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

My opponent's resolution is that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. She supports that by contending that every life is equal in value and that therefore three lives (as an example) are worth more than one. She further contends (her Cont 3) that to let a person die is morally equivalent to killing that person. She claims that her resolution forces us to choose between one and many deaths and therefore inaction is the indirect killing of more people. Therefore what she's really contending is not that it is permissible to kill one person to save more but that it is in fact impermissible NOT to do so. It is morally required to kill one to save more. Let us now expand on my opponent's argument and its logical implications. 1. If the life of one is less valuable than the lives of several then the property of one is less valuable than the lives of several (even more so, I suggest). 2. Every day 18,000 children worldwide die of hunger (. http://www.usatoday.com...) 3. Every $10 we spend on a non-necessity (that means food, not shoes, folks! ) is $10 that could be spent on saving a couple (or more, depending on location and exchange rates) of children. By spending that $10, we therefore kill at least a couple of children (as per my opponent's contention 3 - letting someone die is killing them). 4. It follows that a true utilitarian is someone who lives extremely modestly, drives no car. She walks to work/school as owning even a bicycle would mean killing several children. iPods are out of the question. So is a PC (unless it is used for work to generate money to be spent almost entirely on saving starving children). In fact, a true utilitarian is someone who owns virtually nothing of any value, except for a gun. Why a gun? Point 5 follows. 5. The utilitarian has a moral obligation to save starving children. On her way to work, the utilitarian must rob as many people as she possibly can so as to maximise the number of children she saves (therefore minimise the number of children she murders). If confronted by the owner of the property she wants to steal, she must shoot him. That is because his life is less valuable than the lives of the children who she can save by stealing the victim's money. If the victim has money in the bank, she must also kidnap the victim. She must avoid detection and apprehension at all costs. That is because by being arrested she'll no longer be able to save (therefore NOT kill) children. Avoiding arrest may mean killing police officer. But before doing so, she must inquire how many lives he saves. If he saves more than she does then she must not kill him. 6. Utilitarians must be kept alive at all costs. That's because they save lives. Keeping them alive means the greater good for the greater number. It follows therefore that the life of a utilitarian is in fact more valuable than the life of a non-utilitarian. This of course contradicts my opponent's contention 1. 7. In some cases, the utilitarian is committing murder by not kidnapping a financial planner if an opportunity arises. That's because a financial planner could advise the utilitarian how best to utilise the money stolen from the rich so as to save the most lives (and kill less children). For example, instead of robbing the rich man, it might be a better option to kidnap him and make him invest his money in a high-profit scheme, particularly if his money is already in the bank and can't readily be stolen by the utilitarian. He should then be kidnapped and kept in custody so that he can withdraw money and save children whenever the kidnapped financial adviser gives such advice. Not doing so would of course mean choosing a greater evil (less saved kids/more murdered kids). 8. Since the life of a utilitarian is necessarily valued higher than that of a non-utilitarian, it is not necessarily morally permissible to kill one in order to save many. This would depend on the utilitarian value of the one and of the many. In fact, the opposite to the resolution may well be true. For example, we might need to kill 100 non-utilitarians to save one utilitarian of a particularly high income. Imagine Bill Gates being a utilitarian, spending every cent of his income to save (unmurder) dying children. It would be morally necessary (for the greater good) to kill a few thousand (if not more, depending on their own utilitarian value) people if that were the only way to keep Bill Gates alive. That's because he could save all the 18,000 children that die every day and by not keeping him alive, we'd be murdering 18,000 children. Now that's mass murder. It follows therefore that my opponent's resolution is incorrect. It's not permissible (required, as per her Contention 3) to kill one to save many. What is required, however, is to perform a careful mathematical calculation and kill that side of the equation which is of a lesser utilitarian value. Fellow murderers, I urge you to vote Con. ****note that starving children were just an example. In reality, we might choose to not murder adults. However, saving a child might be cheaper than saving an adult (kids eat less) and therefore we'd save more lives if we were to save only children