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

It is my first. I apologize up front if my formatting or technique is lacking. Feedback is appreciated. I affirm the resolution that “It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. ” If you ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called “Trolley Problem. ” This problem illustrates an example as implied by the resolution. “There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice? ” (1)I hope this hypothetical proves useful for this debate. Essentially, I am arguing that in the scenario above, it would be morally permissible to pull the lever. Due to morality being referenced in the resolution, it is the core value that should be upheld in this debate. Morality is simply defined as “conforming to the rules of right conduct. ” (2) The central query of the resolution is whether killing one innocent person to save more than one can be conforming to the rules of right conduct. The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utility. Jeremy Bentham explains “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. ” (3) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment or diminish happiness. This resolution in question implies a lesser of two evils scenario, that is to say whether my case or my opponents, the end result is innocent life being lost. Neither scenario of itself will produce happiness due to this circumstantial nature. Thus, we must focus on which case preserves or protects more happiness. It is commonly stated that all men (and women) are created equal. I submit that all human lives are equal in value and should be regarded as such. It follows then that human lives should be weighed equally when making the quantitative comparison between saving one person and more than one person. Since all lives are equal, it is obviously better to save the larger number of lives. Perhaps you have seen the Star Trek movie 'The Wrath of Khan. ' There is a pivotal moment when Spock says "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", in which Kirk replies "or the one. " It is clear that more than one is greater than one. My opponent would have argue the absurd to dispute that. By killing one innocent to save more innocent we protect and preserve more happiness. Thus according to our moral criterion pulling the lever in the trolley situation is morally permissible. It then follows that “It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. ” (1) . https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) . http://www.dictionary.com...(3) . http://plato.stanford.edu...