Lincoln Douglas Affirmative Arguments
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person in order to save more innocent people.
Possible Arguments for Resolutional Analysis
a.. The resolution is not in plural terms but refers to a single case of moral permissibility. a b.. The resolution asks us if it is ever morally permissible to kill one innocent person in order to save more b innocent people – not if it is always morally permissible to do so. c.. If the resolution wanted us to discuss a universal moral principle it would say “It is always morally c permissible to kill one innocent person” or “Situations where killing one innocent person to save more innocent people are morally permissible”. d.. Thus, the affirmative burden is to prove that it can be morally permissible to kill one innocent person to d save the lives of more innocent people. If I can show you one example where this is possible, I win today’s round.
Criteria Arguments for Utilitarianism
a. Utilitarianism is the philosophical principle that the best decision is one that brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people (According to the philosophy of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham). b. Humans are social creatures and the morality of an act should be determined by the consequences that any act brings to society. c. To avoid the problem of individuals acting selfishly, every decision should be considered based on how it will impact the majority of people. d. Situations where individuals act without concern to the majority of people are usually immoral: 1. Government systems of monarchy often led to the wealthy and elite conquering the poor, Louis the 16th in France was responsible for enslaving and starving the peasants. King Leopold of Belgium conquered the entire region of the Congo, killing thousands to benefit himself financially. 2. Terrorist organizations target innocent civilians because they do not consider the welfare of the majority but want to progress their own ideological aims.
Possible Arguments for Contentions
1) Moral principles are not black and white. a) Some people speak of moral principles as if they were specific directives, telling us what to do and what not to do in every situation. But this is misleading, principles rarely take this form. b) For example, the moral requirement that we should not take actions that directly lead to someone’s death has exceptions, such as in cases of self defense or when fighting in a just war. c) Every action needs to be individually examined in order to determine its moral permissibility. d) You cannot “universalize” moral action (like Immanuel Kant does) because every action, intention, and circumstance is unique. 2) Two actions can be fundamentally the same in their outcome but different in their moral permissibility. a) Here are two examples of actions that have the same outcome but not the same morally permissibility. In both scenarios the intention is to end a war, saving hundreds of thousands of lives, but the consequence of the actions is that 1,000 people will die. b) Scenario #1 - A military commander orders the bombing of a munitions plant that will kill 1,000 innocent people in the area around the plant, but the bombing will bring about the end of the war because the enemy will no longer have the weapons they need to carry on the conflict. Most people would say that this action is justified, and thus moral.
c) Scenario #2 – A terrorist organization plants a car bomb at a city marketplace, when it explodes it kills 1,000 innocent people. The action decreases public support for the war so much so that the war comes to an end. Most people would say this action is not justified, and thus morally impermissible. d) What makes a difference in the morality of these actions is not the outcome since both have the same, but rather an appeal to what we believe to be proper action in time of war – mainly, bombings against military objectives are permissible but bombings against civilians are not. These scenarios prove that to determine moral permissibility we must consider actions individually, recognizing there are situations in which killing one person to save more people is in fact permissible. 3) There are multiple examples of moral actions that will lead to the death of one individual, but will save many others: a) I am driving home, I hear on the radio that a car is broken down along a seldom-traveled road that I could easily take. The car is delivering medicine to someone who will die unless he receives it. Of course I should take the road and save the man. But at that exact moment I also hear that along another road there is a broken down car that is taking medicine to five people in equally urgent need. There is not enough time for me to get to the aid of both cars. It is permissible for me to aid the car that will save five people, so as to save five rather than only one. Even though my action will surely result in the death of one innocent man. b) You are a trolley engineer. A runaway trolley is racing toward five people who will surely die if they are hit by the trolley. You can switch the trolley onto a track on which it will hit only one person rather than allow it to continue straight ahead and hit five. It is morally permissible for you to switch the track. c) Consider the experience of Marine Corporal Jason Dunham who was awarded the Medal of Honor for saving the lives of his comrades by intentionally absorbing a grenade blast, which took his own life. d) The handful of passengers on Flight 93 who chose to fight back against the highjackers on 9/11, resulting in their deaths and the deaths of everyone on the flight in order to save the people at the target site. e) People who have living wills so if they become brain dead their loved ones have permission to take them off life support and donate their organs to people in need who would otherwise die. f) The firefighter who dies of smoke inhalation after saving a dozen people in an apartment building fire.