It is morrally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other......

I would like to begin this round by reminding the voters of some key statements that I made that went unattested by my opponent. "The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives." "A morally permissible action changes to each circumstance." and "The resolution implies that all other options have been exhausted." First of all my opponent failed to prove that inaction isn't wrong. I will again address this later. Second, my opponent failed to address my circumstancial justice statement and this will also come into play later. Third, because my opponent excepts that all other options have been exausted he must agree that this includes the possibility that the many will survive if you do not kill the one. Chance has no factor in this debate. Simply because it is unreliable. Now on to my opponents statements. He begins with an example story. First of all the resolution defines all parties in this debate as innocent. Thus if the "fat" man were to not be willing to give up his life then he would be selfish and that story would not apply to the resolution. Next is the fact that the one person to be sacrificed could very well be in the trolley and would thus die due to non-action anyway. All in all, a realistic example isn't practical in this debate due to the excessive variables. So allow me to pose a more efficient one. You have three innocent people. An unknown cause is about to surely kill two of them and possibly the third. The only way to save the lives of the two is to kill the third. If the third is killed the two WILL survive. The resolution states "in order to save the lives..." not "to possibly save the lives..." thus someone WILL die in this situation. For the rest of this debate I will use this most appropriate idealogical example. I will dispose of my opponent's definition of morality and provide a more accurate one. Morality is the distinction between good and evil when evil is present in all choices. Thus the moral choice is the one that presents the most good and/or the least evil. My opponent uses the idea of the ends do not justify the means. This is false. As I have proved. No matter what means are used, there is some negative result in the given situation. Since morality is as I have defined it, the best of the choices despite the means, we must agree that killing the one to save the many is the morally justified path. My opponent made this statement: "He did not put the few people in the position to lose their lives, so he is not the one responsible." My opponent hasn't thought this situation through. The resolution as I have defined it dictates that the person making the desision has a definite ability to save the many soley through the means of killing the one. This ability, acording to popular belief, unquestionably puts the decider in a position of RESPONSIBILITY to make the right desision. For example, it is US federal law that anyone who is a "certified Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) must act to save the life of anyone in danger of losing it through a medical need that that individual has the ability to fulfill." Why does the federal government require this? Because the person has an ability to do the right thing and is thus expected to do it as the morilly justified reasoning. In the words of French President Nicholas Sarcozy, "When an individual has the knowledge of a situation in which he or she has the ability to assist another and chooses to be innactive, they have commited a vile offence against hummanity." Basically, if you don't choose to kill the one to save the many then you might as well be thrusting a rusty knife into the hearts of those you chose not to save. Innaction is an action in an of itself and everyone is resoponsible for the consequences of their own innaction. He attacks my first contention by saying that utilitairanism in this situation is not looking at individual rights and to this I say that it is looking to individual rights. When we kill the one to save the many we value the individual rights of each and every one of that group. While the rights of the one are valuable, they are not above in value to the combined individual rights of the group. Because of this Utilitarianism still stands to prove my case as the better of the two. He uses Nazi Germany as an example. May I remind you that Nazi Germany is not an innocent entity and thus the problems that arise from such a situation do not apply to this debate. As the resolution implies, all parties in this situation are innocent and are equal when compared as individuals. "INACTION VS MURDER. Is it hard to pick the more evil of the two?" No it is not hard. Since the MURDER is the perfectly moral SACRIFICE. And since INACTION is equal to MASS MURDER as I have proved then the equation is this: MASS MURDER VS NECCESSARY SACRIFICE and NECCESSARY SACRIFICE is the obvious choice. As I have proven, witnessing a death when you could have prevented it is murder. Thus my opponent's next attack falls through. Now for his 'Bottom Line' Yes behavior is morals. Either behave to kill many or only one. The choice that produces the best behavior and thus the moral choice is to only kill one. It is not 'knowing the future' as my opponent states, but simply this. The resolution tells the consequences and thus we must act accordingly (refer you to my definition of the resolution). The resolution does not say killing to try to save. It says killing to save. Thus the definite result of killing the one is the salvation of the group. He gives examples but they are reallistic and contain to many variables. If we go with my perfect situation for the resolution then we see that the ability is not in question. That said..... There is no way for the decider to end up with a double negative result. Because of these infalible arguments I urge all those who vote to do so in my favor. thank you, I now wait to see what my opponent can come up with to deflect my attacks.