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

V/VC/NEG/AFF Voting Issues V: I have previously claimed that my opponent's view on morality cannot fit this debate, not that it can't be used at all. Because morality is a topic that has been debated for ages, our views on it really matter. When my opponent claims that morality is universal, then there would be no point for this debate if there really was a universal law. If there was a law that stated, "Killing an innocent is morally wrong regardless of any situation," then Neg would automatically win. However, this is not the case. Morality is not universal. It is dependent on certain situations such as the situation that the resolution implies. My opponents whole case is built off this "universal law." This is logically invalid because there can be no way to determine a universal law, and if there was this debate would be useless. Therefore, my opponents VIEW of morality does not work for him, and therefore you must look to my value of societal welfare because societal welfare is what really matters because it encompasses morality and because morality is very vague in that we cannot determine what is TRULY moral, we must look to what is better for society and that is the only way of determining what is moral in the case of this debate. Aff is providing a clear cut way of determining what is moral through societal welfare, and that trumps my opponents vague and invalid definition of morality. VC: The resolution clearly states "moral permissibility." Therefore, it is implying that morality is not absolute or universal. Under a case where morality is absolute, neg will ALWAYS win because there would be no way to prove that killing an innocent is moral. The only way for this debate to clearly go on is for morality to be circumstantial as in what the resolution provides. Therefore, both sides have to argue whether the action each side takes is moral based on the specific situation the resolution provides. Again, a universal law cannot be permitted in this debate because it skews the round in favor of the Negative. "Therefore The ONLY way is to evaluate off of the Universal law." How do we know this universal law? We cannot. Even if you say societies all agree that killing is wrong, we still cannot say this is the UNIVERSAL LAW because this universal law does not take into account certain situations where it can be false. Therefore, my opponents VC is extremely flawed in stating that we must abide by a universal law. The second maxim is also flawed because it really does not provide for neg. When my opponent says that we must look only to the action of killing the one person, this again skews the round because there is no way for aff to prove that the action itself is morally permissible. We must take into account the consequence of the action. And when this is taken into account, the means to an end argument turns completely over because there is no way to argue against that the five people that are at stake in this situation will be used as a means to an end. They WILL be used as tools to save that one person because they are directly affected by Neg's action of saving one person. My opponent CLEARLY does not understand Kantian philosophy. No one will disagree that Kant is all about value to life. And how do we determine value to life? It is by autonomy, the ability for one person to make decisions on his own. That is the only way to determine life's value. The means to an end principle is trying to avoid violation of autonomy. Etzioni's golden rule provides a clear way to achieve a balance between autonomy and society. When achieving this balance you are not violating the one person's life because he has consented and you are saving more lives. Who is taking the real moral action now? Aff clearly is. And through Aff's case, I am not violating autonomy because we are respecting autonomy by looking at hypothetical consent, and Aff is also achieving societal welfare. However, Neg is only preserving one person's autonomy. It's like saying that Neg is only achieving autonomy whereas Aff is achieving autonomy AND societal welfare. This is the clear distinction between Aff and Neg here. Aff should win because he is consuming the Negative's case and in addition achieving societal welfare. Neg Case I am quickly going to summarize all of Neg's points. Again we cannot simply look at the action because that skews the round for the Negative because there is no way for aff to prove that "Killing an Innocent person" is always morally permitted. The fact that the resolution states "to save the lives of more innocent people" is the only way for aff to correctly justify an action made. This tears down Contention 2 of Neg. We do not know the indirect consequences therefore we cannot look at those. All we know is that one person will be killed or not killed and there are more lives at stake. That's all we must look to in this round. Nothing else. So indirect consequences are out of question. We can predict the outcome because it is given to us. I have stated many times that universal law cannot be used because there is no purpose in this debate. If there really was a universal law, then this resolution would be solved because the action would be justified under ALL conditions. This is not the case because we are debating whether the action is justified with the given scenario. Aff Case My opponent still hasn't addressed to my previous burden: "What I am saying is that society can ASSUME that in a hypothetical situation, a rational person WILL ALWAYS allow the agent to kill him/her for the better of society. Again if my opponent cannot prove this wrong, if he cannot prove that a rational person will not always say this, then Aff wins." My opponent has not addressed this to this point so he clearly cannot find an alternative. So it still stands that under uncoerced, informed, and reasoned situations, a person will ALWAYS allow for him/herself to die in order to save more innocent people. My opponent thinks that this decision is being forced on the innocent person. HOWEVER IT IS NOT! Hypothetical consent is simply assuming that this person will allow for the agent to kill him/her when he/she is informed about the situation. THIS PERSON WILL ALWAYS DO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY RATIONAL DECISION. Again if my opponent cannot provide another rational decision in this case, then Aff clearly wins because I am consuming the Neg's case by not violating one person's life and I am saving more lives. I am not violating life because this person has consented. And my opponent has already agreed that this consent MUST BE RESPECTED. Therefore if a person allows himself to be killed, then it is not an immoral action, it will be moral. So by hypothetical consent, society can assume this because it is the only rational decision. I don't know how many times to say it, but if my opponent does not provide another rational decision, Aff wins. I will spike the means to an end argument because this person will not be used as a means to an end because he has consented and also those five other people will also be used a means to an end. Voting Issues Even if I omitted one of my opponents contentions he still does not win. I have consumed my opponent's case by preserving the one person's autonomy by agreeing to his plea for death. I have also achieved more lives because this person's death results in more lives being saved. There is no violation according to my opponents VC and contention of Categorical Imperative because this person agreed to being killed which is not using him as a tool. Therefore it has no value in this round. Clearly Aff wins because my opponent cannot prove that any rational person will say no to dying for the betterment of society. My opponent has not given an alternative decision under hypothetical consent. Aff achieves autonomy and societal welfare therefore achieving an action that is morally permitted, because there are no violations whatsoev