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

AFF/NEG/VOTERS CV: I cannot see, how in a resolution that asks the moral permissibility of something we cannot evaluate it off of what is the most moral... As for the Point regarding the universal law this is being entirely misunderstood. Kant's Idea on the universal law are as follows QUOTE"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."" QUOTE (Kant) Because The attacks must be seen to be invalidated this must stand. So therefore this debate must be evaluated in terms of IT IS ALWAYS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE TO KILL ONE INNOCENT PERSON to SAVE MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE. So In order for my opponent to win he must prove that it is ALWAYS permissible. My opponent claims that Societal welfare encompasses morality, and that morality is vague. I agree with the latter but that is why a offered Kant to clarify morality for this debate. That is the purpose of a value criterion, and if you are going to say that Morality is vague you must also say societal welfare is vague. We do not know what society, what is best for that society so therefore if Morality is seen to be vague as is societal welfare. Concerning the point that societal welfare encompasses morality it can be seen that my opponent has this backwards. Morality encompasses all and is what the resolution is specifically asking. There can no question about the latter becuase the resolution uses the term Morally Permissible. VC: I have already proven the misunderstanding of the universal law idea but i would like to clarify something. As I said in my opponing case, all Acts are Intrinsically Moral/immoral. That is a simple idea and killing is indeed an immoral act. The idea of circumstantial morality is completely outside the resolution. if you look to the resolution you will see it is the Burden of the affirmative to prove that is IS morally permissible, No circumstances are given so therefore it must be assumed that the AFF must prove that it is always Morally permissible. If he cannot, becuase of the resolution he will lose the round, that is pretty simple. My opponent also seems to misinterpret the resolution he has given. Now for this Resolution and what my opponent has established is the trolly problem. if five people on tied to one side of a track and the train is heading towards them should we switch the track of the train and KILL one person as opposed to let the train run its course. Now as you can see allowing the five to die is not using them as a means but killing the one is, we are taking his life and everything he has worked for for others. Now for My opponents criterion. He claims that Etzioni is balancing society and autonomy and this is only upheld by the Aff. However his justification for this is hypothetical consent. As I said in my first contention and was not refuted All humans are rational beings. Now my opponent justifies hypothetical consent by saying that any rational being would allow themselves to be killed. Now I can refute my opponents entire case right now. I WILL NOT CONSENT TO BEING KILLED TO SAVE OTHERS. I am Human, therefore am rational and I said I don't consent to being killed in this manner. Therefore hypothetical consent CANNOT exist and so we must look to KANT to Evaluate Morality. AFF case My opponent places his burden of '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." Now If you remember I said I would not consent, I am Human and therefore am rational. So It can be seen that all rational people would consent. Also assume for a moment that not everyone is rational. because of the nature of the resolution we do not know if the one is a rational person therefore hypothetical consent cannot exist. I have Given two alternatives as to why hypothetical consent cannot exist so therefore I have disproved the burden. The rational choice is whatever the agent being killed decides, but it is not morally permissible to force the choice upon him. Also assuming he has consented is outside the parameters of this debate so therefore my Opponents case is invalid because it relies on a invalid principle. So therefore AFF, because hypothetical consent does not exist would be using human life as a means to an end AND not respecting his Autonomy. NEG Case First of all, it is agreed that killing an innocent person is immoral. And as my opponent stated we do not know the indirect consequences. because these consequences remain unknown it is not Moral or logical to act upon SOME of the consequences. So we must instead look to the morality of the action. The Only outcome known is one, however the effect will spread and have 10,000 consequences. So Aff says we should look to 1 consequence and forsake the 9,999 others. I have already covered the universal law point many times. Voters CV: Morality--This is the obvious Core Value so we must evaluate off of it. BOTH VC Kant/Etzioni both look to autonomy as my opponent says. I have proven that Aff does not respect Autonomy so therefore I uphold my opponents Criterion better than he does. As for Kant, Aff uses Life as a means to an end,evaluated off of unforeseen consequence and does not respect autonomy all of which NEG does. So Judging of either criterion NEG should win. Now my opponents Primary issue is hypothetical consent. I have proven this to be a false concept so therefore it cannot be voted on. Therefore I make the point regarding Autonomy a voting issue. Neg Clearly respects Autonomy by not forcing anything upon the agent. Aff does not respect autonomy because he is making a decision for the agent, which dis-respects Autonomy. Thanks to anyone and everyone who read this debate and an extra thanks to my Opponent for making such a good debate.