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

Judges, I intend to just summarize and focus my arguments on the key interpretations of the resolution that I provide and the reason why killing in any way is never morally permissible. 1).There is a MAJOR difference between choosing to not save some one and killing some one out right. By the resolution, one person must be killed in order to save the rest. Now if the resolution had stated that some one must die, then the resolution debate becomes a different shade of gray and would probably fit the Spiderman scenario better. The interpretation of the resolution that I would like the judges to consider is that some one has to make the conscious decision to murder another person, to take an innocent person's life willfully and totally aware of what they are doing, for the sake of saving many other people. 2).Killing in any way, shape or form is immoral and unethical. To take some one's life is the ultimate crime against humanity and can't be taken lightly. Let's consider how we punish people who commit crimes of that nature: A lifetime (or a very substantial length of time to say the least) in prison or the death penalty. The only justification for using the death penalty revolves around the nature of guilt, and seeing as the victim in the scenarios is guilty then the idea of the slaying another person is even more unjustified. I would like to point out my philosophical interpretation of how this scenario should be looked at. The end should never justify the means. The end results, no matter how beneficial they may be, should not be achieved through unethical and immoral practices. Thus saving people at the cost of murdering another person is unjustified and not morally permissible. 3). Put yourself in the shoes of the person who is committing the murder. If this deed were "morally permissible" why is it that you are often times very likely to be haunted by the fact that you had to plunge the knife in to the person, or unplug the cord, or fire the gun or any other means by which you willfully take the life of another person. Even if it is for the sake of many people, the idea that many people who claim to have morals are wrought with guilt over the decision means that it must not be very ethical. Also, if it was morally permissible, why is it that it seems like it would be a difficult decision to make? I think that is because of the fact that by taking some one's life that there is no going back from that point. The person is dead and nothing in modern science today can hope to change that fact. 4). The examples debate. If I have the space, I will attempt to show you how all the examples provided in this debate are not morally permissible. A. Spiderman. I have argued this in the above arguments so I will skip this. B. Train example. Let's assume that it's based on the idea of 2 trains about to collide and let's say you have to decide. Is it morally permissible to purposefully derail the train so that the group or one person would live? The decision has to be made but that does not make it morally permissible. Like I have stated before, to purposefully cause the death of those people means that you murdered them, plain and simple. You will likely have to go a series of motions explaining your actions and it is questionable whether you would be let free to go, little alone unaffected by the incident. Think about the families who would lose valued members. If it where morally permissible, then you would think that they would be content with knowing that you choose to kill their family member over some one else. This is often times not the case. C. Maximilian Kolbe example. I find this to be flawed in the fact that he took his own life instead of willfully choosing to kill some one else. It comes down to the matter of rights at this point. Kolbe had the right to life and he was in control of his own right, where as the innocent person that would be killed in other examples did not have any choice in the matter. I would also like to point out that suicide is often times looked down upon, especially by the Catholic Church so logically it must not be "morally permissible." D. Transplant example. This would should be rather straight forward in that it is the perfect example where everyone would die with out new organs in the scenario unless one of the group was killed and his/her organs given to the others. Seeing as doctors never do this for the sake of other patients, it must not be morally permissible to do. E. Submarine example. The problem with this example is that the straws were drawn and if you didn't want to go along with the idea then you probably wouldn't have drawn it, thus there is still the factor of choice as well as the person must give their life for the rest. This sort of doesn't fit the definition of the resolution for the person to be killed simply because the person has choice and willingly gives up his life for the crew. So my points revolve around these things: 1. The person involved has no choice in the matter at all, which rules out suicide for a cause or person(s). 2. The resolution calls for killing of a person and murder is never justified morally, no matter what the reasons. 3. Everyone has the rights to life and to choice and no one has any right to take that away from some one. Taking the right to life and choice away from some one is never morally justified or even permissible. So judges, you have to see that even though good may come out of the situation, murder in and of itself is never justified and is not permissible in the moral sense. Murder in this situation maybe logically justified as my opponent tries to argue, but in the MORAL sense you have to see that it will never be permissible. Thanks for the good debate Luke, Good luck if you advance and thank you judges for your time.