Would it be okay to Kill One Person to Save Another?
To answer this you may need to consider whether or not some people are more important than others: www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Are_some_People_more_Important_than_Others
Yes
Side Score: 8
|
No
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
It largely depends on what standard you qualify killing to save another as "okay", but personally the only standard I go by is reason and in this case, there's no real answer. It comes down to the specifics -- and yes, some people are 'worth' more than other people. Side: Yes
1
point
Here is a good example of this scenario. A woman is giving birth to a baby. The doctor realizes the woman's blood pressure is spiking. There are two choices 1. The doctor terminates the birth and the woman survies (baby dies) 2. The doctor continues the birth and the baby survives (woman dies) Who do you choose? Is this not killing one to save another? I would save the baby if the baby has other family. The woman if the baby would be orphaned. Side: Yes
I believe the babies life is of much less value than the life of the women. The baby hasn't even reached a state of true conciousness, knowing nothing of the world at all. However the women, who is capable of procreating again, has full cognitive function and has had immense time and money put into her to educate her and keep her alive. I agree that this is a great example of the question in play. Side: No
|
Well, since it's a no net gain scenario, a morally consequentialist framework is useless. Thus, if we apply deontological or virtue ethics, the answer is clearly no. The ends are substantially the same, thus we can take the means into account. Assuming axiomatically that killing is morally wrong, the answer is no. Side: No
Probably best not to assume that killing is axiomatically morally wrong. I'd argue that there can be no moral axioms, and thus non-consequentialist frameworks are redundant. In a no net gain scenario, (which can only ever be purely hypothetical) there is no need for moral laws. Something is not "good" in and of itself, but only "good" according to the outcomes. It is neither okay nor not okay to kill a person to save another in such a scenario because "okay" is meaningless in the absence of a moral framework. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
|