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

The moral decision of the judge is to vote con because it prevents massive death (the greatest good) and gives people control over their own lives. Value: Morality. I would like to thank my opponent for defining morality; it is most greatly appreciated! I'll repeat his definition to show I agree because actions speak louder then words. [American Heritage Dictionary] morality is defined as "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." (Value) Criterions: are how you access your value. My criterion upholds morality because it allows individuals "[to be] in accord with standards of right or good conduct," because they are not forced to be part of massive genocides and evil acts to ensure self preservation. My opponent argues people can choose their own morality, but this is only possible if they have power over their own lives – basically without my Criterion his argument becomes mute. My criterion is arguing for individuals – not a singular one that dies – but all that will loose freedom and their lives because of the rationalizations of the affirmative/resolution. I access his criterion of the greatest good better, anyways – my case has already taken his case into account and shows how more people can be affected because of the belief that death can save us. My case proves his criterion where as his only uses logic to say the topic is bias towards the affirmative with this criterion. Observation 1: Extended the agent of action has the direct power to end an individual's life. This power to kill is immoral as my opponent states in his case. Thus, morality is not what the agent of action's actions are based on, they are based on the internal beliefs of the individual or leader which do not have to be moral. The act in the resolution is not required to be moral – only con can uphold morality. Observation 2: Extend permissibly means that a higher power allows the action to be done. Morals are derived from society as a whole. A higher power, not exclusively limited to the government, allows those actions that society accepts and punishes the actions that people believe are wrong. For example – I may believe that it is right to use my fingers when eating my food, my mother (the higher power at the table) does not agree. Only a higher power can determine what is allowed and what is not; an individual cannot. Evaluating the resolution based on internal morality is a terrible idea: 1) The word "permissible" prevents this interpretation 2) Evaluating the resolution under the value of morality is impossible if the judge must determine if the resolution is moral to an individual. A) The judge could vote on their own opinions – making debate pointless B) The pro would always win because they have found an individual that believes it is morally permissible C) Both sides would win the debate because two different individuals could believe that each side is moral 3) There are an infinite number of moral frameworks under this interpretation because anyone can view something as moral for themselves for whatever reason they choose. Extend that my interpretation is key to pro ground (remember, I'm con) Vigilante - any person who takes the law into his or her own hands. They are not allowed by the law because they use their own interpretation to define what it right. Observation 3: Extend the resolution does not specify what the individual's lives are being saved from. His interpretation is abusive because it forces a death vs. more death debate which will end with the affirmative winning. An energy crisis does threaten people's lives through military conflict (death), unconvinced (ask the people in Houston right now), political chaos… His logic is flawed!! Extend the agent of action will use this as a loop hole - my opponent conceded this point – As long as I win there is the possibility for the resolution to be interpreted under my interpretation, a higher power will be able to use this to rationalize their actions, meaning my contention of mass death will happen. Contention One: My opponent agrees Extend the agent of action targets a person that has to die based on some qualifications. Extend this creates a mindset within our society that death is ok as long as we can justify it Extend the majority does not have to win - more people can die then are saved because of the affirmative's rationalization. My opponent's case: C/A Observations 1 & 3 Spiderman chooses to save Mary Jane OVER the people in the cable car – either this proves that a vigilante is an immoral actor or – it proves that people choose their own self preservation over the number of lives saved. Also, he does find a solution that makes NO death occurs – death wasn't, and never is, certain. His logic only proves his interpretation is abusive because the negative must defend the greater of two evils. My case, however, proves that the greater evil is to make death acceptable.