Resolved: It is morally justifiable to take one person's life in order to save that of more lives.

Pro CaseValue: Utilitarianism. Once again, Pro has not even acknowledged the argument I made saying that Utilitarianism is unjust. The example I used was Slavery, saying that under Utilitarianism, we could justify enslaving 10% of the population if it would promote the general utility of the remaining 90%. The point is, just because it would make the majority happy does not mean it is just. With this argument untouched, we can safely negate because Pro’s value has been refuted. Value Criterion: Societal Benefit. My opponent states that Human Rights should not come into effect until society has been preserved. Pro is taking an extreme stance on the issue here. Nowhere in the resolution or in the negative case is it even remotely implied that society would be destroyed. In regards to the actual criterion, Human Rights would benefit society more than Utilitarianism. Rather than using human beings as mere tools to be assessed for their worth and then arbitrarily discarded when standing in the way of the “greater good;” we should acknowledge that all human beings have rights and to infringe upon them is immoral. Additionally, looking at Kant’s Categorical Imperative, it is immoral to use a person as a means to achieve an end. So if the Categorical Imperative still stands as a valid moral principle in this debate, the situation described in the resolution is immoral. Lastly, I should make it clear that Utilitarianism and Human Rights are incompatible. Utilitarianism, by its majoritarian nature, would supercede Human Rights if it happened to stand in the way of the “greater good. ” This value criterion does not help the pro case at all. Pro’s only defense is to take an extreme stance that skews the resolution. I have proven that the negative case achieves this criterion better. Contention 1: The Value of Human Life is Immeasurable. As I have established before, Utilitarianism is unjust. I’m not going to deny that Utilitarianism is striving to provide the most utility, but that does not make it just. The majority’s demands being met is not always just. Slavery, for example. Contention 2: Really Long Title. To reiterate, what is right and wrong is not necessarily determined by consequences. Using my Deontological framework, I am more concerned with the motivations that guide an action as opposed to the consequences. Pro cannot make the blanket statement that right and wrong is always determined by consequences. No, I am not saying that our ideologies can’t be polar opposites. I was confused about what you were trying to say so I made a clarification. Nowhere did I deny that morals were created by humans, and even if I did that wouldn’t help your argument. I’m not even sure what pro’s point is here, if there is one. In regards to me having to justify my opponent’s “worst case scenario” example, I don’t even have to. My Categorical Imperative still stands, that is where the moral justification comes from. Con CaseValue: Human Rights. Pro has conceded to the importance of this value and has not attacked it. Rather, they have said that preserving society is more important. If pro expected to win this debate they needed to explain why their value is superior to mine, and he has not done that. Finally, for the last time, nowhere in my case do I attempt to destroy society. The claim that preserving society is more important than Human Rights is absurd. Human Rights can’t exist without humans. Value Criterion: Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Pro says that Kant would affirm this resolution because he was a proponent of the Social Contract Theory. So what? What does the Social Contract Theory have to do with this debate? Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if he supported the Social Contract Theory, my case is not about that. My case is about Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Kant would not affirm this resolution because he was the polar opposite of a Utilitarian. Contention 1: The Resolution Fails the Test of the Categorical Imperative. Pro never attacks the heart of this contention where I state that the resolution is not consistent with the Categorical Imperative. Silence is concession, so I am forced to assume my opponent agrees with this contention, as well as the Categorical Imperative. VotersIn my case, my value of Human Rights has not been challenged, but rather been dismissed as irrelevant. It is in fact, very relevant in the context of the negative case. Just reading my case will establish this fact. My value criterion has not been refuted, and it is achieving my value quite well in this debate. Furthermore, my value of Human Rights achieves my opponent’s criterion of Societal Benefit far better than Utilitarianism. Looking at the pro case, Utilitarianism has been refuted because it is unjust and therefore does not affirm the resolution. Pro has hardly attacked my case, and was quick to dismiss all of my claims without proper justification. If you weigh all of the argumentation in this debate, the Con case is clearly superior.