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

Okay. So Value and VC debate then NC then AC. My opponent uses Morality as the value in this debate. However, morality is very vague in this sense. My opponent uses Kant's ideas of a universal law. However, how do we determine what is the actual universal law? By stating there is a universal law, my opponent is abusing the affirmative ground because if there is a universal law in this debate then there is no way for me to win. So for the sake of debate we must assume that morality is not universal. We must look to societal welfare because moral permissibility is determined by what is best for society. My opponents VC is Kant's Categorical Imperative. This VC is very flawed because it does not prove anything for the negative. First of all Kant's first maxim is turned over as I have stated before because we cannot use universal moral laws in this debate because it skews the round. Kant's second maxim states that humans should not be used as a means to an end. However, in this resolution, it clearly tells us that either one or more people will die. Therefore, Kant's Categorical Imperative does not work for the negative because either way humans will be used as a means to end. The five people that will die by neg's action will be used a means to save the one person. Lastly, Kant is all about giving value to one's life. This value is given through autonomy. Kant is all about autonomy and the Affirmative better achieves autonomy as I will explain later. Therefore, my opponents VC is very flawed and so we must look to Etzioni's golden rule to weigh this round. My opponent does not understand how my case links together. Yes, autonomy is giving freedom to the individual, and the affirmative achieves this by looking at hypothetical consent. Therefore, the golden rule is met because Aff achieves the balance between autonomy and society and that truly determines moral permissibility. Negative Case Contention 1 This is all about Kant. As I have stated before, my opponent does not understand Kant because he does not address how Kant is all about value to life and how this is achieved through autonomy. The second maxim does not say anything because either way humans will be used as a means to an end so my opponent is giving into using let's say 5 people as tools in order to save one. My opponent also cannot say that we must look at deontology because that clearly skews the round because if we do not look at the consequences of the action then there is no way for the affirmative to win because aff's ground is in saving those 5 people. Also, by saying that Negative protects life is logically invalid. By saving one life, you are KILLING 5 other people. Therefore, Negative is indeed not protecting life because 5 lives are being used as a means to an end. My opponent is very flawed in his outlook on morality and it does not link to his VC and Value. B. Again universal law. This cannot be used because it abuses the affirmative ground. Don't look to this. Contention 2 By saying that the morality of an action is not looked at is very flawed. First of all my opponent says we cannot predict the outcome, but clearly my opponent does not realize that a specific situation is given to us in that we do know the consequences of the action. There are more lives at stake and we must look to that also, because as I've stated in order to truly make a moral decision we must look at the cause-and-effect calculus. Deontology is a very abusive argument because it basically says that there is no way for the affirmative to win in this debate because it does not look at what the Affirmative is trying to preserve. Aff Case Contention 1 My opponent does not realize that all my contentions link to each other. So for the sake of time I will summarize all five of my contentions. Do not say I dropped any of them. First of all, C1 states that we must respect consent. Therefore, when someone lets us do something, WE MUST LISTEN TO HIM/HER. My opponent has to concede to this in order for his Kant ideology to work. If he doesn't all his contentions and VC drop. My opponent thinks that this person will not allow the agent to kill him/her. However, my opponent doesn't realize that because as C2 says, under reasoned, informed, and uncoerced situations, NO RATIONAL PERSON WILL SAY NO TO ALLOWING TO KILL HIM/HER. If my opponent cannot prove this wrong, it stands. All my contentions state that we must look at hypothetical consent because in order to make a truly moral decision, one must be informed, uncoerced, and reasoned. So in a situation such as the resolution provided, this person that will be killed is will be coerced so we cannot look here for consent. What I am saying is that society can ASSUME that in a hypothetical situation, a rational person WILL ALWAYS allow the agent to kill him/her for the better of society. Again if my opponent cannot prove this wrong, if he cannot prove that a rational person will not always say this, then Aff wins. This way the Affirmative is achieving autonomy and societal welfare, where as the negative is simply achieving autonomy. The Affirmative covers Neg ground and aff ground and this truly defines moral permissibility. Again don't state that I have dropped any of my contentions because I am summarizing them all because they all link together. Because I have disproven Neg's case and proved that Aff better achieves an action that is morally permissible I urge you to affirm.