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

"f you really want to get deep into innocence, most philosophers believe that only a newborn child is truly innocent." A mix between ad populum and ad authoritatem, and in either case not helping your point, since there is no point permitting something that is impossible. "Once a human being experiences an act of hate or aggression, he loses his innocence." Having experienced such is wrong per se? How so? "If con continues playing the game he's playing, he can say even an infant is guilty of something such as breathing." Breathing is not a wrong, now is it? Seeking to die, on the other hand... since morality is merely a tool for achieving a goal, the goal being life (those for whom life is not a goal are already dead with rare exception, since human life requires volitional action), clearly an action promoting death, including giving consent to be killed, is "Wrong." "But according to con, if a man is "guilty" of saving another man's life, then they are no longer innocent. " Saving a life, is again, not a wrong, per se, though saving certain lives from certain things might be (Hitler for example). " I realize it is not necessary to bring the law into this, but the law is mainly there to protect morals." To protect rights, derived from morals. Not all morals per se. " And that's great that Con has a bump on his ear but I fail to see how he disproved my contention in any way." I don't have to disprove you, just prevent you from proving. It's known as Burden of Proof. "I mean the exact same thing. So if anything Con is just supporting my statement that if one does not respect your right to live, you, in turn, should not respect their right to live." True. We are allowed to agree on things that are not the actual topic. I was simply showing that that had no relevance to the absoluteness of such rules- all absolutes have a context. "A man thrown at a building even at a rate of 300m/h wouldn't do much damage. " If someone is behind a window, and the man should hit the window? "he passengers are not flying towards that building by choice. " Their choice is relevant to their specific moral innocence, not their general innocence. Metaphysically, they are flying toward the building whether they chose to or not. If I am sleepwalking, and about to murder you, I am not innocent, I'm doing something wrong, accident or otherwise, the facts remain the same. "do you think the majority of the population would agree or disagree that it was the right thing to do?" Ad populum. "And you must remember that morals are created by what the majority thinks is right. " Nope, ad populum. After all, Hitler was elected :D. Nowhere in the definition of morality you provided for the purpose of this debate is the word "Majority" used. This is because majorities mean might, they do not mean right. What is "Right" is whatever enhances one's goal- that goal, for almost anyone alive, being life, the sole possible exception being those on life support. Everyone else affirms that their life is their goal, by taking actions toward it. If it were not, they would not seek and consume food, water, shelter, etc, none of these things is automatic.