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

Definitions Innocent: Innocent: free from legal guilt or fault (Merriam-Webster) Value: Societal Order Justification: Without societal order we would be in what philosopher Thomas Hobbes calls a State of Order, a condition in which we have no government, in the world is in chaos. Hobbes describes it as "…the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man…" This is obviously not desirable as life in this state is as Hobbes so eloquently put it "…nasty, brutish, and short…" In order to advert this unfortunate state of being, we must have societal order. Criterion: Rule of Law Justification: In order for a society to maintain order, it must have a government that makes laws to protect his citizens. John Locke writes "…society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates..." He is speaking of why we have governments, because in a state of nature, one would also have complete freedom. Locke shows why we need government, that is, governments are needed to make and enforce laws to protect life, liberty, and property. The Rule of Law follows from this establishment, and is necessary for Societal Order. Contention 1: My only contention for this debate is that killing an innocent person violates the Rule of Law. Killing an innocent person is murder. Murder is illegal everywhere in the world. There is no way one could commit a legal murder of an innocent person. Violating the law undermines the Rule of Law. If it was morally permissible to violate the law, then the Rule of Law would have no power. A law is powerless if we can make exceptions willy-nilly. In order to uphold the Rule of Law, and Societal Order, one must not kill an innocent person, ever. Going down my opponents case First, his Observations. I accept his first and third observations, and I agree that I must show why inaction is moral, but I don't agree that it is unjust necessarily. I agree with my opponent that Moral Permissibility is an appropriate value, but it is too vague and is better replaced by societal order. As for his criterion, I disagree. As Immanuel Kant said "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found." The consequences have no moral value, it is the intention of the action where the morality lies. For example, a consequentialist point of view would hold that a mugger, who by chance has mugged a would-be suicide bomber and thereby prevented him from killing many people committed a moral action. This is not true. Mugging is not moral, even if by chance good consequences occur. Consequences have no bearing on the actual worth of an action. Contention 1: His first contention links to his criterion, which I just showed to be invalid. Before committing the action, there is no way to know the consequences. If I decide to kill person A because I believe that it will save persons B-R, I am not necessarily saving them. If my attempt fails, all that's happened is the death of an innocent. Consequences are unpredictable, and often accidental, and because of those two aspects cannot have a bearing on the action itself. Contention 2: This again falls victim to my argument that consequences cannot have a bearing on morality. Consequences do not necessarily result because of one's intention, but often in spite of it. Contention 3: Yet again my opponent relies on the false assumption that consequences have a real bearing on morality. They do not and cannot affect the moral worth of an action. Conclusion: As I have shown that the affirmative does not uphold the Rule of Law, and would lead to chaos and other nasty things, you must vote negative.