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

Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society. - Thomas Jefferson. To sacrifice the rights of the few or one to satisfy the needs of the many means sacrificing the very foundation in which America was founded and contradicts the idea of human rights. That is why I strongly oppose the resolution. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. I would like to wish my opponent good luck an thank the judges in advance simply because it seems they are becoming harder and harder to keep returning to judge. To the definitions debate, I agree with my opponents definitions and would like to define a few other word. Innocent - free from moral wrong; without sin; pure Kill - to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay I just wanted to make it clear that the resolution calls for Pro to justify slaying a person free from "moral" wrong. There is no reason other then circumstances. First, let's look at why the idea of killing and morals are contradictory terms in this situation. The fact is, killing of an innocent human being, who has the right to life just as much as any of us and has done no wrong, can never be deemed "morally" allowable. Numerically, yes, the greater number of lives may be saved. But morally you are taking away one person right to life for no justifiable reason other than "the greater good. " It does not seem logical to punish one person in the most extreme form just so that others will live. It is not in any way, shape or form just towards the individual. The rights of one should not be sacrificed for the rights of many. The second we sacrifice the individual's right to life we sacrifice one the principle idea of what this nation was founded upon. That is, the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness my friends. Without life, how can we enjoy liberty and pursue happiness? Now, let's move on to my opponent's arguments. Combine 1 and 2 because they are intertwined by the idea of the numerical advantage that is gained through siding with the Pro. 1. It is without a doubt that there are more lives saved through siding with the Pro. There is no way I can argue that. But the idea of the matter is not how many lives are saved, but whether or not it is morally permissible to allow one to be killed for others. At this point I would like the Pro to draw a clear line between when it is acceptable to sacrifice one innocent person for a group of people. Is morally permissible to allow one to die for 50? Is it still permissible if it only saves 20? What about 10? Or maybe even 2? The question is how much do you consider "many" in the resolution to be? Realistically at some point you are just turning human lives into numbers and statistics and 2. There is a question about whether or not you can claim that this is "philosophically" the right thing to do. According to Immanuel Kant, the only way for the "end" or results of decisions to be justified is whether or not the means met with categorical imperatives (concepts revolving around duty). The means by which the lives are saved in this resolution would be the killing of an innocent person. The act of killing an innocent person is not just and thus, the means (killing) do not justify the ends (saving lives). So you see, philosophically, Pro does not have the advantage of filling that criteria. Off of my opponents 3rd argument, the example a "real world" example. 1. I may not fully understand the depth and detail of this example to where the person on 1 train must be sacrificed to save the 10 on another train, but I think I mildly see what my opponent is saying. I mean no offense when I state this, but it seems to be a rare event that is may or may not require the death of the one to save the many. I would like to provide another example that may be of a frequent occurrence. We are all aware that many people die because they do not receive the necessary transplants in time. Transplants only come from people who have passed on and have willingly offered their organs for the sake of others. Say we have 5 people in need of a transplant. One needs a heart, another needs kidney, 2 of them need new lungs, and the last one needs a liver. In this situation one of the 5 could be sacrificed to provide for the other 4. Each one of them would likely be able to give up their lives for the others but how do you decide who to sacrifice and why? At no point ever will the doctor say "may we kill you so that we can have your organs to save these other people? " It is pretty much not considered at all due to the fact that it violates the hippocratic oath, the idea to do the best to save everyone . So with this fundamental ideas laid out, I want the judges to begin considering their decision and ask these themselves these questions. Is it morally acceptable to kill? Is it morally acceptable to punish some one who has done no wrong? What makes the large number of people any better or worthy of life than the one innocent person? Do not so quickly throw the rights of the individual away for the sake of the crowd, for that in and of itself is the tearing down the idea of democracy. Judges, I find that there is no acceptably moral justification for murdering an innocent person.