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

Today, our society can become confused of what the difference is between being moral and immoral. According to dictionary. com, moral is of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. When you are allowing an innocent person to die I don't feel that that is ever moral. Therefore, I am against the arguement, It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. There are four main reasons why you should vote for the con side. First, it isn't morally right to kill a person even if the results may be good. Second, we don't know the circumstances. Third, how do you choose an innocent person. And lastly, we don't know if the plan will work. Point 1: It is never morally right to kill an innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people even if the results may be good. Let's say a gunman walked into my debate classroom and told my teacher that he had to pick one person to die in the room and everyone else would be saved. Now, imagine yourself as my debate teacher. How would you react to that situation. Can you honestly say that picking a person to die is moral at all. In our society today we look more closely at the results of certain situations, including this one. We look towards the results of the situation and say that it would save a lot of lives to kill this person. However, in the olden days they looked at the situation as, no killing a person is wrong, no matter what the circumstances are. So, no matter what the results of the situation are, it is NEVER moral to kill a person to save many lives. Point 2: We don't know the cirumstances of the situation. In my first point I gave an example but the arguement doesn't say anything. What if in this circumstance there was another way that you could get out of the situation without actually killing an innocent person. So, my opponent can argue and say what if that is the only way? Well, I guess we just don't know. Point 3: How do you possibly choose an innocent person to die? Yesterday at school I was trying to think of what to say in my arguement. I was in Spanish class when I asked a fellow classmate what he would do if he was in the situation. He told me a story of a survey that they did in New York City. The went up to random people and asked them, if you are on a train and a man was volunteering to jump in front of the train to save everyone, which would you rather do. Have the man die or everyone on the train? Almost everyone responded with they would rather have the man die. Now, the asked the same people the same question but with a twist. They said, what if you had to push the man in front of the train. Almost everyone said that they wouldn't push the man. Also, what if the person that you chose to die went on to find the cure for cancer or AIDS? That's why we can't choose a person to die, they may go on to help out the entire world in a MORAL way. Point 4: We don't know if the plan will work. Back to my debate teacher with the gunman example. Let's just say my debate teacher picked me to die and I was immediatly shot. Then, the gunman went on to kill everyone else in the classroom. Well, I guess that sucks. Because we don't know the circumstances, you can't guarantee that killing one innocent person will save many lives. In conclusion, you can't be for the pro arguement because it just doesn't make sense. It is never moral to kill a person even if the results end up being good. And who says that the results may be good? We don't know the circumstances and there may be another way out of the situation. Also, how do you possibly choose a person to die. They could go on to save the entire world in a moral manner.