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

Since Pro defines morality as a code of conduct that...be put forward by all rational persons, then perhaps we must know what a "rational person" is. "Rational" is having reason or understanding. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) But reason? Understanding? On what do we judge this...? If it's based on conditionals and truth values, then that can only apply to less subjective concepts than Morality. We can reason that "All men are mortals, Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal". On the other hand, can we say all rational people should vote Obama? It's opinionated. Can we assign numerical values to reasons for and against voting Obama, and then make a rational choice? Only if we believe these things can be quantified, that the quantification and using of mathematics is a valid way to conclude rationality, et cetera. Even with quantification, a man could put 100 points on "I don't like Obama's name" for against and have all the for-Obama points add up to 99. Who's the judge? Morality in that definition is dependent on what rational persons would do. Say we managed to define rationality, and based on that definition, we find that given specified conditions, all the rational people would eat an apple instead of an orange...say because it is healthier...is that the moral behavior? Say again we managed to define rationality, and now, all the rational people think carpet bombing an island because it is estimated that some influence of theirs will result in more homicide deaths in other countries than the population of the island. rational persons all think so...it is moral. Clearly, "rationality" must be defined. Note that it is arguably safe to assume that an action put forward by a rational person in this context is to be considered "rational". So a moral action is a rational action. And if it is rational, it would be put forward by rational persons, making it moral. So a rational action is a moral action. Tautology? ALMOST. The saving grace of that definition is that we are not explicit whether there can only be ONE moral action, and/or ONE rational action. Another saving grace is that we are not debating whether one action is MORE moral/rational than another, but merely if it is. Semantics is always a tricky issue that can go on forever and we cannot argue that forever. However, it always has to be pointed out. Morality as defined by Pro is, however reluctantly, ambiguous. If Pro can better overcome the language issues for both of us, great. Otherwise, it is unfortunate that you, as reader/voter, must always take words with both the proposed definition and your own semantic attachment to it in account. I'll continue on with language ambiguity still in the air....with one final assumption: a morally permissible action must be a moral action. - Say the fat man in the cave. What if the fat man wouldn't die if the rest drowned, and the rest would live if they killed him? (assume his being fat and blocking the way does not constitute guilt). What does consequentialism say? Is it "morally permissable" to kill that fat man in order for more to live? For whom is it morally permissable? The ones in danger of dying, or a spectator, or both? Let us consider the persons in danger. Is it rational (and hence if undertaken by all rational persons, moral, and therefore eligible and assumed to be morally permissible) to kill the fat man to save more people (self included)? If it is rational, is it because more people are saved, or because the self is saved, or perhap both criteria are needed? Let us consider the spectator. Is it rational for him (or her)? Substitute the fat man for "very important person" or "loved person" and it gets less rational. Here we are stuck, because up til now we have not discussed one moral/rational action being MORE moral/rational than another. But this is where the key really lies... Because rationality/morality is at the moment vaguely defined, it is a subjective concept. Subjective to the Agent of the action, to the context...etc. We may choose to quantify things, but that too has no strict guidelines. We are also making less obvious assumptions - that the death of less people is more moral/rational/good goal. - Pro desires to affirm the resolution as a general principal. This is where I clearly take the Con position. If morality is subjective, then we cannot establish such a general principle. To more accurately express the position of Con, I will phrase it as: "It is not true that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people" Value? - There are no values.