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

A trolly has run out of control and is speeding toward the end of the track where it will then kill all 3 passengers. There is an innocent by stander whom happens to be severely overwight, it is true that if you push this man, he will have enough weight to stop the trolly thus saving 3 innocent lives, however you will be killing him. If you hurl yourself in front of the trolly it will simply tear you apart because you do not weigh enough. What do you do? I will break the arguments up into numbers to easily locate arguments in further rounds. 1) Value/VC arguments 2) Contention 1 arguments 3) Contention 2 arguments 4) Contention 3 arguments 1) A Value of justice is a very good value. But you, like most others i've debated with this value, fail to come through with your definitions when it comes to supporting your case. In LD, your value criterion supports your value. For instance, what your saying with your V/VC is you know you will have justice when your value criterion of utilitarianism is there. Which is false! Utilitarianism will only work if you take individual rights into consideration, in fact, every instance when utilitarianism is wrong is when it DOES NOT take individual rights into consideration. So basically, by choosing this VC you've already hindered yourself in this debate. For example, You can't have 10 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what's for dinner. This is exactly what you're proposing! Your definition of Justice was "giving each his or her due." So by supporting the side of killing this one person and holding that as your value, you're saying it's ok because that innocent person was delt what he was due [...] In what way? How was he due death, when he was innocent and did nothing to anyone? 2) The problem with your first contention is that you are putting a value on life. Life has no value. Unless you can tell me what the value of a human life is, I suggest you drop this contention. You can't provide me with a number because no 2 lives are the same. Because it isn't specfied if these people are wealthy or if they're poor, don't put your "statistical life number" on these people's heads. Even if I was to go on and accept the fact that you're right with this and life has a value, your subpoint D still wouldn't stand. 1) because you can't prove that poeple will only make this much money (no more and no less) and 2) because you don't know the jobs of any of these people. If the three people were bums and drug addicts, and the one person you decide to kill is an all-star professinoal football lineman or the man to find a cure for cancer, than what you're saying is no longer true and it will contradict itself (The utilitarian argument saying save the most, and your subpoint D of doing the best for society). In conclusion, don't place a value on a life. And if you feel compelled to do so, set it at infinate. Therefore, 1 infinate is the same as 5 infinaties. 3) This contention is not true AT ALL. Let's look to the definition, of murder, "kill intentionally and with premeditation." If what your contention tagline says is true, then every witness to a murder would be locked in jail for the crime. INstead they're testifying against the murderer, why? Because they aren't guilty of any crime. 4) Aleady refuted Utilitarianism