@spgredsox:
"you recognize that you can kill one to save the many, it can be justifiable to kill one person to save, say five. I would say that is morally wrong as morality are universal, and unrightfully taking away someone's right to life is ALWAYS morally wrong."
1. I wholeheartedly, 100% disagree that morality is univeral, and
2. I further disagree that assassinating someone to potentially save a great many lives gives justification for one life being sacrificed to save five, as we may observe:
-There is, if not an intrinsic, than certainly an ascribed, human-given value to every other human life, as a means of ensuring that, well, at least someone finds us important. ;)
-As such, we may further observe that the LOSS of a life would inevitably be a LOSS in terms of value, even in the case of a wicked man dying, if for no other reas than it is a fellow human being dying and, as we've established, all human life, instrinsically or through human valuation, has value, thus any loss of this value is loss.
-HOWEVER, we CAN say that not all lives have EQUAL value, and that death is not a NET-loss in every instance. For the most obvious example, take Hitler: he was human, and so he had value as a human being, but of course the evils he performed vastly outweight that initial value, and so his death and loss is outweighed by the "gain" in saving millions of other lives.
-As such, we can deal with this mathematically:
Hitler's intrinsic/granted -by-human-valuation-of-human-life value= +1
Hitler's presence/actions= -20 million+ (just to give a figure)
Net gain in killing Hitler= +19,999,999
NOW...
-It CAN be stated that the action of murder is an intrinsic-negative, that, is, because all human life is valued--for whichever reason you choose--the act of ACTIVELY murdering and destroying such life has an intrinsic badness about it.
Let's say it's, say, -100 to murder someone, it's THAT heinous.
Apply this to the Hitler and 5 vs. 1 cases.
First, Hitler:
Value= +1
Net Initial Gain After Murdering Hitler= +19,999,999
Murder "Penalty"= -100 more, so that's still a net of 19,999, 899
It is STILL morally permissable, thus, to murder Hitler, DESPITE the facts of all human life having value and murder being so heinous as to count -100, ie, a good deal against it, Hitler's THAT BAD a person.
NOW THEN...
Apply this to the 5 vs. 1 scenario:
Net value of 5 = +5
Net value of 1= +1
The 1 is murdered for the betterment of the 5...
+5 - +1= +4...and let's give them +2 each for that supposed "betterment," since they're killing him for a gain, so that's a net gain of 5x4=20 - 1= 19.
So, +19 is our net.
NOW add the Murder Penalty:
19 -100= -81
SO, it is NOT morally permissable to murder 1 to help 5, as the act of murder ITSELF, as shown in the Murder PEnalty, is so heinous it outweighs the gain itself.
However, as Hitler was so vastly evil, THERE it is not the case, even WITH a Murder Penalty there, it's still a positive outcome.
So I submit to you that it is NOT true that justifiying killin g 1 to save Many, a la Hitler/stopping a terrorist, is akin to allowing 5 to kill 1 for a net gain, as per the Murder Penalty.
Anwar Al-Awlaki
)
)
)
)
)