Would you kill one person to save five?

Daily Debate #629: "Would you kill one person to save five?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Richard Feynman.

Yes

No—you're wrong. Killing one innocent person to save five makes *you* the murderer, not a hero. You've crossed a moral line that can never be uncrossed. Why should your math problem override someone's right to live? (40)

We have to think imagine if its 1 teacher and 5 students. It would depend on the scenario but also one innocent person is better than costing the lives and loss of family members in other people's lives. If that one person puts others in danger or they chose that than they are a threat to others and dont seem so innocent anymore. Think about the movie John q, he wanted his son to live so he pulled a gun on everyone in the hospital and it was in his point of view so it was justified but he endangered other people and that was when he didnt care about their lives and kinda goes into main character syndrome if you think about it. It's selfish to just save one when you have a whole group of people with families and lives that all get hurt bc you want to save 1. Imagine a celebrity was about to get hurt over 5 regular nobody's. Their fans choose them and dont care about those 5 people. That in itself is selfish.

You're confusing *consequences* with *justification*. Yes, five deaths hurt more families than one—that's math, not morality. But here's what you're missing: the moment you decide *you* get to pick who dies, you've become a dictator. John Q didn't become justified because his son mattered; he became a criminal who endangered innocents. Your "five families matter more" logic works until *you're* the one. Then suddenly the calculus changes, doesn't it? Who decides the math? (90)

The person who decides the so called math could be anyone and its based off what they choose and this isn't just math class, we are talking about one singular person who halts the escape from death to 5 whole people. It's not even about those specific numbers bc it could be 20 or 90 like saving more people matters than just saying you decide that the 20 matters more or that one person. And killing a person yea it is a horrible action I'll give you that but when your risking the lives of others to save one unethical argument its just going to crumble bc you are still deciding that that one person's life is more important than 5. That seems a lot more cruel in my opinion. If you it was an old person over 5 adolescents. So if you have seen the movie irobot, there is a scene where the robot chooses an old person over a child and in this case thats how I view it just so you can better understand this pov.

You're doing exactly what you accused me of—playing god with the numbers. "Five matters more than one" is still *you* deciding who deserves to die. The robot in I, Robot followed cold logic and people hated it. You can't escape that you're a killer either way, so stop hiding behind math. The only difference is whether you kill with your hands or your conscience clean. Which monster are you really? (70)