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

This resolution is undeniably correct in saying that "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people." Before I begin, I offer the following definitions: Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical Morally: from a moral point of view Permissible: that can be permitted; allowable Innocent: free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless All defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Contention 1 - Respect for autonomy means we respect consent. An established moral principle which the law usually sanctions is that "No wrong is done to one who consents." This allows a doctor to put someone through a painful surgery, or a tattooist to give someone a tattoo without it being a criminal act - so long as the other party reasonably agrees. Respecting other people means allowing them to decide for themselves what harms to risk or suffer in return for what they prize. For those who share this ideal of voluntariness, rooted in both Kantian moral philosophy and the English utilitarian tradition of which Mill is representative, a person's consent to be killed for his own good or for the benefit of others will render it morally permissible to kill them. Contention 2 - The right not to be killed is not absolute. Even if one does not consent to being killed, there are many ways that taking their life may be morally permissible. Ordinary human beings have a powerful moral claim against their fellows not to be killed and, under certain circumstances, to be saved from death or serious harm. The scope of that right is not, of course, unrestricted. For example, it arguably does not protect innocent people who threaten others or who would be killed by the removal of what threatens others, should those in danger, or third parties who wish to assist them, use necessary lethal force to eliminate the threat. That right not to be killed is also alienable. Unjustified aggression may forfeit its protection. An example: (hate to use the cliche Hitler.. but it gets the point across) One would argue that Hitler had no respect for human life and therefore, nobody should respect his human life. Our judicial system supports this claim by holding a death penalty in certain states or the national law of self defense. However, this resolution is not talking about something that extreme. It talks about killing an innocent. One may be innocent by not actually doing anything wrong or killing a man, but our judicial system also supports the thought that threatening another is almost as bad. So, if a man as good as the pope threatened to kill another, his lack of respect for another's life would show others to lose respect for his. Contention 3 - Examples don't lie... In the event of 9/11 happening again, would you honestly refuse to let the government shoot down a plane? Everyone on the plane is already certain to die. You can either kill 60 innocent people and save 2000 and a building and prevent all the repercussions that followed, or you can defend the 60 citizen's lives and watch the event happen as you refuse to do anything. Thank you for taking the time to read this argument. I will be looking forward to this debate.