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

A final defense of Utilitarianism:In regard to Mill’s Proof of utility, N7 disputes claiming that it commits the fallacy of composition. He is not the first to do so. “Such allegations began to emerge in Mill’s lifetime, shortly after the publication of Utilitarianism, and persisted for well over a century.”(1) It is important to note however that “the tide has been turning in recent discussions.”(1) Necip Fikri Alican’s even wrote an entire book on this entitled, “Mill’s Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill’s Notorious Proof.” Several others have also rejected the claim of fallacy. “Hall and Popkin defend Mill against this accusation pointing out that he begins Chapter Four by asserting that "questions of ultimate ends do not admit of proof, in the ordinary acceptation of the term" and that this is "common to all first principles." According to Hall and Popkin, therefore, Mill does not attempt to "establish that what people do desire is desirable but merely attempts to make the principles acceptable. "The type of "proof" Mill is offering "consists only of some considerations which, Mill thought, might induce an honest and reasonable man to accept utilitarianism."(2) N7 claims that “all I need to do is show that there is another value which we desire.” Utilitarianism covers this. “Virtue, according to the utilitarian doctrine, is not naturally and originally part of the end, but it is capable of becoming so; and in those who love it disinterestedly it has become so, and is desired and cherished, not as a means to happiness, but as a part of their happiness.”(3) Other values that are desired either are because they lead to happiness are included in one’s happiness. This is true of reality, and moral rights. They are valued, insomuch as they are calculated into happiness. N7 rejects my argument that the whole of human experience is sufficient to determine ends. He stated that “My argument shows it is epistemically unsound and therefore impossible to act accordingly.” I maintain that this contention arises when utility is mistakenly taken to be a decision-making procedure rather than what it is. A criterion of what is right. Russel Hardin of the University of Chicago adds to this stating "It should embarrass philosophers that they have ever taken this objection seriously. Parallel considerations in other realms are dismissed with eminently good sense.” (4) I mentioned last round Utilitarianism subscribes to equality. All human lives are equal in value and should be regarded as such. This is why the resolution is easy to affirm. If 1 life = 1 life, then 5 lives is of greater value than 1. N7 states that my conception of equality is “clearly not what we think of when we think of equality.” Sure it is, the difference is what is equal. I have argued that each person is equal and should be counted as such. N7 argues that if the results are unequal this violates equality. This is the typical political debate over equal before the law, or equal opportunity. I am arguing for the former. I responded to the idea of a utility monster to which N7 states that my “point about resources actually demonstrates U monsters do exist. I have a better appreciation for money than Gates, therefore I will gain more happiness from it.” This misunderstands my argument. We see that the $100 would increase your happiness more than Gates, but as you are given more and more, that impact diminishes. This demonstrates that any so called utility monsters diminish as they receive resources and thus the utility monster is not a threat and diminishes quickly. It becomes clear that Utilitarian ethics is a reasonable and effective way to determine morality. In this debate I have provided a moral framework by which to answer the question at hand. I also established a criterion to determine what actions are or are not moral. By following this framework and criteria we can affirm that "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people."A final remark:I want to thank N7 for an exciting and thought provoking debate. This has been excellent. I hope all debates I participate in on this website are as good. Any feedback on this topic or on debate in general is much appreciated. Thanks to all who read. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) Hall, Everett W. (1949). "The 'Proof' of Utility in Bentham and Mill". Ethics 60: 1–18.(3) http://www.utilitarianism.com...(4) Hardin, Russell (May 1990). Morality within the Limits of Reason. University Of Chicago Press. p. 4