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

Congratulations, TheLwerd, on making it this far in the tournament undefeated. Thank you, judges, for your analysis, and spectators, if there are any, for your interest. Now, without further ado, let's boogie: *** "I am for those means which will give the greatest good to the greatest number." Because I agree with these words of 16th American President Abraham Lincoln, I espouse it and the PRO side of the resoltuion, which states: IT IS MORALLY PERMISSABLE TO KILL ONE INNOCENT PERSON TO SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE. Before I begin, I offer the following DEFINITIONS to clarify the round: MORALLY: from a moral point of view MORAL: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical PERMISSABLE: that can be permitted; allowable INNOCENT: free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless MANY: constituting or forming a large number All defined by http://www.dictionary.reference.com.... Move with me now to the RESOLUTION ANALYSIS, an explanation and evaluation of the topic: 1. The modifier "innocent" applies to both the "one...person" and the "many...people." Because no quantifying term like "more" or "less" accompanies the term "innocent," we must assume that both the person and the people are equally innocent, not one more than the other. 2. "Innocent" is a relatively vague term. If we believe it to mean "sinless," the resolution has no practical meaning, because, aside from a small number of biblical (or other religious) characters, no one qualifies for the topical analysis. As the PRO, I offer you what I feel is a fair interpretation of the word "innocent" in this resolution: "innocent" means "not having committed any crime or action which warrants punishment by death." 3. The resolution involves the killing of one person to save the lives of more than one person. It must be assumed (to achieve fairness in the round) that the lives saved could not be saved in any other manner than killing the one person (otherwise the PRO would be forced to uphold an indefensible position. 4. The resolution asks us to weigh the results of an action (on the PRO) versus an inaction (on the CON). At the very least, the PRO must justify the death of the one innocent person, and at the very least, the CON must justify the death of the many innocent people. Phew, that was a doozy! With these standards for debate set, we can now move on to CONTENTIONS, the meat and potatoes of the case. My position will be split up into two points: CONTENTION 1: ACTION VERSUS INACTION A. ACTION Let's say that Raymond is upturning Thomas's ocean kayak, thus causing him to drown. The drowning is an example of ACTION, because the result would not be happening without Raymond influencing the situation in the way he is. It is very easy to blame Raymond for Thomas's death, because we SEE Raymond drowning him. B. INACTION Now suppose that instead Thomas is drowning without Raymond's help. His daughter, Jocelyne, is on the shore. Jocelyn is able to save Thomas from drowning. If she were to stay on the shore and not save Thomas, she would be committing INACTION, because the result (Thomas drowning) occurs due to the LACK of influence of Jocelyne. It is more difficult to fault Jocelyne for Thomas's death than it was for Raymond, because she wasn't visibly contributing to the drowning. However, Jocelyne's INACTION is equally blameworthy with Raymond's ACTION, because they are equally responsible for Thomas's drowning. This equality will be very important in the next contention… CONTENTION 2: THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDIN' I will bring up two examples that will demonstrate the validity of the PRO argument. These two scenarios are not my original creations; they come from the book PHILOSOPHY IN PRACTICE by R. Eric Barnes: A. The Town Sheriff "Imagine that there is a town which has been the victim of a series of grizzly murders apparently by the same person. The townspeople are hysterical with fear, and someone has been accused by a number of influential townsfolk. The sheriff knows that the killer has left town and has died, but she cannot convince anyone that this is the case. Everyone is convinced that the accused person is guilty, and there will certainly be riots if the accused is not hanged. The riots in this town invariably result in several deaths of people who are totally innocent of rioting or anything else. The only way to avoid the riots is for the sheriff to hang the innocent accused person. What should the sheriff do?" B. The Country Doctor "Imagine a doctor in a very remote town who has six patients in his care one day. Five of these people are about to die (within a few hours), and one of them is perfectly healthy. The only way that the doctor can save any of these sick patients is to take organs from the healthy patient and perform a transplant. In fact, the doctor can save all five sick patients by using organs from the one healthy patient, who would unfortunately die because of the missing organs. Furthermore, if the doctor does perform the transplants, he is positive that no one will ever find out that it has been done. What should the doctor do?" C. Analysis of These Two Scenarios It may be tempting to sympathize more with the falsely accused or the healthy patient, but rationally we must afford the same courtesy to the non-rioters and the sick patients. INACTION by the Sheriff or the Doctor consigns to death the many people killed in the riots and the five critical patients, respectively, saving one person in each case. ACTION, however, saves "several" and "five" people in the two cases, at the expense of one. The total amount of harm done (lives lost) in each case is smaller when the ACTION (killing the accused/patient) is taken instead of INACTION (not killing the accused/patient). Regardless of the "probability" of these scenarios, the point of the argument is that such situations are not completely impossible - and thus it is beneficial to have a moral decision at the ready. CONCLUSION Abraham Lincoln knew what he was talking about. When we consider that ACTION and INACTION are both conscious choices and are equally praiseworthy/blameworthy if their outcomes are the same, it is easy to see the decision as two ACTIONS: one which leads to the death of one, and one which leads to the death of many. It is a folly not to choose the former ACTION; thus, I support the PRO side of the resolution.