Resolved: It is morally justifiable to take one person's life in order to save that of more lives.

Pro Case Value: Utilitarianism. It has been made clear that Pro is arguing for John Stuart Mill’s definition of Utilitarianism. As per John Stuart Mill’s definition, pleasure is the end sought in morality. [1] So for the purposes of this debate, any reference to “utility” essentially just means pleasure. Now onto Pro’s response to my attacks: “Utilitarianism is the only means by which a society's benefit can be judged because it is, after all and quite frankly, impossible to act in the benefit of everyone. no matter what is done a minority will be ignored.” Utilitarianism - “an act is morally right if and only if that act causes the greatest happiness for the greatest number...” [2] It’s funny you should say it’s impossible to act in the benefit of everyone, because that is exactly what Utilitarianism strives to achieve. Pro has admitted that his own value is impossible to achieve. Additionally, pro has not answered the question I asked in my second attack on his value; “Isn’t utility subjective? What do we do when the utility of one person conflicts with the utility of another?” Pro has also not addressed my third attack on Utilitarianism where I state that this moral philosophy is unjust. Silence is concession, and since pro has not commented on these attacks I have made, I am forced to assume he agrees with them. Value Criterion: Societal Benefit. “Whatever is done in the best interest of society as a whole whether it be for society's preservation or for progress is societal benefit.” A society can not have progress without Human Rights. Furthermore, a society without Human Rights is hardly worth living in. What would be the point of living without freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, the right to not be tortured, etc. The list goes on and on. The point is, there is one very important difference between the pro case and the con case: The pro case wants to preserve society, so essentially they just want to preserve life. The con case seeks to preserve life as well, but by valuing Human Rights I am also seeking to preserve the quality of that life. A human life is more than just biological, therefore the quality of said life should also be taken into account.Contention 1: The value of human life is immeasurable. Pro states that we should look at mankind as a whole, and that whatever is in mankind’s best interest is “moral.” However, that’s as far as pro takes this argument. I’m not seeing a connection to Utilitarianism anywhere. Even if I do agree with this statement, Human Rights is still the superior value. It is obviously in mankind’s best interest to value Human Rights. Contention 2: Really long title. “The negation has misdefined morality as doing what is right or wrong.” Moral - of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior [3] The definition of moral is pretty clear. “the recognition of right and wrong inherently is based in the regards of proceeding consequences” If you’re any form of consequentialist, this is correct. However, I am using the Categorical Imperative (CI) in my case. The CI is derived from Kant’s duty-based Deontology. This is the polar opposite of consequentialism. So no, you cannot say that right and wrong is solely based on consequences. “The negation is immoral because it is counter progressive to society.” How? Throwing Human Rights to the wind is by far a lot more counter productive to society. “To negate this resolution as a result of only considering pathos in this debate would only be the same as to justify mankind's eventual end in exchange for the consideration of the individual life regardless of the value of that particular individual. Yes human rights are important, but without humans to perpetuate those rights they can't exist.” Pro is going down a slippery slope here. I don’t see how at all this pertains to the resolution, or my case. Never was it mentioned or even remotely implied that negating this resolution would cause the extinction of human beings. Con Case Now, to defend my case. Value: Human Rights. Rather than attack my value head-on, pro has simply tried to dismiss the relevance of it. Pro merely states that this debate is focused on society as a whole, as opposed to the individual. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that the debate should be focused on society as opposed to the individual. This is nothing but a bare assertion and can be dismissed as such. My value of Human Rights still stands. Value Criterion: The Categorical Imperative. Pro has not even attempted to refute my ethical framework. In fact, pro’s “attack” can be summed up like this: “My value is better, this one sucks.” Without any valid attacks on my criterion, it stands. Also, this is by far the most important part of my case because it is from here that I derive the negation of the moral permissibility mandated by the resolution. If this criterion stands, then I am the only logical winner of this debate. Contention 1: The resolution fails the test of the Categorical Imperative. Once again, pro is not attacking anything; he is merely dismissing my arguments. With Utilitarianism refuted, the Categorical Imperative, being a moral philosophy, is literally the only way to determine what is and is not morally justified. It is the only way we can look at this resolution. So here’s just a quick recap of the debate and why you should vote con: 1) Pro’s value of Utilitarianism is impossible to achieve. Without a working value of Utilitarianism, pro has no authority to say that something is morally justified. 2) Pro’s Value Criterion of Societal Benefit is narrow. Additionally, my value of Human Rights encompasses societal benefit. 3) Pro’s Contention 1 has no warrant. 4) Pro’s Contention 2 is a very slippery slope. 5) The con case is literally unscathed after pro’s rebuttal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources 1) http://plato.stanford.edu...2) http://plato.stanford.edu... (Found under “Classic Utilitarianism”)3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;