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

Value: Societal Order --> This value is inferior compared to my value because it is not either stated or implied by the resolution. The value specifically asks for an action that is morally permissible, not an action that conforms to he societal order. Thus, my value is superior in this round, and must be the end result value. Criterion: Rule of Law --> (Turn) " governments are needed to make and enforce laws to protect life, liberty, and property." According to my opponent the rule of law is made when it protects the 3 inalienable rights. THe question now arises, how does this affect the resolution? It will either be the end result of more people losing their inalienable rights, or one. Therefore, it comes down to quantifying. To uphold the rule of law it is necessary that the agent act and save the most amount of people to reduce the right violating being occurred. According to my opponent this would uphold the rule of law. --> (Drop) If you do not bye the turn I have made, then you can always drop this VC. The rule of law is man made and is thus fallible. E.g. Slavery. There are certain universal laws that must take precedence, over the rule of law. Just because something is in the law now, doesn't make it the moral or just thing. Since my value is superior, then you can drop his rule of law criterion since it does not conform with moral permissibility. Contention 1: My only contention for this debate is that killing an innocent person violates the Rule of Law. Killing an innocent person is murder. Murder is illegal everywhere in the world. There is no way one could commit a legal murder of an innocent person. Violating the law undermines the Rule of Law. If it was morally permissible to violate the law, then the Rule of Law would have no power. A law is powerless if we can make exceptions willy-nilly. In order to uphold the Rule of Law, and Societal Order, one must not kill an innocent person, ever. --> You can automatically drop this point because his VC is either dropped or turned. --> i will however, refute it. He says that killing an innocent is murder, which violates the rule of law. This is untrue. Take war for instance, war is justified if the benefits are more then the evils that come out of it. Yes, innocents may die, but a greater good is being achieve. I.e. The Double Effect. If you universalize my opponents contention, then nothing would justify war. Therefore, the rule of law would be turned on itself because nothing can be sued to defend the rule of law. Evil doers would go un-confronted, genocide would occur, and the greater good would not be upheld. Basically, the rule of law must be broken to achieve a greater good, which is necessary for the rule to actually exist. Of course, the law cannot always be broken, however that is not the objective of the affirmative. In a moral dilemma, the greater good must be achieved because it is the only way to determine the moral permissibility of a certain action. By negating, you are taking the law as the letter only, not the spirit and justness behind it. Montesquieu once that that "the spirit of the law is justice. The letter must be broken at some points to achieve it." Going to defend my own case: He agrees with definitions and observations. Key point: My opponent has agreed with the definition of moral permissibility. Thus you can affirm since the aff. better achieves it. "I agree with my opponent that Moral Permissibility is an appropriate value, but it is too vague and is better replaced by societal order." --> It is the direct value indicated by the resolution. Nowhere does it ask to uphold societal order. Therefore, my value is the superior one. "The consequences have no moral value, it is the intention of the action where the morality lies. For example, a consequentialist point of view would hold that a mugger, who by chance has mugged a would-be suicide bomber and thereby prevented him from killing many people committed a moral action. This is not true. Mugging is not moral, even if by chance good consequences occur. Consequences have no bearing on the actual worth of an action." --> Observation: My VC is not consequentialism. My VC is moral proportionality. There is a difference. MP is when an agent is in a moral dilemma, what ought he to do? To uphold moral permissibility he ought to take the action where the outcome is moral. By letting a group die, you are acting immorally. Therefore, the only moral action is one that saves more people. You can drop his attack since it doesn't attack the main reason behind my VC. "Contention 1: His first contention links to his criterion, which I just showed to be invalid. Before committing the action, there is no way to know the consequences. If I decide to kill person A because I believe that it will save persons B-R, I am not necessarily saving them. If my attempt fails, all that's happened is the death of an innocent. Consequences are unpredictable, and often accidental, and because of those two aspects cannot have a bearing on the action itself." --> you can drop this, since he didn't have a true attack on my VC. --> He dropped all my sub-points which uphold my contention. Extend these. --> However the consequences must be evaluated. By not acting you are killing a larger group of people which would be murder. You are violating their rights, which according to my opponents necessary to achieve the rule of law. Furthermore, he says the attempt may fail. The resolution implies that it wont fail. You either save them or you don't. Upholding life is a clear value for morality. If it was not, then my opponent could not make the claim that killing is wrong. Therefore, you must come to the conclusion that killing one is necessary to save more. "Contention 2: This again falls victim to my argument that consequences cannot have a bearing on morality. Consequences do not necessarily result because of one's intention, but often in spite of it." --> My opponent dismisses this point. However it is a strong point. Situational ethics demand that we take the appropriate action to save the most people. If not, we are acting immorally. "Contention 3: Yet again my opponent relies on the false assumption that consequences have a real bearing on morality. They do not and cannot affect the moral worth of an action.'" --> Link this point to my opponents VC. For the rule of law to exist, a society is necessary. The harm principle by John Locke who my opponent quotes, and Mill, explains that a moral action is onethat protects society. Therefore, for the rule of law to exist, society must be protected. Thus, killing one is necessary to help society. By refuting this point, my opponent has refuted his own VC, and thus can be dropped by my opponents own hand. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.