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

I stand for the affirmative in the case of "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people". I stand for the resolution and feel that it is morally permissible when only the person being killed, which in a different term to have their life put to an end, has agreed to being used in such a manner to save other lives. The scenario the resolution implies will not work for all situations and should not be used for all situations. Societies should not scorn the resolution ideology and consult its use if a situation fits its scenario. My value premise for my case is life. My value premise life is defined as the interval between birth and death. My value premise is life because life is sacred and held important by all individuals. My value criterion for my case is protecting human life. My value criterion is protecting human life because it is morally correct and good to protect life at all cost. My first contention for my case is the importance of preserving human life. My second contention for my case is the value of life. My third contention for my case is the obligation that societies have to protect their citizens at all cost. I would like to define some words that will help my argument for the affirmative: Moral: Pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. Kill: To extinguish. Innocent: Free from legal or specific wrong. Save: To rescue from absolute danger or harm. (1) It is important to preserve human life, if we don't protest human life we are acting with no morals or values at all. The constant continuing of life must come first before anything else. Anything that can be used to protect and allow life to thrive should be used. All human life is precious and should be preserved. It goes without saying that without life you can not live. The resolution clearly clarifies the need to protect human life. It is better to protect the most life at all cost. That is why societies should seek out individuals that willing offer to be used to save the lives of others. We are killing a life because essentially to end a life is to kill. But it is morally permissible because the life being sacrificed has agreed to allow it to happen. (2) We have to value life to truly understand its worth. To say that life is priceless and can not be valued is absurd. It is morally inferior to not quantify life. Applying certain value to human life does not lessen the importance of the life in any matter. If you don't value life than you are unable to respect the life's worth and the human tied to the life. To measure human life in values of greater than or less than actually gives the life its true value. All human life is rated by measuring and weighing their skills and potential. If a society is put in the scenario the resolution implies and the lives in need of saving are of great asset we must save them. Therefore societies should seek out a life of lesser value to the other lives and ask for their assistance in saving the important lives. (3) Societies have a moral and indestructible vow to protect its citizen. Societies maintain armies to protect their citizens from foreign invaders. Societies fund the construct of hospitals to protect their citizens from viruses and harmful injuries. Societies must protect the lives of all its citizens using all the resources in their reach, even if the resource is a human life. If a society stand against the resolution and say that it is not morally permissible to kill one life to save many more lives, the society stands against its only true purpose. Humans come together and build societies to protect themselves and help maintain a lucrative lifestyle that each of the humans could not do by themselves. Societies must achieve the greater good for their citizens. That means to protect their citizens from death, to essentially preserve life. Societies acquire their power from the people. The people must ratify the resolution and stand affirmative for its message. If not the societies ideology stands against protecting its citizens, and inadvertently stands against itself. Society that stands against itself and can not help its citizens is immoral. So the resolution must be consider morally correct because the ideology of the resolution is in rhythm with the ideology of societies. To crystallize my case my, value premise is life. My value criterion is protecting human life. My first contention for is the importance of preserving human life. My second contention is the value of life. My third contention is the obligation that societies have to protect their citizens at all cost.