it is morally permissible to kill one innocent life to save more innocent lives

Thanks for the debate! Some clarifications... 1) Nowhere in the resolution nor in R1 was it specified that this was an LD debate, so I do not have to argue it as such (abide by standard LD debate style). 2) Although Pro has introduced a value and a value criterion in R1, he has not yet made any arguments in favor of such. Thus I may begin this debate by offering my own contentions without having to refute any of Pro's points (as he did not elaborate on utalitarianism or total consequentialism other than providing definitions). 3) I'm assuming at this point that there is a mutual understanding of the concept that killing, in general, is wrong (as in morally impermissible). 4) I ask that this debate exclude any blatant ties with religion and hope that my opponent agrees. 5) The resolution assumes that there is no way to save the lives of the other individuals without killing the one innocent individual. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If one understands that killing is immoral, then killing has to always be immoral regardless of the circumstances. For instance, if one defends the immorality of killing by stating that it's wrong because it robs a person of their livelihood, than to say it would be okay to kill someone if [enter reason here] is justified would be hypocritical. Either way, regardless of the circumstance, someone is being robbed of their livelihood which we have already established is immoral. That said, if one was in a position in which a moral decision must be made, he or she would have to consider whom they were answering to. Dismissing the existence of any deities in this debate, it is logical to conclude that one must answer to one's own conscience in terms of this moral decision. In that case, the only morally permissible thing to do would be obliging the fact that killing is wrong, and choose not to act immorally by taking one's life. Assuming that Pro does in fact use total consequentilism in his defense, we must recall his definition of the term - the total net good in the consequence (of the action). If we accept this, we must accept the reality that Pro nor I nor the agent in our example (the one who must make the decision) can ever ultimately know what the consequence of his choice would be. All we do know in this situation is that killing is immoral and therefore killing another individual can not be morally permissible. Permissible, yes, and probably even logical (in this situation). However moral it is not. Further on the idea of consequences, we must take two more important considerations into account. First, I'd like to elaborate on the fact that we cannot be sure of the future or of one's future moral endeavors. Next, it's important to keep in mind that the death of the individuals - whether it's one or several - will not affect the individuals themselves, but rather the loved ones that they leave behind. With my first point, Pro's contention of total consequentialism is dismantled. He might wish to prove that the consequence of saving more than one is greater than the consequence of only saving one, however, there is no way for this to be proven true. Say Pro saves 3 individuals but kills 1. The one he killed may have cured cancer while the 3 he saved may go on to molest children. Therefore the act of saving in itself as a good thing cannot be a factor, unless you want to consider the act of killing in itself to be wrong as a factor too. In that case, the immorality of killing supercedes the consequence of 3 random lives spared. My second point reminds us that these deaths affect the people who are still living; those left behind experience pain at the loss of a loved one. Now let us assume that Persons 1 - 3 have a combined total of 30 people who would be absolutely devastated if they were to pass away. The person who would be killed happens to come from a big family, and is incredibly beloved within the community. As a result, he alone would have a total of 40 people who would be crushed if he were to die. So in this instance, by letting the 3 innocent people die, only 30 people would be seriously affected. By letting 1 innocent person die to spare Persons 1 - 3, 40 people would be inconsolable instead of just 30. If this were the case, we (so to speak) would be ‘better off' letting 3 people die in the place of 1, to spare the feelings and overall mood/negative actions or energy/output of 40 people. Whew. I'll let Pro take over from here...