R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to saves the lives of more innocent people.

"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." It's because that I agree with this quote by Immanuel Kant that I urge a negation of the resolution. "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people." [Topical Observations] For analysis of the resolution I pose the following observations. 1. According to the resolution, it is asking if an action is moral. Morality is normative. Normative is defined as absolute, not relative or circumstantial. Therefore, the affirmative must prove that killing complies with morally normative standards. 2. The resolution implies morality versus necessity. Killing an innocent may be necessary to save more lives, however that does not make it moral. Killing must be proved moral rather then necessary to affirm the resolution. 3. A Logical Fallacy. In a moral dilemma, such as the one posed in the resolution, one immoral outcome does not make the other possible outcome automatically moral. Just because a larger group of people may lose their lives, does not make the action of killing an innocent automatically moral. Under moral criteria, they are both immoral. 4. Logical problem with the definition of innocent. Innocent is defined as being free from the action or intention of moral or legal crimes. With the intention of wanting to kill an innocent to save their own lives, they are not innocent anymore, because they have the intention to kill. Therefore, the affirmative must prove that intending to kill is a moral intention. [Value and Value Criterion] The negative values morality, since it is the clearest value indicated by the resolution. The value of morality is upheld by the criterion of moral normality. Normative morality is defined as being absolute, under the guidelines of set moral criteria. Since killing is an inherently immoral action, it violates the moral norm, which dictates a general morality. [Contentions] To prove my position I would like to offer 1 sole contention. Contention I: Killing violates principles of moral normality. A)Killing is inherently immoral. Killing means taking away the life of another human being. This action is inherently immoral because it is the intentional action of striping away the life of another. From this, you violate all their rights as well. Morality demands that life remain sacred, and that it is not violated. Killing can never be claimed as a moral action, even though how necessary that action might be, that doesn't validate it being moral. B)Deontological Ethics. According to deontology, the morality of an action is by the action itself, not the result of the action. Killing for instance can reap positive results; however that doesn't make it moral. "The ends do not justify the means." There are certain actions that violate the code of morality, no matter what end result is achieved. Killing is one of these. Deontological ethics explain that killing can never be a moral action, because of the very immoral nature it has. Killing an innocent can never be morally permissible for it violates a set standard of what is right and what is wrong. C)The Categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative created by Kant can be broken down into two main maxims. 1."Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law." Essentially, the maxim says that a moral action is one that can be universalized. By claiming that killing is morally permissible to save more people, it should also be able to be morally permissible in any action. This is a fallacy, because killing can never be universalized as a morally permissible action. Univeralization can be equated with the quote: "do unto others as you will have them do unto you." You must universalize the action on yourself. Would the action be morally permissible if you were the innocent being killed? Obviously not. A moral action is one that is the same between all individuals. Since you would not want to be killed, then you cannot claim that killing another innocent is morally permissible. 2."Never act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself." Basically this maxim says that a moral action is one that treats another human being as an end not a means. Killing one innocent to save many people is the means of using a human for another's end. This is immoral because it makes a person a means, just like an inanimate tool. D)Violation of the right to life. A moral action protects an individual's right to life. This right is inalienable and not subject to forfeiture. By killing an innocent, you have violated their given right, and thus is immoral. No one has the right to take away a given intrinsic right for all autonomous individuals. By killing one innocent, you have violated their own human worth and autonomy. A moral action is one that protects every innocent individual's right to life. I'll now refute my opponent's case. Value: morality --> Set Value for the round. Whoever, can uphold morality in it's purest form should ultimately be the winner. Value Criterion: Value of human life --> I agree, to achieve morality, valuing the worth of human life is necessary. "If human life had no value, killing in general would not be wrong or immoral." This statement right here calls for an automatic negation. As you can see from my case presented, I argue that the reason for a negation is because killing can never be moral, as is both of our VC's. Killing may be a necessary way to achieve her VC, but that doesn't make it the intrinsically moral way of doing it. My opponent has agreed that the act of killing is "wrong and immoral." I. Human Worth. Sub A --> My opponent brings up a point system. Essentially saving 3 would give you 15 points instead of 5 (for saving one). Her contention is human worth. I argue that human worth (in terms of morality) is unquantifiable. Essentially my opponent says that human worth is based on numbers rather then the inherent worth itself. you do not achieve human worth this way because each human is equal. I will explain the fallacy in here Sub-B. Sub-B --> Say Person A needs to be killed to save persons B and C. According to Aff's logic, killing A is morally permissible because it upholds the human worth of B and C. Note: Each person has 100% human worth. Now, my opponent is wrong. Saving B and C does not equal 200% human worth. Each human is a separate entity to itself. It is two separate 100%'s. From this we can infer that killing A is not morally permissible because you are denying their human worth of 100% also. Therefore, turn my opponents point against her. II. The preservation of life. --> I agree, however I agree in a different way. I argue that killing to preserve life is a necessity rather then a moral imperative. Killing is not moral, as my opponent has stated. Would it be moral to kill every person with AID's in that it will not spread? More people would probably be saved, but that doesn't make it moral. III. Responsibility --> I argue the same way. It is a responsibility yes, but that doesn't make it moral. The negative is not saying that we should let them die, I am arguing that killing is immoral, which negates the resolution. *Fallacy in opponents case* My opponent wishes to maximize life, and preserve it. But how do we know it will be preserved. E.g. what if Hitler was in the larger group before his rise to power? He would have killed 10 million people. Therefore, killing the larger group would be a reason for the holocaust. So essentially, preserving life is a fallacy in terms of the resolution. The morality of an action ought to be based on the action itself, i.e. killing, not the possible outcome, which might turn out horrible, it s impossible to tell.