Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent p

Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. I affirm. To clarify debate I offer the following definitions. Morally permissible: conforming to a standard of right behavior (Merriam Webster) innocent: harmless in effect or intention (Merriam Webster) Kill: to cause the death of (Merriam Webster) Maxim: a subjective principle or rule that the will of an individual uses in making a decision. (Immanuel Kant) Observation 1: "Kill" does not imply intent. "Murder" implies intent. You can be killed by a train without the train "intending" to kill you. You can be killed by a drug overdose without intending to kill yourself. Value: Moral permissibility Justification: I choose moral permissibility because it is expressly stated in the resolution. The resolution asks for the morally permissible solution to this dilemma. Obviously it must be our value. Criterion: Kant's Categorical Imperative Justification: Kant's Categorical Imperative that we should "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Kant justifies this by saying that a moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person doing the moral deliberation. A moral maxim must have universality, which is to say that it must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding the proposition, and could be applied to any rational being. So, basically, an maxim can be universalized if it does not create any contradictions or logical incoherencies. For example, a maxim that involves stealing in order to accrue some sort of benefit cannot be universalized because any benefit gained would be quickly lost because some other person would just take it from you. So the bright line, the litmus test for morality is whether a maxim can be made a universal law of morality. In short, morality is determined by maxims. If a maxim is able to be made universal, it is a moral action. Contention 1: The affirmative's maxim can be made universal. The affirmative can operate under numerous maxims. However, the most appropriate for this is the maxim that "One ought to attempt to save lives when in a position to do so." This maxim can certainly be made a universal law of morality. It's common sense we ought to try to save lives. Following this maxim does not lead to any contradictions or incoherencies. Furthermore, negating this maxim would mean that saving lives is ALWAYS immoral. This is absurd. That would mean doctors, soldiers, and charity workers would be considered immoral. You obviously cannot negate this maxim. But wait you say, the affirmative kills, surely this cannot be moral. The answer to that is somewhat complicated. Kant's Categorical Imperative leads to a few other necessary principles of morality. One is the principle of double effect. Julian Baggini describes this as such "it can be morally acceptable to do something in order to bring about a good, even if you can foresee that it will also bring about something bad, as long as the intention is the good and not the bad." So because I intend the good effect, I cannot be judged for the death of the innocent. Going down my opponent's case (Why is he Neg?) I accept his definitions and only offer one more, that of kill, which I defined above. I accept Ob. 1, and Ob. 3, however I disagree with Ob. 2. Both actions are moral, saving lives is moral, not killing is moral, I am arguing that the Aff intentions negate the bad effect of the death of the innocent. We have a choice of two moral options. Both are permissible. I agree with his value, and his criterion is acceptable, but the resolution is better upheld with Kantianism, because Kant offers a moral system that is based solely on logical principles. Contention 1: It does not. Remember, actions are justified by their intentions, and I intend to save lives, not to kill. We all have the same worth, yes of course, but the resolution does not violate that. For example, if I am driving in my car, and three small children run out into the street in front of me, it is certainly permissible for me to swerve. If, unfortunately, when I swerve another innocent person happens to be in the way, my action was still moral, because I was trying to save lives, and I wasn't trying to kill. A. I am not dehumanizing them, I accidentally killed them. Contention 2: Rights are inalienable, so I must act to protect them. This means not letting innocents die. If by chance an innocent is accidentally killed in the process, it was an accident, I'm sorry, but I can't be judged for it. B. I am defending these rights, I just accidentally kill while doing so. I guarantee no judge would condemn me for accidentally running over an innocent while trying to avoid three more innocents. Conclusion: In conclusion, the affirmative if justified in saving lives. This is undeniable. Unfortunately a bad consequence occurs, but as this was unintended, the affirmative cannot be judged. The affirmative conforms perfectly to the categorical imperative, therefore it is morally permissible. You must vote Aff.