It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

Thank you for allowing me to debate this topic. I'll be debating in LD format, and it would be very pleasing, though not entirely necessary, if you were to do the same. Value: Justice Defined as "Giving each his or her due"-Aristotle Criterion: Utilitarianism Defined as "The greatest good for the greatest number"-Bentham Because all persons regarded by the resolution either live or die, it can be assumed that the least number of deaths would be the most utilitarian outcome. Life, not death, is the due of any innocent person. It is impossible to grant each and every person his due. Therefore, utilitarianism grants a large number of person's their due, while denying justice to only one. Definitions: Morally Permissible: "behavior that is within the bounds of the moral system. It is morally permitted to act in any way that does not cause others unjustified harms."-Elliott Kill: "to cause the death of"-Merriam-Webster Innocent Person: a person "free from legal guilt or fault."-Merriam-Webster Save: "to rescue or deliver from danger or harm"-Merriam-Webster, presumed to be mortal, given the nature of the resolution Contention 1: Life, especially that of an innocent, is inherently valuable. a.Human life has significant value to society. This value is reflected by the justice systems of nearly every society, given that the systems are legitimate. Governments are established in order to protect said life. Within legal systems, human life outweighs nearly all other factors, e.g. the theft of billions is not punishable by death. b.The value of human life is viewed as finite in most societies. Nationalism often outweighs said value, as nations often instigate war, and punish treasonous acts with death. According to the EPA "The "value of a statistical life" is $6.9 million in today's dollars." c.If human life, L, is given an abstract value of 3, we see that 2 lives are more valuable than 1, because 2L is greater than L, 6 is greater than 3. d.It is morally correct to sacrifice one life in place of many, because it generates greater societal value. Contention 2: Failure to save a life is murder. a."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."-Burke To kill is to cause the death of. If, through a moral decision, you cause any death, you have killed said person, and thus, their death is entirely your responsibility. b.To kill, and failure to save through a moral decision, are acts of equivalent moral reprehensibility. c.Therefore, if you fail to save a large group in the context of the resolution, you have killed every member of that group. If you were to kill the individual, you have killed a single person. Contention 3: Utilitarian morals are reflected by most societies. a.Laws generated by any society tend to reflect the will of the majority. The majority will typically act in its own interest. Therefore, in most circumstances, societal laws and ethics reflect a utilitarian perspective. b.In a number of ancient religions, the Gods were appeased through the sacrifice of a few innocents, thus preventing mass deaths through starvation, flooding, etc. This is true of all cultures who believed human sacrifice to be an effective form of appeasement. Therefore, their ethics were overwhelmingly utilitarian. c.Numerous present-day nations have instituted a draft system. By sending innocents into combat, their lives are inherently put at risk, and in almost all circumstances, multiple lives are lost. This is often justified by the protection of a nation, and the lives of its massive population. This, yet again, demonstrates a utilitarian outlook. I await your response.