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

No sacrifice short of individual liberty, individual self-respect, and individual enterprise is too great a price to pay for permanent peace." It is because I agree with the words said by Clark H. Minor that I affirm the resolution: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. In my case argument, I will explain why the killing of one innocent person should be permissible in the act to save many other innocent people as well. It is an observance that the resolution does not give an initiative to being able to save the lives of all the people without any imminent danger. It must be assumed that the ultimatum is: kill one or all. There are 3 different key terms that are essential in understanding the resolution. All of these terms are defined by Oxford's English Dictionary. In knowing these terms you will understand the objective of the resolution that will help you understand why to side with the affirmative. Morally Permissible -"an action that is allowed and/or considered "right" by the moral code of conduct set by the society in question". Kill -"to cause the death of…". Innocence -"not intending to cause offence". My Core Value is going to be Sacrifice .Sacrifice is defined as "an act of giving up something one values for the sake of something that is of greater importance". Sacrifice is the value in my argument because it is not just a killing of an innocent person but a sacrifice of a human being to save the lives of innocent others. My Value Criteria is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct". Utilitarianism fits as a criterion in my argument because the action chosen for a group of people in this circumstance should be chosen by what consequence it would have on the majority rather than the smaller group of people which is the minority. My first contention is that it is unethical to kill a whole group of innocent people than killing one innocent person out of that whole group. They say there is an infinite value to human life. Well say there were 3 people and out of that 3 people one person has to die, otherwise the whole group dies. If each human life has 33% value, which would mean the ration of worth would be weighed by 99% as killing all three, those 2 human lives are worth 2 X's the 33% value because you are saving 2 people. So in terms of mathematical logic, it seems more appropriate to save 2 innocent people and kill one innocent person, than killing all 3 innocent people. What's killing 1 out of a 100 than killing all 100? My second contention is that this action is permissible because it benefits the majority of the group. The reason this action of killing is permissible is because of the ideology of my value criteria which is utilitarianism. As I stated before, the basic definition of utilitarianism is the ideal of an action being decided for the majority or a group or society rather than minority. This also ties into my first contention because it raises the question of: ethically, is it permissible to kill an innocent person to save a group of people or to let an entire group of innocent people die. In situational terms it's impossible to avoid the act of killing because if that one innocent doesn't die, then the whole group of innocents ends up dying, so the death of someone is inevitable. It is our moral obligation as humans to save as many innocent people as possible, even if it means having others die. My third and final contention is that it is unethical to save a number of innocent people less than the amount of people being killed. Seeing how the resolution is not only deciphering whether or not killing an innocent person is morally permissible, but its also deciding if allowing an entire group of innocent people to die is permissible. The justified action should be to save a greater number of people so the impact of death isn't a big as having the whole group murdered. I believe that the killing of one innocent person to save the lives of many others is permissible because its unethical to kill a whole group of innocent people than killing one innocent person out of that whole group, this action should be justified because it benefits the majority of the group, and that it is unethical to save a number of innocent people less than the amount of people being killed. After hearing my argument, I believe that knowing the burden of preservation should be the standing point of moral obligation to side with the affirmation. As George Matthew Adams had once said "In this life we get only those things for which we hunt, for which we strive, and for which we are willing to sacrifice".