Debate Info

Yes No
Debate Score:20
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes (7)
 No (10)

Debate Creator

LoveU(339) pic

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?


Side Score: 7


Side Score: 13

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?

Side: Yes
1 point

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

Side: Yes
1 point

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?

Side: Yes
2 points

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.

Side: No
1 point

Side: Yes
1 point

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.

Side: No
1 point

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)

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: No
1 point

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?

Side: No
1 point

Yes I would. I am not the main character in their story and I'd have done the same to them had they let their guard down.

Side: No