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

"In affirming the resolution, pro and the judge will rationalize the death of an individual or individuals in the name of the "greater good." With the idea that death protects us and is morally permissible for our survival, government leaders or other leaders will be able to use this resolution as a smoke screen to justify any of their actions that lead to death." In some cases it may seem irrational and unfair. However, I am putting forward examples in which it would be undeniably permissible. And if one ends up in a case where it is undeniably permissible, one should be allowed to act without his morality being judged. If you say it is never permissible, then when one ends up in a situation where it would be, the man would be stuck in a tough place and could not act for the sake of his morality. "THUS, THE AGENT OF ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION MUST INVOLVE A HIGHER POWER, SUCH AS A GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE THE WORD PERMISSIBLE IS DEFINED AS ALLOWED. THE WORD ALLOWED IMPLIES A HIGHER POWER CONDONING IT" Wrong, morals are individually set. It may be an established moral that incest is wrong, but to some there is nothing morally incorrect about it. And I don't know of anyone who asks the government if they may commit the act of incest before actually committing it. "The resolution states "to save the lives" ï¿½€" It does not say what the lives are being saved from." "to save the lives of more innocent people." It says it's saving the innocent people's lives. Meaning it will keep them from facing death. If it meant that it was saving them from something other than death, the resolution would have been stated differently. Almost anyone would agree that "save the lives" is the same as "prevent the death". "Contention 1: Mass Death" Pro stated "THUS, THE ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION ENDS THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THE AGENT OF ACTION RATIONALIZES THAT IT IS NECESSARY". In your example, the "target's" death is not necessary. Therefore, Pro's example should be completely dismissed. "AT: My opponent does not uphold morality because taking the lives of individuals and the massive amount of death pro causes is immoral" Wrong again. By allowing others to die by allowing the one to live, more death would be caused. The more death caused, the more rights and morals that have been violated. In fact, I uphold morality far more than Pro in this case. "only reinstates a higher institution as being the supreme power" I already covered this. now for "AT: Contention 1" "2) He makes no connection between "wrong[s] [being] done to one who consents"" It does tie in with my resolution. I assumed you would link my contentions with the resolution, seeing as that's why I said it. I was giving examples of when it would be undeniably morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. If one consents, then there would be no immorality in taking their life. "3) The resolution does NOT state that the agent of action will RESPECT people rights to self government/independence; " The resolution also does NOT state that the agent of action WONT RESPECT people rights to self government/independence "4, 5, and 6." It's as simple as a man reasonably saying "I wish to die for the betterment of society." He clearly wishes to die, and he obviously consents to the outcome because he stated the word "death". "7) Victimless crimes prove the law of society (a higher power) is not based on individual consent ï¿½€" obviously people have given themselves permission to take illegal drugs, walk around naked, and speed in traffic situations" The one's committing those crimes are minorities of the population. The majority of a society controls its laws. And the majority is made up of many individuals. If there were more individuals who felt walking around naked was fine, then society would not make it illegal. "8) Some higher powers do not give certain people the right to give their consent ï¿½€" thus, consent cannot be given with every individual, limiting the topic and making for an unfair debate." Already covered this. "9) Causing some one pain is illegal in very rare instances (only when someone has too much money and sues someone else for annoying them) where as homicide is illegal in most cases and the exceptions are not based of consent" Causing anyone pain without their consent is illegal. There's something called "assault" and it's just about the most commonly committed crime. "10) My contention upholds "the greatest good" as the least number of people will have to die ï¿½€" there is no reason to make people feel obligated to sacrifice their lives" I thought I was the one arguing Pro. I could have sworn that my contention upholds "the greatest good" as the least number of people will have to die... Con is supposed to be arguing that more people should die rather than the least number. But thanks for the support. "1) This contention is only defensive ï¿½€" it only explains exceptions to the first" Correct, it is explaining another case where killing an innocent would be morally permissible to save the lives of more innocent people. "2) It is precisely this justification of "innocent people who threaten others" that leads to the mass death explain in my contention. The agent of action will abuse this power in an immoral way." It cannot be assured that the agent of action will abuse this power in an immoral way. And by doing it "in an immoral way" he would become immoral, so the fact that killing one was morally permissible would not affect the agent's decision because he would obviously have a lack of moral concern. "3) The decision maker must look to more options then simple death vs. death" Didn't Con state earlier "THUS, THE ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION ENDS THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THE AGENT OF ACTION RATIONALIZES THAT IT IS NECESSARY"? I am specifically interested in the words "IT IS NECESSARY" meaning there are no other options. "4) The resolution does not talk about guilty parties – simple the choice between an innocent individuals lives and the innocent masses" I used this just as an example to help others understand my point more clearly. And I would like to point out the resolution does not exactly specify that either. "5) TURN: A higher power/leader (pope) cannot even be justified in killing an innocent person without loosing respect." Wrong. Threatening another may leave one morally innocent because they did not act on it. However, by threatening another's life it shows they lost respect for another's "right to live" and therefore, their right to live should be forfeited. "6) He states no connection between respect and morally permissible" Once again, I assumed you would connect the two. We have morals because we respect each other's opinions. If people feel something is wrong, we dub it morally wrong. If we did not respect each other's opinions, then there would be no morals. "7) Everything – eating for example – threatens our lives but such an action is not seen as just as bad as killing an individual" There's a difference between action and inaction. Not eating threatens our lives. The act of killing threatens our lives. "8) A person that intentionally kills an individual is not innocent" Never said they were, just said one who kills forfeits their right to live. I'm running out of room so I will just put numbers and you will have to check on them yourselves, I apologize. "1" Everyone else on the plane, however, is. "2" If the passengers are unaware? "3" I disagree and feel the resolution is about "lives vs. lives" "4" That can't be known for sure. And not all repercussions would happen (we'd still have the world trade center and thousands of more civilians) "5" We did not choose to make it necessary, we must do the best choice given the situation. "6" We tried, and we failed. Not much we can do. "7" Again, you stated in an observation "T