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

Ok September/October topic awesome.... I Too,like my opponent am a varsity Lder and I will be using a case I wrote to help teach LD to freshman so I hope this works out. Ok So I guess I will be taking Negative... So I will start by building my own case and refuting my opponents Professor of philosophy Paul Edwards States "As Kant correctly pointed out the decisive factor is good will, the moral intent or attitude. It is here that we find the existential meaning of live ‘Since that which is morally good contains its meaning in value itself, it follows that it is intrinsically worthwhile" CV: Morality (Principles concerning the distinction of right and wrong or good and bad behavior)(oxford) Criterion: Kant's Categorical Imperative-A Standard of Morality which states that a decision is morally just if it can be established as a universal law. According to the Categorical Imperative Acts are intrinsically moral/immoral so the action must be considered before the result of that action. the Categorical Imperative also says that humans cannot be means to an end. Therefore I stand opposed to the resolution that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. 1st contention: In Critique of Pure Reason Kant states that human life is not a means to an end and that the life must instead be considered as an end itself. What Kant is establishing is that Human life is not something that can be used as a currency to buy other things or to achieve an end. Also because people have their own goals it is immoral for them to be used for someone else's goals So to Rob them of these goals would be immoral and giving a value to life which is also immoral. That human Life must be considered an end in itself. So in this resolution the one person being sacrificed must be considered before the other people being saved are considered. Each life is wholly sacred and cannot be taken. Since the action must take precedence over the consequence the act of taking a human life is wholly immoral. B. By killing one person it is establishing a universal law that human life can be used as a currency. This Law is Immoral as it takes away the sacred value of human Life,Which is a Natural Right that cannot be taken or used as a means. As J.W.N Hopkins put it "Death and pain are immeasurable: No amount of pleasure can equal the pain of death." Again because the action takes precedence the pain of that death would be wholly unbearable and no happiness would result from that action. 2nd contention The outcome of an Action cannot be predicted, so the morality of that action must be based of the action itself. According to the affirmative side of the resolution, the action is killing one person. Considering that action alone it must be agreed that killing an innocent person is immoral. AND as that consequence cannot be predicted the action determines the morality of an act. If the one person is killed it is setting a universal law that innocent people may be killed. This would lead to an eventual breakdown of society which would benefit no one and cause much pain. Since the morality of an action is based on that action itself, the resolution is immoral because the killing of an innocent person is innately wrong. Moving to my opponents Case. CV: While Societal welfare may be important but there question posed is a Moral one. "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives or more innocent people" Since the question being asked is a moral one the only logical way to evaluate it is by Morality. VC: Etzioni, as my opponent, stated believed in Autonomy or freedom of action in other terms. Now If you look at this meaning you will find we must give everybody the freedom of action. Killing them is using them as a means or a tool which does not respect their autonomy or there status as Humans. furthermore Etzioni was a communitarian not a moral philosopher which makes his ideas concerning social welfare irrelevant to a moral debate and we must look to Kant to evaluate this debate. 1st Contention My opponent quite clearly states that "Regard for his autonomy requires that we defer to his wishes." Or nor kill him to benefit others to use him as a mere tool and disrepecting his status as a Moral Agent. So therefore in order to uphold my opponents criterion in any way we must respect the wishes of the one and not deprive him of his most sacred right without his consent. 2nd contention Now as I see if there is a contradiction of points here. in this contention he contends that "when consent cannot be given we use hypothetical" But ALSO contends that "A person's reasoned, informed, and uncoerced consent to an action generally suffices" this is referring to consent and is a pretty clear contradiction for we cannot have informed and uncoerced consent when we assume his actions which is also not respecting his autonomy. Therefore this contention is seen to fail as it does not uphold even my opponents Criterion as it denies Autonomy. The people killed cannot be seen as mathematical but instead the action(killing) should be evaluated first. 3rd contention It is true that sometimes consent can't always be given. this passag ein particular is deeply flawed. "In certain circumstances, acting as somebody would have wished if he were informed, lucid, and undistracted seems plainly appropriate if his consent to what would generally constitute an invasion of his rights cannot be obtained." It cannot be assumed that somebody would WILLINGLY die to save other unknown strangers. It is making their moral decisions for them and is not only assuming false consent but using them as a means, or a pawn in the game rather than a moral Agent. Also the example about medical assistance fails. First of all the life is not being used as a means and saving it respects their humanity. However using them as a Pawn and saying they would consent is disrespectful to their humanity and life is the most sacred thing we have and it cannot be taken for the wishes of others. 4th this is merely proving Autonomy, however the vale of autonomy comes behind the sacred value of life and Morality. also as I have proven Autonomy supports my case because we are not allowing the one to choose therefore not creating autonomy. 5th Hypothetical Consent in this instance is irrational. The resolution says we would be killing them and as we must look at the action first who would consent to being killed?? So therefore unless express consent was given in must be seen that Hypothetical consent in this instance is Immoral as it disrespects Humanity and uses Life as a bargaining chip. Because I have proven Autonomy to Support my side and Morality to be in all ways superior to societal welfare, as well As proving Kant to me more applicable I see nothing more than a Negative ballot.