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

I'll present my own case then refute my opponents. I negate: "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people." [Definitions] For clarity I pose the following definitions. 1.Morally permissible: conforming to a normative standard of right and wrong. 2.Innocent: free from the action or intention of moral or legal crimes. [Topical Observations] For analysis of the resolution I pose the following observations. 1.According to the resolution, it is asking if an action is moral. Morality is normative. Normative is defined as absolute, not relative or circumstantial. Therefore, the affirmative must prove that killing complies with morally normative standards. 2.The resolution implies morality versus necessity. Killing an innocent may be necessary to save more lives, however that does not make it moral. Killing must be proved moral rather then a necessity. The negative concedes the idea that it is necessary to save more people, but the negative does not concede the idea that killing an innocent is moral. 3.Morality is achieved on an individual basis not collectively. If morality is dictated by collective needs, then the human worth of each individual is pushed down to nothing. If society adopts a morality based on collective need, then all individuals are threatened by the majority. [Value and Value Criterion] The negative values Morality, since it is the clearest value indicted by the resolution. The value of morality is upheld by the criterion of Maintaining Justice. Justice is a necessary element of morality. Justice requires that society recognize the equal value of each individual life. Killing one innocent to save many, contradicts the societal duty of equality of human worth between all people. Furthermore, protecting individual rights that are guaranteed to each individual is a main component of upholding justice. Undermining the equal worth of each individual undermines justice. [Contentions] To prove my position I would like to offer 2 points of contention. Contention I: Killing one innocent person to save the lives of more people undermines the equal worth of all individuals. For something to be just and moral, the action must be fair and equal. A moral and just society must see each innocent individual as equal. They all have the same human worth. By affirming the resolution the ethical position has been created that one innocent can be killed for the sake of other individuals. This blatantly undermines society's duty to protect and maintain the equal human worth of all people. Jeff McMhan explains that "To kill a person, in contravention of that person's own will, is an egregious failure of respect for the person and his worth. It is to annihilate that which is irreplaceable, to show contempt for that which demands reverence, to assert a spurious authority over one who alone has proper authority over his own life, and to assume a superior position." It is never morally permissible to quantify the amount of human worth to degrade an equally worthy and innocent person. Meaning that morality cannot be achieved based on a sole number; it must be achieved by the human dignity of each individual. All lives are equal, and therefore they must be weighed equally. A)Dehumanization. By killing one innocent to save more people, you have made a person a means to an end. This is dehumanization because the worth of one individual has been reduced to that of an inanimate tool. Humans are ends in themselves, and should not be seen as a means to an end. Immanuel Kant explains "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end. Contention II: John Locke's Social Contract A)Inalienability. Inalienability can be defined as that which can not be forfeited. According to John Locke these rights are: Life, liberty, and property. These three rights cannot be forcefully given up, either by the government taking them away or by another member of society. John Locke explains "All mankind, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions." Any member of society, no matter what the circumstances, does not have the morally permissible right to take these rights away. By killing an innocent you have violated their right to life. From this you have violated all rights, since all rights come from the right to life. B)Protection of individual rights. As individuals we are guaranteed the protection of these 3 inalienable rights. A morally permissible action must defend these rights. The affirmative is condoning the action of right violation of an individual. In a just and moral society this is impermissible because it undermines the very core of a society. The rights we are guaranteed can not be infringed upon by any other member of society. It is the duty we have between each other as members of a society to not directly, and by our own hand violate the rights of another person. This is exactly what the affirmative is doing, and thus is violating morality. Rebuttal: "I argue that it is still morally permissible to kill an innocent to save the lives of many, simply because the survival of our species is now, and has always been the purpose of mankind on earth, and morality itself is constructed around achieving that goal. Human philosophy is always centered around the survival and happiness of humanity. Even religious philosophy is centered around those eventual goals. Arguments arise in the approach to achieving the goal, not the stated goal of happiness and survival of our species itself." --> Ok, my opponent makes the argument of Self-Preservation. I have 3 responses to this: 1. Self-Preservation does not achieve morality on the fact that self-preservation may lead to bad actions, like the one stated in the resolution. If you look further into my opponents case he is affirming the actual destruction of the human race. Everyone looks to preserve themselves. Thus, this right of preservation comes into conflict. E.g. Person A wants to preserve himself. So does person B. Person A feels threatened by Person B, so Person A kills person B. Now, Person C feels threatened by Person A because of the killing of Person B. So, Person C kills person A. 2. The "protection" of humanity cannot be claimed as an argument for the action of degrading humanity. By affirming, you are stripping the human worth of each individual down to nothing. For morality to be achieved, each individual human worth must be protected, not just for the will and protection of the majority. 3. If morality was solely based on self-preservation, then morality would condone dehumanization. The majority would now have the right to oppress their will on the minority. This blatantly contradicts morality. For these reasons I urge a negation. *I'm assuming that my opponents value is morality and his value criterion is self-preservation. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.