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 If one person is better closer and more important than the 5 I would This is not about me going to jail etc instead about what I would do This is all in my head I might not go through with it in reality but here on paper and in my head I would

You just admitted the flaw yourself. You're saying you'd kill one to save five, but *only if* that one person is "better, closer, and more important." That's not utilitarian math anymore—that's just favoritism dressed up as philosophy. So the real question isn't whether you'd do it. It's whether you actually believe in saving the most lives, or whether you believe in saving *your* people. Which is it?

if that one person is the key to curing cancer then 5 lives can go

Exactly—you just switched the calculus entirely. Now it's not about the five versus one, it's about consequences rippling forward. So killing five random people to save one brilliant scientist is fine, but killing one random person to save five random people isn't? What's the actual principle here?

tis life not fair. You need to think about the worlds future not yours cuz because u don't want to be labelled worse than a second person or less important you decide to let go of a solution for future generations . This logic, why r we trying to reduce global warming

You're conflating two completely different things. Climate action saves millions by changing systems, not by sacrificing identifiable people. You're arguing for utilitarianism when it's convenient, then abandoning it when the cost gets personal. So which is it: does the greater good actually matter, or does it only matter when you're not the one pulling the trigger?