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

I will start by presenting my case and then attacking my oppenents case. ----------------- In affirming the resolution, pro and the judge will rationalize the death of an individual or individuals in the name of the "greater good." With the idea that death protects us and is morally permissible for our survival, government leaders or other leaders will be able to use this resolution as a smoke screen to justify any of their actions that lead to death. Value: Morality Criterion: Keeping power over our own lives so that we do not have to be at the will of a higher institution. Observation 1: Kill – to deprive of life; to put to death THUS, THE ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION ENDS THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE THE AGENT OF ACTION RATIONALIZES THAT IT IS NECESSARY Observation 2: Morally permissible – allowed due to standards of right behavior THUS, THE AGENT OF ACTION IN THE RESOLUTION MUST INVOLVE A HIGHER POWER, SUCH AS A GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE THE WORD PERMISSIBLE IS DEFINED AS ALLOWED. THE WORD ALLOWED IMPLIES A HIGHER POWER CONDONING IT. Observation 3: The resolution states "to save the lives" – It does not say what the lives are being saved from. THEIR LIVES COULD BE IN IMMEDIATE DANGER OF EXTINCTION BUT THEY COULD ALSO NEED SAVING FROM AN "ENERGY CRISIS", "A RADICAL REVOLUTIONARY", OR "AN ECONOMIC CRISIS" THAT A DEATH WOULD BE ABLE TO SAVE. THE AFFIRMATIVE DOES NOT EVEN HAVE TO CLAIM THIS RATIONALIZATION TO BE VOTED DOWN; GOVERNMENTS WILL CHOOSE TO USE THIS RESOLUTION IN THIS WAY BECAUSE HUMANS NEED TO RATIONALIZE THEIR ACTIONS. Observation 4: I only try to use examples to prove my point, not impose hierarchy Contention 1: Mass Death The government can choose any individual that "needs to die." This can be based off race, class, religion, or any factor that makes the individual undesirable to the higher power(s). This mindset quickly spills over to ever area of life: EXAMPLE – the government decides a poor person is a burden to the society so his death will prevent us from starving and being given a disease and having our money stolen by him. There is no escape from the target – a man cannot change his race, can't magically get rich, or change any other factor governments can use to discriminate. The worst part is the majority doesn't have to win – the institution in power will win. Take for example if the higher institution ‘needs' to save 40 people's lives. The higher power kills a "crazy poor man" to save their lives. This, according to the resolution, would be morally permissible. They then repeated this action 4 hundred thousand times – or whatever number they choose. They would be using this resolution to justify their actions: they did nothing wrong. They only "kill[ed] one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people." AT: My opponent does not uphold morality because taking the lives of individuals and the massive amount of death pro causes is immoral AT: My opponent does not access my criterion because he is not discussing individual's power over their own lives – and only reinstates a higher institution as being the supreme power AT: Contention 1 1) C/A observation 2 - resolution 2) He makes no connection between "wrong[s] [being] done to one who consents" and the resolution – this contention is entirely useless 3) The resolution does NOT state that the agent of action will RESPECT people rights to self government/independence; autonomy - "independence" - and being part of a social order (government, society) contradict greatly. As my case explains – allowing a higher power to kill members of society as they see fit destroys huge amounts – if not all – independence within society 4) Now evidence is given that the individuals will consent to their deaths; self sacrifice cannot be assumed 5) It is impossible to know if consent is given by the individual 6) IT is impossible to know the level of what the individual consent to – even if a few individuals consent to their personal sacrifice, they may not consent the outcomes (often unknown) of their actions. Thus, wrong is done upon that individual. (Harvard Law Review. http://www.jstor.org...) 7) Victimless crimes prove the law of society (a higher power) is not based on individual consent – obviously people have given themselves permission to take illegal drugs, walk around naked, and speed in traffic situations 8) Some higher powers do not give certain people the right to give their consent – thus, consent cannot be given with every individual, limiting the topic and making for an unfair debate. (http://www.associatedcontent.com...) 9) Causing some one pain is illegal in very rare instances (only when someone has too much money and sues someone else for annoying them) where as homicide is illegal in most cases (exceptions http://www.nolo.com...), and the exceptions are not based of consent 10) My contention upholds "the greatest good" as the least number of people will have to die – there is no reason to make people feel obligated to sacrifice their lives AT: Contention 2 1) This contention is only defensive – it only explains exceptions to the first 2) It is precisely this justification of "innocent people who threaten others" that leads to the mass death explain in my contention. The agent of action will abuse this power in an immoral way. 3) The decision maker must look to more options then simple death vs. death 4) The resolution does not talk about guilty parties – simple the choice between an innocent individuals lives (Enemies of the Nazis) and the innocent masses (German citizens – to explain with your example…) 5) TURN: A higher power/leader (pope) cannot even be justified in killing an innocent person without loosing respect. This argument negates his ENTIRE case (the pro side) because it shows it is inherently not allowed/respected/permissible to kill or threaten to kill another individual a. The resolution does not talk about killing the person threatening/killing individuals: obviously the person committing homicide is not innocent 6) He states no connection between respect and morally permissible 7) Everything – eating for example – threatens our lives but such an action is not seen as just as bad as killing an individual 8) A person that intentionally kills an individual is not innocent AT: Contention 3 Example[] you offer [is] flawed - 9/11: 1) The terrorist high jacking the airplane are not innocent, under his definition. The resolution is not concerned with killing evil/non-innocent people. 2) Everyone on the plane is not certain to die – the people on the plane could take control of the plane or at least divert its path from running into more harm; the assumption that death is inevitable only leads to more unnecessary death. 3) My observation 3 states that the resolution does not force a death vs. death mindset – reinstating this in an example is only another may pro tries to reinforce the necessity of death in society 4) Repercussions following the decision will happen now matter what: America would still go to war with the country/group responsible. 5) The effects of the action of making death necessary can be worse then the action of stopping the event – C/A my contention 6) The best way to prevent such a scenario is to stop the terrorist/guilty party from forcing such a decision in society – allowing the mindset that we can stop a problem once it arises leads to more deaths then were necessary 7) There are more options between destroying the plane and letting it ram into a building. The act of binary thinking in problems makes us assume that killing individuals in life is inevitable – it is not. There are always multiple ways to solve a problem 8) Inaction is what Pro accepted before such an incident arouse because they did not prevent such a