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

Okay, so I'm a novice LD debater and after finishing debating this topic, I decided to try it out on here. Here I go! It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. First I offer the following definitions: Morally permissible is defined in Ethics in the First Person, Deni Elliott, professor at Montana University. "A moral system differentiates among behaviors that are morally prohibited, those that are morally permitted, those that are morally required, and those that are morally encouraged…Permitted means behavior that is within the bounds of the moral system. What is morally permissible is what is in a way morally indifferent, and it is the subject of legitimate freedom, while what is morally impermissible can absolutely not be tolerated and its tolerance (by others) would mean abandoning the basic principle of moral evaluation in oneself." Something that is morally permissible can be considered distasteful or disagreeable but is still considered moral. In order to be permissible, we must look at the circumstances that surround the action and determine if they influence the action taken. The resolution creates a situation in which lives will be taken on both sides. Thus, the morally permissible action is the action that harms the least. Affirming does this and saves more lives. Observation 1: The resolution forces us to choose between one life or many lives. There is no other option. Innocent is defined by merriam-webster.com dictionary innocent as: "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil". Kill is defined by wordnet.princeton.edu as: "to cause the death of". My value for this round is social good, defined by investopedia.com terms as a "service that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way". The best way to achieve this is through the criterion is utilitarianism, defined by Jeremy Bentham as "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". People will die either way. The lesser of two evils must be chosen through utilitarianism to achieve social good. Contention 1 In utilitarianism, everyone is equal. www.utilitarian.org utility "This means that we reject egoism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and other forms of unfair discrimination. It does not mean that we deny that there are differences between individuals or between groups of individuals (some individuals are cleverer, taller, stronger, more emotional etc than others), just that there is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a difference in ability justifies any difference in the consideration we give to their interests." Each person is treated the same no matter the differences between them in utilitarianism. Because each person is considered to be worth the same amount, a single life, three lives are worth more than one life. In the resolution you are given the choice between saving one life or many lives. To achieve the criterion, you would choose many lives, thus having the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Contention 2 Utilitarianism saves more lives. Eric Rakowski, Taking and Saving Lives. Columbia Law Review, page 1071 "Killing somebody in a way that makes him a direct instrument for saving one or more persons is permissible. The number of lives saved or the good achieved has to be very much greater than using somebody as the means of killing him. Achieving some worthy goal in a way that will inevitably, regrettably, but inessentially harm somebody is less bad. Regardless of its vice, the action is necessary and preferred over not doing anything at all." Here they are referring to teleology, in which the ends justify the means to the ends. The action of killing someone is balanced out against the fact that it brought about a greater good. Thus, utilitarianism is the best way to go, in order to achieve social good. Contention 3 There is no moral difference between killing and allowing someone to die. Eric Rakowski, Taking and Saving Lives. Columbia Law Review, page 1096 "Strangling innocent enemy children with one's bare hands to induce surrender might seem more horrible than dropping bombs on babies from several miles in the air, but the evil of the two actions is, if not equivalent, then nearly so. Whether you do it directly, or indirectly, the babies are still dying." Because the resolution forces us to choose between either one death or many deaths, inaction is technically not a third option, because indirectly, you are allowing more people to die. My criterion is utilitarianism and thus, to take action to save more people would support that.