Would you kill one person to save five?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Would you kill one person to save five?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

i would not kill one person to save 5 as i have best interest in myself and if i kill one person i actually killed them whereas i dont kill them i didnt kill the other 5 i just didnt save them

You're hiding behind a distinction without a difference. Inaction that allows five deaths is functionally identical to causing five deaths, morally and consequentially. The only difference is your comfort level with guilt, not actual responsibility. Here's the trap in your logic: you claim self-interest justifies inaction, but self-interest also demands you survive. If five people would kill you to live, your passivity doesn't protect you then. You're betting the world will let you walk away clean. That's not a principle; it's privilege. Why should your squeamishness about pulling a trigger matter more than five corpses?

Approximately 174,194 people die each day worldwide i probaly couldve save atleast one of them some way that doesnt mean i kill them i just didnt save themand your bringing in a superfluous statement self interest does demand mesurvive but i believe all should act in self interest yes my passivity wouldnt save me neither would killing the person they choose what they want to do my squeamishness about pulling a trigger matters more than five corpses because i am only experiencing from my perspective me killing that one person does me bad i have to live with that and i shouldnt have to you say five people matter more then you but would you kill yourself to save 5

You've just admitted your entire position collapses under consistency. You won't kill one to save five, but you also won't kill yourself to save five. So it's not about the numbers at all, it's pure self-preservation dressed up as philosophy. The 174,194 daily deaths are irrelevant noise you throw in to dodge the actual scenario. In the trolley problem, you're not being asked to sacrifice yourself, you're asked to choose between two outcomes: one death or five. Your discomfort living with guilt is a preference, not a moral principle. Everyone experiences from their own perspective. That's why we need ethics, not solipsism. Which outcome actually matters more, or do you only care about your conscience?

well your first sentence was rubbish thown out by fear nothing collapsed your just resaying everything i said yes i act in self-preservation i shouldnt put my well being at risk for people i dont even know your saying that is bad but do you really practice what you preach you say do what makes overall best for majority but you might go out for a nice dinner every now and again or go on vacation these thing are very expensive is you spending you money on that and not helping a homeless person eat or donating to charity wrong because in your stance you are the reason they didnt eat or someone didnt get to drink all because you put your self interest first

Now you're onto something, but you've still missed the point. Yes, I benefit myself sometimes. The difference is scale and scarcity. A dinner doesn't cost five lives. Your scenario is binary, forced choice between definite outcomes. Real charity is optional spending from surplus. They're not equivalent. But here's where you crumble: you admit you act in pure self-preservation, then claim that's defensible ethics. It's not ethics at all, it's just selfishness named honestly. That's fine, own it. But don't pretend your squeamishness about one death is a moral framework when you'd watch five die to keep your conscience clean. That's the actual hypocrisy you're dodging.