R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to saves the lives of more innocent people.

:: INTRODUCTION :: Leon Trotsky once said, "The end may justify the means, as long as there is something that justifies the end." I agree, and affirm the resolution: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. For clarity in the round, I will agree with my opponent's proposed definitions. Additionally, I'd like to offer an interpretation of the resolutional analysis, which would allow the resolution to read: It is morally permissible to save the lives of innocent people [more than 1] by killing one innocent person instead. This is just another (equal) standard of reading the resolution. Further, the resolution implies that all parties are EQUALLY innocent, meaning no one person is any greater or more valuable than another. :: THESIS :: It is morally permissible to sacrifice one individual's life to save the lives of other innocent people, because saving as many lives as possible in a given situation has always been a paramount goal throughout various historical endeavors, including war. This is because the human race, as a whole, places a very high value on human life. Thus, my value is morality, and my criterion is the value of human life. If human life had no value, killing in general would not be wrong or immoral. :: CONTENTION ONE :: Human Worth. A) Every life is equal in terms of its value. In addition to this being a religious concept, it is social philosophy as well. For instance, to most people, Adolf Hitler was a terrible man with absolutely no scruples. To followers of Nazi Germany, however, Hitler was considered a hero. The point here is that there is no way of accurately measuring one's "value" so an inherent, set value must apply. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that each life is worth 5 points. Well if you spared the life of one person, you would earn 5 points. If you chose to not save one life, but in doing so actually saved the life of 3 others, you would earn 15 instead of 5. Fifteen points is greater than 5 points, so saving 3 lives is more morally preferable than saving 1 life. B) To elaborate one why more points = more morally preferable, I would like to reiterate that 'points' are how we are calculating human worth in this particular example. More points = more worth = more valuable, and we're not talking about monetary gain here. Rather this contention seeks to prove that the more lives that are spared, the more rewarding the experience. Why? Because human worth is extremely valuable both from a spiritual standpoint and a social one - this we know. However, having 'value' means that this value can be defined or at least matched. According to the resolution, all individuals are innocent - equally innocent - so if it's one life vs. three, saving three lives means you are saving 3x the value or worth. Thus, it is more morally permissible to consider the (non-monetary but rather spiritual) worth of several people in comparison to one. :: CONTENTION TWO :: The preservation of life. It is not uncommon that in various situations, we seek to preserve human life as a way to uphold morality. For instance, during times of war, sometimes drastic measures with immediate results (death) are taken as a way to prevent more deaths, i.e. through the continuing act of war. The thought process is that it is preferable to sacrifice the lives of a few to save the lives of many. This is because more lives affect more people and society as a whole. Further, this act is less about KILLING a few (or one) and more about SAVING a few or many. So rather than looking at this debate from a killing standpoint, we can look at it as a debate of salvation, martyrdom and heroism. :: CONTENTION THREE :: Responsibility. A) If one has the opportunity to save an abundance of lives verses saving just one life, this person has the moral responsibility to save as many lives as humanly possible. Why? Because of the established value of human life (which I have already presented and thoroughly explained). To negate the resolution is asking someone to be responsible for intentionally killing several people to spare the life of one individual. The ideology behind this is action vs. inaction - that one's inaction at saving lives makes them morally responsible for their deaths. In this sense, you are asking someone to be responsible for a multiple of deaths, and for no reason. Whereas if one sacrificed one life, it would be upsetting to do; however it would have been for a good cause: saving the lives of many others. This relates to Leon Trotsky's introductory comment regarding a justification to 'an end,' i.e. the end being killing the one (to save the many). B) Keeping retribution in mind, let us apply the term 'morally permissible' from the resolution in a case regarding the justice system. In the United States courts, for example, if a convicted killer is sentenced to 40 years in prison for murdering someone, he or she would probably thereby be sentenced to 80 years in prison for murdering two people (even if the convicted would not presumably live long enough to serve an 80 year sentence). This is to signify the correlation between the equal immoral-ness of killing the 2 individuals, regarding of their circumstances. Now, because moral correctness is the main contributing factor regarding sentencing in the court systems, we must uphold this mathematical interpretation of justice in order to vindicate morality. We can do this by ensuring the distribution of appropriate sentences and opportunities of other types of retribution for the benefit of all society. :: CONCLUSION :: As we have seen, there is a way of calculating morality as it pertains to justice. Human life has value -- if it did not, the negation of this resolution would stand: that killing one person and killing five people is morally equivocal. However, using my criterion of the value of human life, and considering all of the evidence I have offered in its defense, you must conclude that taking one life and taking five lives will never be morally equivocal. If all lives have the same value, than taking five lives of the same worth would = 5x the value of taking just one life. Mathematic calculations of morality are what is to be considered in this debate, because as I have shown, it is our humanly way of interpretating justice to the best of our degree (ex. the legal/justice system).