Instigator / Pro
11
1470
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Topic

Moral Dilemma: Kill One Tribe's Persons vs Kill Tribe Leaders

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
12
Sources points
6
8
Spelling and grammar points
3
4
Conduct points
2
2

With 4 votes and 15 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
26
1635
rating
355
debates
65.63%
won
Description
~ 657 / 5,000

I recently had a dream where I struggled over a moral dilemma.

You could kill an entire tribe's persons, except the leader, or you could kill the two leaders of two tribes. It's suggested that there will be unpredictable chaos and problems when the leaders die, because they are the only ones capable of leading the tribes well.

In the dream, I argued that both choices are equal (because killing the people means I am treating them as a means to an end, and saying some people are worth more than other people), but here I'm making a stand that you should kill an entire tribe's persons, rather than killing the two leaders.

Burden of proof is shared.

Round 1
Pro
My conscious reasoning is that even though you 100% know one tribe's persons died except the leader, it would feel much worse if two tribe leaders died, with for example, 50% chance of each tribe dying, you would still average one tribe dead most situations unless you got very lucky. In addition, the one tribe leader can help the other tribe, which would boost happiness to balance out the one tribe's dead persons, while the two tribes in general suffering/misery seems kind of bad, since the tribe leaders are so crucial/important to the tribes.
Con
Who are you?
One of the most significant factors in this scenario is who we are, yet it is not presented. It appears to be the case that we are a god of sorts, controlling the situations as if the people were our playthings, however then why is Pro applying human emotions and morality to the scenario?

I hypothesise that in Pro's scenario, we are a demigod in fact and could become the leader of both tribes if we so wished. Absolutely nothing rules this out. Consider this Kritik a short and simple one.

==

Isn't there chaos regardless?
Something the 'suggester' leaves out or fails to mention is that there is chaos regardless and unpredictability in the tribes no matter what. In fact Pro makes this very clear by the fact that he advocates integrating the leader of the tribe you just slaughtered entirely... Yes, he thinks you should kill women, children and babies (as well as innocent men) and to then say 'hey leader, give your expertise and assistance over to us'.

That is chaos if I ever saw it, the kind that will appear peaceful for years as this leader bides his/her time to unleash all hell broken loose on the tribe that annihilated his own.

On top of this, it would blatantly be clear that the tribes are at war, right? These tribes are very passionately hostile with one-another but if suddenly you wiped out an entire tribe in the blink of an eye (bar the leader), the other tribe would begin to panic, think god is about to curse them, think their leader was behind it and not forgive him/her for killing the younger members of the other tribe.

All kinds of chaos, mistrust, heated emotions, rebellion/coup can occur as a result of this. Even the other tribe leader's closest allies within the tribe may coup him, for they'd assume he/her unilaterally arranged the genocide of the other tribe without consulting them first.

I'm not saying chaos is inherently bad, especially as it seems we're just a bystanding demigod enjoying the show, I'm merely rendering the chaos point moot.

==

Who is responsible for the situation?
There has arisen a scenario where both tribes want to kill each other very badly. Who do you blame other than the leaders?

Why is it 'suggested' that they are the only ones to lead the tribe well, when in actual fact they have proven to do so quite terribly (at least one of them has).

We must take out the two men/women responsible and allow the others to either come up with a new leader, come up with an anarchic system that works or to seek reconciliation with the other tribe and fuse (for all we know, it's literally the leaders who are forcing the rivalry to continue).

==


Round 2
Pro
ok I concede
Con
Pro is advocating for Genocide. If Pro had not conceded, the implications of what Genocide is and how wrong it is, is what this Round would have been.

My advice to Pro is to make it clearer what's at stake. If Pro's description made clearer that a war was about to unleash where many from both trobes would doe anyway, potentially with multiple generations of hatred and constant violence, the stakes would begin to become less clear in terms of what is favoured, especially if it is the leaders that are maintaining the peace and the populace of one tribe who want the war.
Round 3
Pro
Forfeited
Con
...
Round 4
Pro
Forfeited
Con
slamdunk