could also play out such that Angelo is murdered and eaten, but everyone dies anyway, unrescued. Whether there's murder or no murder, everyone would die since they wouldn't be rescued anyway. Here murder is the least favourable action.
Particularly difficult is probability. I believe you should be judged on your judgement, however the real situation between lies these two cases, where the outcome is uncertain In a real scenario, you can't guarantee rescue even if you maximise the time any particular individual survives. Can you justify murder of one for an increased chance of survival of another?
You can question other things like whether the survivors are worth being saved once they've murdered. Or the individual value of the person that is to survive or be murdered as a person, or to society or whatever you wish.
Perhaps maximising the time spent alive is enough? It's certainly meaningful when the outcome is surviving a number of years (such decisions are made in hospitals with organ recipients), so what length of additional survival time is worth committing murder?
There are too many layers of subjective nonsense to achieve any consensus, it's why morality is hard. Even the guidelines I've come up with here have debatable importance. I'd say that you don't deserve jail though, in this particular case murder produced positive results in a situation where no other alternatives were conceived. I think the ends do justify the means in this scenario, but would hesitate to support such a mentality for other cases for the above reasons.
Can you justify murder of one for an increased chance of survival of another?Your question was like 'kill one to save many' the answer to your question is the saying 'two wrongs cannot make a right'. Never will cannibalism and murder be a favorable action , I knew you would'nt agree on murder and cannibalism if it weren't your advantage. If ever the boat reach no land in that situation resulting to deaths of the three of you then a righteous god came to the boat and plan to ressurect from the four of you, in your opinion who would he choose? (it can be more than one)
Never will cannibalism and murder be a favorable action
I was arguing that it can be favourable when achieving a positive outcome, but that it's difficult since the outcome is typically not certain.
two wrongs cannot make a right
I disagree. In the scenario you can save lives through murder.
I knew you would'nt agree on murder and cannibalism if it weren't your advantage
I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you explain?
If three ate one, then two ate one, then one ate one, then the last died, then I'd say the outcome is overall worse than if they all just starved simultaneously. To counter any issues with uncertain outcomes, I think they should be judged on their judgement and actions following the information available to them. If they thought the only way they could survive was by eating one other survivor, then I don't think they should be condemned for it.
I don't think murder is inherently bad, it is the loss of life as a result of murder that is bad. If you murdered someone and they could be easily resurrected then I don't think there would be anything morally wrong about it, similar to in a video game. Therefore I'd say using murder to provide a net benefit in terms of number of lives saved is more morally right than it is morally wrong.
If i were to rank their actions on a moral scale, I'd say the second to die would be most righteous, followed by the third, then the fourth and lastly the first. The first to die is neutral and a pure victim, but did nothing good nor bad. The others were trying to achieve a favourable scenario. If you say anyone neutral or above deserves resurrection then I believe all of them should be resurrected.
I was arguing that it can be favourable when achieving a positive outcome, but that it's difficult since the outcome is typically not certain.Positive outcome but using an unfair method, this scenario is comparable to the dirty players at sports who plays a dirty game for their own victory.I disagree. In the scenario you can save lives through murder. Your supporting the suspects's side not the victim and now you sound like the con-death penalty supporters.I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you explain? If you were Angelo, you wouldn't think what they done is right especially it was out of consent then I don't think they should be condemned for it. No, yes maybe they were involuntary saved by Angelo but they should pay for their action , they should'nt escape from the fact that they intenionally killed an innocent.I don't think murder is inherently badyour just saying that because you were not a victim, give empathy to those who were killed then you will understand that murder is completely wrong If you say anyone neutral or above deserves resurrection then I believe all of them should be resurrected. Smart man! but as I am trying to tell you 'murderers deserve death' ,am i wrong?
give empathy to those who were killed then you will understand that murder is completely wrong
I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm trying to shift the emphasis off of the word murder and onto the negative concept the word is hated for: loss of life. If murdering someone, as in destroying their body, didn't result in removing that person from existence, then it isn't nearly as taboo. It turns killing a person to mere vandalism and harm. In the case that you are resurrected, the moral impact of that loss of life and hence the murder is largely negated. Likewise, when judging a murderer you judge their intent to remove a person from existence, because that is the part people are bothered by. It's why manslaughter receives a lesser sentence.
If you were Angelo, you wouldn't think what they done is right
That's because Angelo simply doesn't want to die. I think not wanting to die is as equally selfish as wanting to survive, no? Having 3 survive is the ideal scenario compared to the one where all 4 die. The problem Angelo has with this is that he doesn't want to be the one that dies. It's a selfish sentiment, and I don't think that's what makes the murder immoral.
your just saying that because you were not a victim
No, I'm saying that because that's what I believe. What is inherently bad is loss of life. Murder is an action that by itself results in a loss of life. If a murder is committed that results in a net gain of life then I don't think the murder can be considered wrong. If I were the one that was killed, then yes, I would be resentful towards my killers and I would fear non-existence, but I don't think my selfish impulses make my killers morally wrong overall. Presumably the same pains of the 3 survivors have been avoided, along with whomever would suffer over them. My death would have provided a better outcome.
I am trying to tell you 'murderers deserve death' ,am i wrong?
I'm not sure anyone deserves death. People make mistakes and they shouldn't be killed for that. People change, and they shouldn't be killed for what they were like for a short period of their life, it's why we don't give executions or life sentences to juvenile offenders. If someone bad has the potential to be someone good, then they shouldn't be killed, and you can argue for the good in absolutely anyone, no matter how sickening they are.
You're right in the general case that murder is morally wrong and the murderer should be judged for it. But the general case is where one simply kills another. This isn't the general case. The scenario you created is a variation of the trolley problem.
Con death penly supporters is a double negative statement in terms of grammar. Dude,
killing a body means killing an existence of life. Killing is not ontl vandalism and harm, it is taking away life, even angelo was ressurected Steven is still wrong as of even the tortured are alive the torturers are wrong. steven's intended to kill Angelo without its consent and without sympathy so he harmed Angelo for the sake of his needs so this is not a case of manslaughter and an excusable murderer because all murderers kill for their own needs just like what Steven did. You know, I give mercy to Angelo and I call him a poor man but you call him selfish, bro, You have thought that Angelo is selfish now that he didn't kill anyone, let's put it in this way, You died suddenly because a soldier use you as a shield now do you think that's right? Oh no, your doubting condemning a murderer.It's not just a loss of life buddy, it's also harming and forcing someone to became an involuntary sacrifice Okay, another one let's put it in this way. Like.in the situation above where you are steven and you killed your only child to save yourself and your brothers then God decided to ressurect him,base on what you think what will he say to you? It's not your kindness (its okay for you to be killed) that makes it right or wrong, It's the evil intention of the murderer. He killed Angelo and he doesn't care of Angelo. If the murderer really intended to save then he would kill himself instead so the selfish one is probably Steven. People make mistakes and they shouldn't be killed for that. People change, and they shouldn't be killed for what they were like for a short period of their life Nice one bro, you really sound like a con death penaly supporter, no one learns by killing a killer and even serial killer has chance to change but I know you usually condemn murderers but in this situation you're doubting condemning a killer which you shouldn't doubt for. Actually this scenario is just base on a educational app called 'Edx' not on myself.
Con death penly supporters is a double negative statement in terms of grammar. Dude,
I'm looking it up and I can't find anything for 'con'. As a result I have no idea what you're referring to.
Killing is not ontl vandalism and harm, it is taking away life
Yes, but if the life isn't taken away then you're only left with vandalism, harm and assault. In a video game for example, the act of killing is not treated nearly as severely as in real life, and it is because the consequence is not the same. Even when you intentionally kill someone in effigy in a virtual space, it is not considered immoral or a crime, but a way to 'take the anger out on something'.
I'm trying to separate the distinction between murder being wrong and loss of life being wrong. If murder saves lives I truly believe it is moral, provided an absence of alternative solutions.
steven's intended to kill Angelo without its consent and without sympathy so he harmed Angelo for the sake of his needs so this is not a case of manslaughter
I didn't say this was a case of manslaughter, I brought up manslaughter and compared it to murder to prove that the intent of the perpetrator is important. If it can be proved that this was the murder's intentions then he is guilty of having that sentiment. He is also guilty of saving lives as a result of his actions. I think the murderer should be deemed guilty separately for the sentiment he held and not the murder, since the murder had the potential to save lives (and since they were resurrected anyway, though I suspect that's beside the point).
I call him a poor man but you call him selfish
He is indeed a poor man for being the victim. However not wanting to be the one to die to benefit the group is a selfish impulse. I wouldn't condemn him for it though.
You died suddenly because a soldier use you as a shield now do you think that's right?
Ok, new scenario. I find it a little insulting that you think you can change my mind just by making me the victim in these scenarios. In this case there's not net gain or loss. The soldier made no beneficial impact in saving lives. Therefore the soldiers actions are neutral in that respect. What's left is the deliberate harm and disregard for my life, just like you put: "t's also harming and forcing someone to became an involuntary sacrifice". Though of course the shooter would share the majority of the blame.
It's the evil intention of the murderer
Agreed.
no one learns by killing a killer and even serial killer has chance to change
I think you've misunderstood me again, as that's exactly what I said. I'm starting to doubt your sincerity.
What I'm referring is those who want to terminate death penalty but let's not focus on that. We shouldn't recognize killing as not killing or murder as not murder. Ye and vandalism is maybe always part of killing,In terms of philosophy ressurection after murder don't redo the murder. Haha sorry for insulting and I'm sincere trying to explain justice for the victim. Angelo did the selfish thing rightly for he killed no one and he did not violate human rights while those three men did the opposite. For all the victim's sake, Angelo didn't save anyone, he was just killed.
If you are born with non-human DNA this happens to you on the daily and no one bats an eyelid. Just because someone is human doesn't make them deserve to live any more than another living being which we eat on the daily.
This scenario makes it technical self defence as you were all going to die of starvation had you not killed Angelo. I would equally support Angelo killing you and eating you, so it's not based on his illness.
Actually his illness got impact to everyone's decision, some may think since he is dying he is going to die so why not use his death in order to live? Self defence is when someone is attacking you but Angelo isn't so it's just a form of selfish murder ,there are no excuses when human rights are violated. Imagine that you were Angelo Mingigiwuwu, you never wanted your illness then your batchmates took advantage of you and killed you without your consent, will you still think what they did is right?
