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

In affirming the resolution, the affirmative 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. Value: Morality Criterion: Keeping power over our own lives so that we do not have to be at the will of a higher institution. Observation 1: Kill – to deprive of life; to put to death Thus, the action in the resolution ends the life of an individual because the agent of action rationalizes that it is necessary Observation 2: Morally permissible – allowed due to standards of right behavior 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. Furthermore, I as the Neg cannot argue that a vigilante – as cool as Batman is – being the agent of action is not morally permissible because any vigilante action is inherently not permissible. The resolution would be moot if the agent of action was inherently not allowed because it removes any ground the affirmative can have for debate and would be abusive. We must then assume that the agent of action is performed by a higher power. Observation 3: The resolution states "to save the lives" – It does not say what the lives are being saved from. Their lives could be in immediate danger of extinction but they could also need saving from an "energy crisis", "A radical revolutionary", or "an economic crisis" that a death would be able to save. The affirmative does not even have to claim this rationalization to be voted down; governments will choose to use this resolution in this way because humans need to rationalize their actions. They can end the lives of those they hate because they can choose what they are saving their subjects from. Observation 4: I only try to use examples to prove my point, not impose hierarchy Contention 1: Mass Death The government can choose any individual that "needs to die." This can be based off race, class, religion, or any factor that makes the individual undesirable to the higher power(s). It is very unlikely the president or Pope would be the one sacrificed to save other lives. This mindset quickly spills over to ever area of life: EXAMPLE – the government decides a poor person is a burden to the society so his death will prevent us from starving and being given a disease and having our money stolen by him. There is no escape from the target – a man cannot change his race, can't magically get rich, or change any other factor governments can use to discriminate. The worst part is the majority doesn't have to win – the institution in power will win. Take for example if 40 people are in the higher institution and they want to save their lives. They kill a "crazy poor man" to save their own lives. This, according to the resolution, would be morally permissible. They then repeated this action 4 hundred thousand times – or whatever number they choose. They would be using this resolution to justify their actions: they did nothing wrong. They only "kill[ed] one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people."