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

Introduction: September/October 2008 LD Topic. Opponent agrees to a modified LD style debate (no crossex). For those not familiar, LD style is as follows: Affimative Constructive (Round 1 Pro) Cross Ex (Skipped) Negative Constructive + Rebuttal (Round 1 Con) Cross Ex (Skipped) First Affirmative Rebuttal (Round 2 Pro) Negative Rebuttal (Round 2 Con) Second Affirmative Rebuttal (Round 3 Pro) Thus the Round 3 Con should be blank. Cases must have a value and value criterion and must support them with their cases. Last rebuttal for each side typically includes Key Voting Issues (key reasons they feel they should win). IF THE CON DOES NOT PROVIDE VALUE OR VALUE CRITERION THEY SHALL FORFEIT. IF THE CON POSTS A THIRD ROUND REBUTTAL THEY SHALL FORFEIT. Case: "Anticonsequentialists point to the inhumanity of people who will sanction killing of the innocent, but cannot the compliment be returned by greater inhumanity, conjoined with evasiveness, of those who will allow even more death and misery and then excuse themselves on the ground that they did not intend the death but merely forbore to prevent it?" - Kai Nielson Professor of Philosophy, University of Calgary Because I believe consequentialism is the key to morality, I must affirm today's resolution, "Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people" V – Morality Morality is defined as "normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons" by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Because the resolution specifies "morally permissible" morality must be the value of today. V/C – Consequentialism There are two ways to determine whether an action is moral, deontology and consequentialism. Under consequentialism "whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act" (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). I will show throughout my case that consequentialism is the only way to achieve morality. Definitions (sourced from Merriam-Webster dictionary): Permissible – that [which] may be permitted Innocent - free from legal guilt or fault Observation 1: The affirmative does not have to prove that in every situation killing one person to save the lives of more innocent people is morally correct. The affirmative burden to to affirm the resolution as a general principal. Contention 1: Consequentialist thinking is key to achieving morality. The only alternative to consequentialism is that of deontology. Deontology holds that "choices cannot be justified by their effects — that no matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) This is quite ridiculous. Let us take the case of the innocent fat man referenced in the book "Absolutism and its consequentialist critics". In this situation, a group of people go into a cave. A large fat man is last in. He blocks the entrance. Nobody can get out and the cave starts flooding. Either they can kill the fat man and leave, or they can all drown and not kill anyone. Under deontology killing is never permitted, no matter what the outcome. Under consequentialism, the outcome of more people being saved outweighs the outcome of everyone dying to not kill someone. I think the choice is quite obvious what should be done. While this may seem morally callous, Kai Nielson (Professor of Philosophy, University of Calgary) says it is not so: "This does not reveal a callousness toward life, for the people are caught in a desperate situation in which, if extreme action is not taken, many lives will be lost and far greater misery will obtain." Under consequentialism this resolution is fairly cut and dry. The consequence of killing an innocent person in this resolution is to save more innocent people. Thus the consequence of not killing that innocent person is to take the lives of more innocent people. References: Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy: Consequentialism http://plato.stanford.edu... The Definition of Morality http://plato.stanford.edu... Deontological Ethics http://plato.stanford.edu... Merriam Webster Online: Permissible http://www.merriam-webster.com... Innocent http://www.merriam-webster.com... Kai Nielsen - Absolutism and Its Consequentialist Critics