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

Since most of the paragraphs contain the same idea, I will just spend my final round summarizing the round to prove this idea IS morally permissible. 1) There is no moral difference between killing a person and letting a person die. -My most important argument in the final round which I have been trying to stress is that the resolution specifies that when you kill the one, you SAVE the many. In other words, if you were not to kill the one, the many would die. "Killing" could very well be interpreted as not saving. The resolution seems to be a heat of the moment time and you can only save one of the two "groups". This is why I brought up the Spiderman example. Let's just say that you COULD only save one (and you didn't have super powers and a little luck)… which would you save? 2) The choice of who lives and who dies is always morally permissible if you had no choice. -The resolution implies that no choice can be made to save both "groups" of people. Therefore one of them HAS to die (which implies the killing in either situation). My opponent keeps pointing out that killing can never be justified which is NOT true by any means. It isn't true when dealing with self defense (which you kill to save JUST like the resolution), it isn't true in times of war, and it sometimes is even true in death penalty cases. But as far as the resolution goes, killing IS justified (or morally permissible) when one innocent, or many innocent HAS to die. Which would you save? 3) There is only one choice that is not morally permissible. -So I have asked many times "Which would you choose?" Well, there is really only 4 choices (dealing with the Spiderman example (or possibly even the train example from my initial speech))… choice A- TRY to save both of them (which in this resolution doesn't seem very viable); choice B- Kill the one (you may love such as in Spiderman); choice C- Let the group die (and save the one) choice D- Coward out and let both die… Now, the ONLY choice that is wrong is the one that you take no action. The resolution implies that both can not be saved, but saving one and not having a choice in the other one is not wrong. It IS morally permissible to try to save as many people as possible. -Because of these arguments, the resolution is PROVEN to be philosophically true. However, I did say that there were two ways to analyze this resolution which includes realistically. My opponent pushed for some examples that proved that it could be morally permissible. I will, however, provide multiple examples: 1- Spiderman example (cross-applied) 2- Train example (cross-applied) 3- Maximilian Kolbe: --> The story of Maximilian Kolbe is the story where a Polish Priest sacrificed his life in a concentration camp to save one other man who had a whole family that would miss him greatly. Maximilian Kolbe killed himself (one innocent) to save ONLY one other innocent let alone many. Now, not ALL situations will be self induced, but it still shows the idea that one should NOT be considered more than many in almost every example. 4- Made up example that could very well happen. --> Imagine a group of 20 people are in a submarine and a leak begins to happen. The ONLY way to stop the leak is to go into the room where the leak is slowly growing speed (of entrance into the sub). The leak can only be stopped by closing the door and the door is so hard to close that one person has to be on both sides to close the door. You draw straws to determine who does it and in effect, the person is "killed" but everyone else is saved. 5- This example could also be extended to 20 people in a concentration camp who need to escape but the only way to get enough time is to have one of them distract the guards. By the way, these examples are not to be in depth. I understand that you can find loop holes (such as the sub by having 2 people on the safe side of the door.) Just imagine that you couldn't find any other way to do it. When it is in the heat of the moment (such as the sub example) you may have to kill the one to save the many. And when that happens, it is morally permissible. -In the end- Either the one person will die, or the group will die. Either way you look at it, they are being "killed". It doesn't matter if you choose the one over the group or the group over the one (it is difficult sometimes (Spiderman))… All that I know is that whatever you choose, it is morally permissible. When you can't save them all, save as many as possible. You may have to let one die (or kill) but that is morally permissible… So please vote PRO! Thanks for this GREAT debate Derek!