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

PRO CASEValue - The pro is valuing Utilitarianism. This value is flawed for a number of reasons:1) It is very vague. There is no clarification on what type of Utilitarianism the pro is valuing. Whether or not he is using Act or Rule Utilitarianism is very important. It’s also important to use a specific philosopher’s Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism strives to provide “utility” for the greater good. However, different philosophers have varying definitions of “utility” so I would ask that pro clarify all of this. 2) Utilitarianism is unachievable. How do we really know that the actions we are taking will be producing the greatest utility for the greatest amount of people? Furthermore, how do we even measure the utility that we are trying to produce? Finally, isn’t utility subjective? What do we do when the utility of one person conflicts with the utility of another?3) Utilitarianism is unjust. If enslaving 10% of our population would benefit the other 90%, it would be morally permissible under Utilitarianism. By subjecting a chunk of the population to a life of hard labor, the other 90% would see an overall increase in their quality of life. Under Utilitarianism, Human Rights do not exist. Human beings are tools to be arbitrarily assessed for their worth and then discarded. Value Criterion - This definitely needs a definition. I won’t touch this until then. Contention 1: My opponent says that the value of human life is immeasurable but this completely goes against what he is arguing in this contention. Pro simply believes that the person being killed may not benefit society and therefore, we can justify killing them. This kind of thinking gives no respect to human beings or their rights. Once again, in pro’s world, human beings are only treated like tools of the society they live in. Contention 2: This contention is really just saying the same thing as the first. Killing one to save many would benefit society. Pro argues that to negate is counter-productive to society and therefore, morally and ethically flawed. Whether or not an action is productive or not has nothing to do with that action being moral. To act morally is to do the right thing, and what is right is determined by an ethical system. My opponent’s ethical framework of Utilitarianism has already been refuted so they really cannot say whether or not anything is or is not morally justifiable. First and foremost, Lincoln-Douglas is a value debate. When voting, the value and the value criterion are of the utmost importance. Without a working value of Utilitarianism, my opponent’s case does not even exist. If I have been successful in refuting Utilitarianism then I am clearly the winner of this debate. CON CASEValue: Human Rights. “Human rights are international norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to engage in political activity.” [1] Value Criterion: Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the standard for determining whether or not something is morally justified. The Categorical Imperative has three parts:1) Always act in such a way that you can wish that your actions become universal law.2) Never treat a person as a means to an end, always treat people as ends.3) Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends. Without the Categorical Imperative, Human Rights do not exist. Contention 1: The resolution fails the test of the Categorical Imperative. By affirming this resolution, my opponent is willing to use people as mere means to achieve an end. By killing one person to save many, pro is placing a very specific value on human life. This is immoral in and of itself. It is never morally permissible to kill a person simply because their death would provide better consequences. Really not much else to say, I suppose. Vote con.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1)http://plato.stanford.edu...