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.
is it morally permisible to kill one person so that we can save other lives
Klling is never an option or a choice but it depends on the situation wether one is being threathen by a robber than it is our moral duty to protect our family. Would history be different if Adolf Hitler was killed?
I love that question, "But what if that one person that gets killed has the potential to do something great or life changing?"
Always makes me laugh.
Considering whatever it is, if there's more than one life being saved, the odds are higher that that specific trait would be found in them rather than the one being killed.
I find it interesting that you would make the statement that it is above and beyond you call of duty as a citizen, especially an American citizen. As Americans part of who we are is people who uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all threats both foreign and domestic. Yes we value life and every life has importance, but the survival instinct is hard, dare I say impossible to fight, and at times should not be fought. We as a people must survive. Agatha Christie said it this way, “Too much mercy... often resulted in further crimes which were fatal to innocent victims who need not have been victims if justice had been put first and mercy second.”
No, morally and legally it is not right for any one to kill any person, under any pretext. This is a safety for each and everyone, as otherwise, you could be that person killed by the moral decisions of others and their rationalisation of their act.
There was atleast one case ( i think in 1971 ) where an domestic aircraft crashed on the alps mountain, and there were about 70 survivors who had to wait for over 100 days before being rescued. During that time, first people ate the foods on the plane, then ate the dead bodies of a few people who died in the crash and later went on to kill and eat some of the survivors for their food. The aruments of the final survivors was in line with this proposition that "it was morally permissible to kill some people so that others' lives were saved " . This act was condemned all over the world.
I most certainly would have, ( killed the terrorists and maybe even their families !) but still i would not have been within my moral or legal rights to have done so, unless I was a law enforcement authority acting under proper permissions. I would be tried, and rightly so, for acting beyond the call of my duty as a citizen if I did kill the terrorists, because with persons, life would not be safe for a large number of innocent people, some of whom I might ( mistakenly ? vindictively ? mischievously ?) adjudicate as "terrorists " and kill them.
The question of whether I would have killed the terrorists if I had the chance, is a hindsight one. Nobody ever knew at that time ( and did not know till hours after the attack ) that this was an act of terrorism.
In hindsight things look very simple: why did the passengers not kill the terrorists ? why did the airforce not thwart the attack ? and even as we discuss this why did they not kill the Fort Hood killer ?
If you remember, there was an incident in the London rly station, where members of the law enforcement killed one person who they suspected to be a terrorist under the impression that they would save others' lives. It later on turned out to be that the person killed was a poor innocent law abiding citizen. I am glad it was not me, but I'm now scared not only of the terrorists but also of the law enforcement and other people who read labels on my forehead which is supposed to read "i am a terrorist, kill me and save other lives ".
"but still i would not have been within my moral or legal rights to have done so, unless I was a law enforcement authority acting under proper permissions."- that is such a bad way to look at it. It is completely within your moral rights to kill the terrorists because you would be saving many more innocent people from death.
"I would be tried, and rightly so, for acting beyond the call of my duty as a citizen if I did kill the terrorists, because with persons, life would not be safe for a large number of innocent people"- im talking about a hypothetical situation in which you were sure that the person that you were about to kill was a terrorist. There needs to be ample evidence for someone to make a decision that they are going to kill somebody. It doesn't matter if nobody knew at the time because I am speaking in terms if you knew that they were terrorists. If you saw or overheard their plans of attacking the World Trade Centers, you wouldn't kill them just in case they were innocent?
"Nobody ever knew at that time ( and did not know till hours after the attack ) that this was an act of terrorism. "- really? People really didn't know that the World Trade Centers were being attacked by terrorists until hours after they saw two giant planes fly into the them?
"why did the passengers not kill the terrorists ? why did the airforce not thwart the attack ? and even as we discuss this why did they not kill the Fort Hood killer ?"- im not going to get into this stupid conspiracy shit.
"I am glad it was not me, but I'm now scared not only of the terrorists but also of the law enforcement and other people who read labels on my forehead which is supposed to read "i am a terrorist, kill me and save other lives "- if there isn't a lot of evidence of you being a terrorist, then people will almost never suspect you of being a terrorist. Don't say anything about stereotypes because most people really wouldn't try to kill you because you are of different race and you were trying to get onto an airplane. The man that was killed in the English railway station had probably had some sort of amazingly rare coincidence that pushed people to believe that he was out to kill other people.
How I wish I could have convinced you to see that the whole purport of my writing was to convey to you the seriousness of misuse of such a power to everybody ! I can see that you feel that it is a very simple thing, and I have not been able to convince you that by making it morally and legally right to exterminate "terrorists" there is every possible chance of such a provision being misused by the very terrorists whom we are protect outselves from.
I must clarify, I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theory, and I mentioned about the various terrorist attacks to illustrate how difficult it is for any one - the law enforcement as well the would be victims - to decide about the terrorists.
We all have our paradigms about how a terrorist looks like or behaves like and to rely on our various paradigms could become dangerous for ourselves. I dont know if I look like a terrorist to some one, and I dont know what he may be thinking of me, which is alright so long as that person is not going to gun me down because in his paradigm I am a terrorist. He will see adequate evidences in me which will push him to believe that I am a terrorist. (I'm sure you have read about paradigm in Steven Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People )
My concern is that going around in a world infested by terrorists is itself bad; it would be worse to that extent, where I could be a victim of not only the terrorist but also someone who mistook me for a terrorist and who thought he would be saving other lives by killing me and that he had the moral right to do so !
"making it morally and legally right to exterminate "terrorists" there is every possible chance of such a provision being misused by the very terrorists whom we are protect outselves from."- calculate the chance that you will be killed by someone who thinks that you are a terrorist and then see if you should keep acting like its reasonable to be scared of death by this mistake. Like I said before, there is has to be A LOT of evidence against someone, in terms of protecting society's best interests, for another person to want to kill them. If people seriously believe that their life is in jeopardy, they will do everything to protect themselves. This is not a common situation, though, so there is no need to worry. There is not going to be any kind of provision in law that will tell people that they can kill terrorists.
"to rely on our various paradigms could become dangerous for ourselves."- this is really not something that you should be concerned about. First, for someone to want to try to kill you for the well-being of society and identify you as a terrorist by what you look like, you would probably have to be in some kind of terrorist situation. If you haven't noticed, your chances of being involved in a terrorist situation tomorrow is basically nothing. Second, for someone to think that you are terrorist, even in a terrorist sitaution, they would have to have more than your appearance to be convinced that your death is necessary. Last, the chance of this occurring is even less. An issue such as this should not make you be scared for your life.
"My concern is that going around in a world infested by terrorists is itself bad"- the chances of you running into a terrorist on a trip around the world is almost nothing. This world is not infested by terrorists.
"I could be a victim of not only the terrorist but also someone who mistook me for a terrorist and who thought he would be saving other lives by killing me and that he had the moral right to do so !"- you act like someone is just going to try to kill you because of your appearance. That is completely ignorant. They would need ample evidence to suggest that your death would benefit society. They would have to see a bomb or some kind of weapon to even think about trying to kill you.
"calculate the chance that you will be killed by someone who thinks that you are a terrorist and then see if you should keep acting like its reasonable to be scared of death by this mistake." In general, where there is even a .0001 % chance of my losing my life, then that is a chance, I would not like to take. My life to me is very very valuable and I love my life ! Secondly, 'evidence' is too specialized a subject for me to even think about, I've heard of concocted evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and fait accompli, mistake of fact, mistake of law .....I agree it is not a common situation, thank heavens for that, and I'd love for it to remain that way.
I wish I was really ignorant, but I have personally come across cases where even persons who were in positions of authority under law have been known to have abused their position to settle scores on some one in pursuit of their religious beliefs. I'm less fearful of looking like a terrorist, than I am of what is going on in the mind of someone who might think that killing me is their gateway to heaven !
"the chances of you running into a terrorist on a trip around the world is almost nothing. This world is not infested by terrorists." In an enterprising situation as contrasted with a gambling situation, one would think of what would be the consequence of the chance materializing, and one would avoid the risk if it can lead to death.
I wish I was really ignorant and not so cynical. I wish that when I hear the official version that the illegal immigrant shot dead a police officer and so they shot him dead 79 times using a full platoon, my mind gets suspicious as to whether the police officers were not acting on their hatred of illegal immigrants. When a person dubbed as a "terrorist" is found to have been shot in the back of his head at point blank range, I wonder what really was the motive..
" They would need ample evidence to suggest that your death would benefit society. They would have to see a bomb or some kind of weapon to even think about trying to kill you." I wish all people's minds were so clear and straightforward as that, but I know different, I know people can imagine ( in the name of god, yes, really ) that they have evidence that you are an "infidel", and that they see that in your death, their society will benefit !
I draw confidence to some of the most valuable provisions of law, which are : let a 100 guilty people escape, but not one innocent person should be punished. that governments should be of law, rather than of men.
It is not so much that I fear my appearance being mistaken for a terrorist that bothers me, as much as it bothers me that someone has the right to kill me because they think that it would benefit society. Murder, appearing to be a killing of a terrorist !
"In general, where there is even a .0001 % chance of my losing my life, then that is a chance, I would not like to take."- people, probably you included, take those chances everyday. There is a small chance that you would die in a car accident if you chose to drive somewhere, but people take that chance everyday. That chance is even larger than the chance of dying from the actions of a terrorist. You should not be concerned about this affecting you.
"I'm less fearful of looking like a terrorist, than I am of what is going on in the mind of someone who might think that killing me is their gateway to heaven !"- people are not going to kill you because of some stereotype. Like I said before, there needs to be a large amount of evidence against you in order for them to even think about trying to kill you.
Those police officers probably had a reason to shoot the man. I highly doubt that they did it just for the way he looked.
"it bothers me that someone has the right to kill me because they think that it would benefit society"- legally they don't have a right. Morally, if the person is sane and reasonable, they have the right to do so.
"people, probably you included, take those chances everyday. There is a small chance that you would die in a car accident if you chose to drive somewhere, but people take that chance everyday." When you add all the possibilities of getting killed, road accident, lightning strikes, building collapses, etc etc etc, we already have a big probability of dying an accidental death.. the probability of getting killed by being mistaken ( or deliberately ) under this pretext would be adding to this possibility .. I could do without adding to this possiblity..
I have seen how evidence can be created / destroyed /tailored to suit a situation post facto. I have seen people turning a Nelson's eye to the incongruencies of evidence. and anyway, the evidences only go to rationalize an act which would otherwise be termed murder.
When someone kills me, and I'm dead, I have no doubt that people around me will say the same, i.e., that " Those police officers probably had a reason to shoot the man. I highly doubt that they did it just for the way he looked. " The sad part of it is that even those who have known me for years, will swallow it.
There are no universally acceptable morals. What is morally right in one society and at one period of time, may be totally wrong in another society and in another period of time. It may scandalize you, but even today, there are tribal societies in Assam, India, where it is considered morally right for a father of a girl to deflower his daughter. Sorry, that is disgusting, I know, but that is the dimension of morality. Think of the terrorists who think it is morally right to kill the infidels. Think of the church which sold indulgencies. Think of the church which imprisoned Galileo for his heliocentric theory. They, and along with them many near them, thought they were sane and reasonable people and that they had the right to do so.
I'm not adding to the probability, but comparing them. There is a much higher chance that you will die in a car accident than be killed by a terrorist. People drive, and therefore aren't afraid of the chances. How could they be so afraid of something that has an even smaller chance of occurring?
The morality of being killed by a terrorist will only be taken into consideration in the society that it took place, therefore different morals of people half way around the world are irrelevant.
