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

brief road-map: this round is exclusively for voters and the summation of the debate. no new arguments or contentions will be brought up. I will only rebuild my case as well as address the preceding statements of the Negation. defense: value-Utilitarianism. It is not a contradiction in the value of Utilitarianism to say that it is impossible to act in the benefit of everyone. It should be common knowledge that this is true. My opponent, now, has attempted to paint Utilitarianism as striving for the benefit of everyone yet contradicts this argument in defining it (though his quotation was a completely accurate definition) because it was stated that an action is moral only if it causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number, not the greatest happiness for everyone and although everyone would obviously be the greatest number, as was established, it is impossible to benefit everyone so by default Utilitarianism has to refer to the majority, leaving it as a feasible value. Now to answer the question of conflicting utilities, obviously the utility in more demand would be the one of more importance meaning that if action is in the interest of one person but not another, the action's justification relies solely on which person has more in agreement or taking benefit from said action. As for being subjective, utility varies seldom in matters of societal benefit. Pleasure's subjectivity is found more so in the more trivial aspects of experience. Criterion-Societal Benefit. I'm going to make my final words on this issue relatively blunt. Human Rights take a back seat to the preservation of society and are a matter to be concerned with after the preservation of society is essentially ensured. the negation has stated "The con case seeks to preserve life as well," but the simple version of the con's ideology in negating the resolution is that the con would prefer if one person were not sacrificed in order to save more lives. This is the anti-resolution and I urge you to recognize it. Lastly, in response to the implication that the affirmation is neglectful to human rights, I have never said human rights should be ignored but have said they are the less important issue as compared to utilitarianism. that does not mean, although, that human rights would forever be ignored. It's like investing. In exchange for the valuing of the preservation of society over human rights, the return on the investment would be bountiful then you can have all your human rights as well as more utility and the increase in the quality of life. Contention One. The connection between Utilitarianism and addressing the concerns of mankind as a whole should be clear in that Utilitarianism is doing what's best for the majority and looking at mankind rather than the individual life is majoritarian. To care more for the individual life than the preservation of society is against the utility of the majority and the utility of mankind. Contention Two. There is a difference between the definition of morals and the definition of ethics because the two are not one in the same; ethics are inherent which is the basis for my statement "the recognition of right and wrong inherently is based in the regards of proceeding consequences." This is also where things get hazy. Are you saying as the con that my ideologies can't be the polar opposite of yours? That's strange. But I digress. In ethics the recognition of right and wrong are based in consequence regardless of whom those consequences are experienced by. Now in accordance with morality, we've already, once again, established that morals are decided by humans which con's lack of attack has conceded to since "silence is compliance." that being said we have likewise established a framework for pursuit that we both want to do what's best for mankind. In response to the slippery slope comment i mean to address a worst case scenario which is perfectly relevant to the resolution because the fundamental beliefs behind the negation if consistent would be to morally justify the scenario which I have said. The affirmative case still stands as the stronger of the two. The con case: Value- Human Rights. I have seen no need to attack the value of human rights head on because I have conceded to its importance although I have simply stated that the importance of the preservation of society is higher. As for my assertion that the resolution deals with society, the inclusion of the word "morally" implies the involvement of society in the matter therefore it can not be dismissed. value Criterion-CI. I'm going to be honest. if i had to choose an elementary way to summarize my attack on my opponents criterion his quotation would be accurate. that is not to say the categorical imperative isn't at least a decent criterion but in regards to this debate Kant would agree with the affirmation since he is after all, a philosopher in the social contract theory. But because the Value of Utilitarianism still stands as the more important value of the two presented, my criterion must also be of more importance. contention 1. i see no need to further attack this contention. i have in fact dismissed it but for good reason which if my case was read through would be seen as my justification for dismissal. 1. utilitarianism is not impossible to achieve and the implication of this is a result of contextual misinterpretation. 2. in response to the assumption that the con criterion embodies societal benefit, it can not do that when it justifies the regard of the individual life more highly than that of society. 3. the warrant for my claim that human rights is immeasurable comes from the shear lack of existence of a criterion for human value. what's the unit for my life's worth? 4. Already addressed. 5. Already addressed. My voters: 1. the affirmative value has proven to be more important. 2. Because the negation has failed to prove that affirmative can not uphold the value of Utilitarianism (part of his responsibility in LD), the affirmative case stands. 3. the dismissal of any part of the con as well as the refutation of the con's claims have been justified and so the negative case falls. FOR THESE REASONS THE AFFIRMATIVE HAS WON THIS DEBATE.