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

:: RE: TOPICAL OBSERVATIONS :: 1. My opponent suggests that morality is normative. That is in fact his opinion - not a fact. However since I hastily chose to agree upon all provided definitions (I should've known there would be a catch -- that's what you get for valuing actual debate over petty wording), I'd like to point out that even using the concept of normative morality as a definition, one might disagree that killing is always wrong, therefore negating killing as being absolutely immoral. Thus what I must prove in this debate is that killing is not always immoral. Once I do that, I don't have to prove anything other than the resolution here. Further, I'd like to offer a new definition for the word moral/morally in this debate: Moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles My definition is superior than Con's because it offers the possibility of normative morality, but does not explicitly define it as such. Thus this definition is the most fair and leaves the most room for interpretation of a moral argument, which is what this debate is really about. He can keep normative morality as a part of his criterion, but to define 'moral' as such would be misleading. Just because Con believes in normative morality does not mean that everyone reading this does, so a universal definition should be agreed upon here. It is not too late to adopt a new definition; however, even on Con's terms I will prove why his thinking here is false anyway, so this is merely a suggestion. 2. Con notes, "Killing must be proved moral rather then necessary to affirm the resolution." All I must prove is that killing is not ALWAYS immoral in ANY situation to negate Con's entire point. I also don't have to prove that killing is moral in this situation (described in the resolution) - I must simply prove that killing is morally permissible (acceptable under moral guidelines) given the circumstances. 3. Con's 3rd point is completely redundant, and he adds, "Just because a larger group of people may lose their lives, does not make the action of killing an innocent automatically moral." Even if you agree that killing is ALWAYS immoral, it does not change the fact that sacrificing one to save others would be morally PERMISSIBLE. Permissible means acceptable. Note: the agreed upon definition of morally permissible applies more to the term 'moral' than it does to permissible. 4. Con says, "With the intention of wanting to kill an innocent to save their own lives, they are not innocent anymore, because they have the intention to kill. Therefore, the affirmative must prove that intending to kill is a moral intention." <-- I have no idea what this has to do with the resolution. The resolution is not asking whether or not the 'few' people who will be saved are willing to sacrifice one's life in order to save their own. Instead, the resolution is asking IN GENERAL whether or not it would be morally permissible to sacrifice one's life to save others. It makes absolutely no indication that those 'few' have any idea, opinion, knowledge or capability of the situation. Thus, Con's attempt at proving the 'innocent' people aren't really innocent is a desperate stretch. Further, if you want to be technical, Con's flawed definition of innocent reads, "free from the action or intention of committing moral or legal crimes," when in reality, no person is really free from the act of EVER committing or thinking about immoral crimes (especially if morality is normative). Thus I highly discourage nitpicking here and instead promote the actual debate... :: CASE REBUTTAL :: Con's entire case rests on one sole principle - "Killing can never be claimed as a moral action, even though how necessary that action might be, that doesn't validate it being moral." His point here is that using the criterion of normative morality, killing is always wrong, so the resolution is impossible to affirm. This is not the case. The resolution implies a situation in which a choice must be made: let one die or let a few die (we'll continue to use 3 people in this example). Whether or not one actually makes the choice of sacrificing one to save three, the situation still exists in which a choice must be made. Thus one can choose to do nothing about it, but by choosing inaction, that person will be responsible for all three deaths. Now Con's stance on normative morality indicates that KILLING IS ALWAYS WRONG. If you believe him, then you agree that allowing three people to die is morally impermissible. I have established how inaction in this scenario = killing, and going into the final round, Con has not disagreed. Thus Con attempts to depict killing as always wrong; however, in this situation he would prefer three people be killed as opposed to one. Moving on, consider the action of killing in self-defense to protect, say, your child. If you understand not only the necessity but the moral obligation of killing in self-defense here, you can see why killing is not ALWAYS wrong. And if you agree that killing is not ALWAYS wrong - if you can think of a situation (any situation) in which killing would be somewhat acceptable (or the right thing to do) - than you agree that killing is not ALWAYS immoral, because the necessity of it makes it morally preferable, thus negating Con's entire case. Again, "The end may justify the means, as long as there is something that justifies the end." Something justifies the end here (self-defense), and something justifies the 'end' in the resolution. This resolution deals not with what is moral vs. immoral, but rather which option is MORALLY PERMISSIBLE or rather which is MORE MORAL than the other. This is a debate about a choice - not morality in general. :: DEFENDING MY CASE :: 1. Human worth. A --> "I argue that human worth (in terms of morality) is unquantifiable" says Con. I agree, and was in fact including numerical value in this debate to prove a point and make my argument cohesive - not to imply that human life OR morality can be absolutely defined mathematically. I've already explained that. B --> No, turn Con's point against HIM. If every life is worth 100% then three lives together would = 300% ...not in terms of each's individual value, but rather their value combined. 2. The preservation of life. Con argues this point by posing a hypothetical: Would it be moral to kill every person with AID's in that it will not spread? More people would probably be saved, but that doesn't make it moral. This analogy is unacceptable. First, it does not relate to the resolution of one life vs. a few lives. Instead, it aims to kill MILLIONS of people. Two, it does not prove that millions more would be SAVED. It suggests it, but it is not absolutely certain, whereas the choice posed in the resolution is more matter-of-fact. Con cannot back-up this flawed example. 3. Responsibility. Con agrees that the one who must make a choice has a responsibility... meaning Con has no qualms about making this person responsible for three deaths. Again I ask: is it better to be responsible for one death or three? Would you rather kill one person or three? And Con agrees that inaction = killing. He also attempts to prove that 1 death = 3 deaths (See: his RE Point 1B) which is blatantly false. Con also writes, "The negative is not saying that we should let them die, I am arguing that killing is immoral, which negates the resolution." Some trickery here... the resolution implies that we cannot save 'the few' without killing the one person. Further, again, the resolution deals with which choice is MORALLY PERMISSIBLE - it's not asking you to agree that killing in general is morally acceptable. It's taking one situation and asking if a certain action is appropriate.