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

Affirmative "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong." It is because I agree with this quote by Jeremy Bentham that I urge an affirmation of the resolution, Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. For clarity to the Resolution, I pose the following definitions, Morally permissible: conforming to a circumstantial standard of right behavior. Kill: to deprive of life in any manner. Innocent: not causing physical of moral injury; harmless. Save: to rescue from danger or possible harm, injury, or loss. Many: a larger quantitative amount For analysis of the resolution, I pose the following observations. 1. According to the resolution, it is asking if killing an innocent to save the lives of many innocent people is morally permissible, not morally normative. The difference is that a morally permissible action changes to each circumstance while a morally normative action is in a sense absolute and is action that we are obligated to take if faced with the issue. 2. The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action, which would save more lives. Abraham Lincoln once said, "Action and inaction are both conscious choices and are equally praiseworthy or blameworthy if their outcomes are the same." To take Inaction is to cause of the death of a larger group of people, thus inaction is immoral. 3. The resolution implies that all other options for saving every person in the Resolution have been exhausted. The affirmative values moral permissibility since it is the clearest value indicated by the resolution. The value of moral permissibility is upheld by my criterion of moral proportionality. Moral proportionality is defined as the weighing of consequences in determining a morally permissible action. When faced with a moral dilemma in which killing and condemning to death are the only options, the outcome of a specific act ought to be evaluated in determining the permissibility of that action. I have three contentions to further prove the Affirmative side of the Resolution. Contention 1: Positive consequences A) Maximizing the protection of life. On both the affirmative and negative's side of the resolution, some type of life will eventually be lost. To uphold moral proportionality, the action, which yields the greatest amount of life, would ultimately be morally permissible. By killing one innocent, a larger number of people are being saved, thus maximizing the most amount of life possible. By not acting, the negative is condemning a greater number of people to death, thus acting immorally in their decision. For morality to be achieved, protecting life is pinnacle. The affirmative better maximizes the protection of life thus upholding a morally permissible action. B) Reducing negative right violations. Since the negative will eventually lead to a greater loss of life, a larger amount of rights are being violated. Violating the right to life of all these people is the clearest right violation, however it stretches farther. All rights are dependent on the right to life. Without life, it is impossible to do anything. Life is necessary to pursue happiness, own property, speak freely, etc. The negative will ultimately end up in a large amount of deaths, thus a large amount of right violations. By violating these rights, the negative is acting immorally. Therefore, the affirmative better protects the rights of a larger number of people. C) Reducing collateral damage. Essentially, a morally permissible action is one that reduces collateral damage. The affirmative prevents collateral damage from occurring, by killing one innocent person to save many innocent people. For something to be truly right in action, the action must not create widespread death or destruction. The negative ends up with many people dead, which obviously ends with greater collateral damage. To achieve moral permissibility, reduction of collateral damage is essential. D) Utilitarianism. "The greatest good for the greatest number." Ultimately, the greater good should be protected to make an action morally permissible. The affirmative is maximizing the amount of social happiness by saving the greater number of people. Utilitarianism demands that an action should reap the greatest amount of happiness possible. The affirmative in comparison to the negative protects more people thus creating a greater amount of social happiness. John Stuart Mill writes "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness, is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." Mill is saying that moral actions promote the general happiness and reduce pain in society. The more pain that is brought to society, the more immorality is spread. To reduce pain, and thus greater deaths, one sacrifice is necessary. Contention 2: Situational Ethics According to situational ethics, when deciding a moral action, two things are necessary: 1) The action itself and 2) the outcome and consequences of that action. However, situational ethics go further. When faced with a moral dilemma, such as the one implied by the resolution, the outcome should be foremost. Since there will be some amount of death, the permissibility of an action is determined by the outcomes. To save the larger amount of people, killing one innocent is necessary. The negative violates these ethics on the fact of inaction. By not acting, more people will die, which makes it immoral. John Stuart Mill again writes: "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." Life must be saved in this case, according to situational ethics. Since the outcome is much better on the affirmative, situational ethics demand that we take the action of killing one to save the greater number. Contention 3: The Harm Principle According to the Harm Principle, as stated by John Locke and John Stuart Mill, an action is morally permissible if it prevents a greater harm to people and society. Since people are members of a larger society, we must insure the greater protection of it. As individuals, our actions must protect society from a greater harm. Mill writes further: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." By sacrificing the innocent to save more innocent people, a greater harm to society is being avoided, thus making it morally permissible. Thank you and I am now open for cross-examination.