Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent

First off I would like to thank lhsdebate for making this debate and second I must state that I am taking the position of devil's advocate and the views and comments stated in this debate do not represent who I really am. Now that that's done with to the issues!!!!!!!!! First I would like to add a few more definitions for moral and permissible Moral 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. 2. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 3. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. Permissible 1. that may be permitted especially as according to rule 2. that may be accepted or conceded With these new definitions and some of yours it can also be determined that morally permissible means: permitting certain acts based on the rules you use to guide your life and decide your conduct aka your morals. Now to your first argument: "1st argument: Killing anyone will never be moral no matter how you look at it. Killing can never be justified nor ok. Even if it is the right thing to do it isn't moral. Most of us probably would kill that 1 person but that doesn't make ok or moral." As you can see my opponent stated that killing would never be moral but then stated that it could be the right thing to do. That is a contradiction seeing as doing the right thing is based on principles an aspect of morals. Also here's a direct quote from your list of definitions: "Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation." And as I see it it would be wrong to just watch when you can save someone because you wouldn't be fulfilling your moral obligation. In fact you wouldn't even be in the middle you would be the exact opposite of moral immoral because you have an obligation to do what's right even if you don't like it and not doing what's right just to satisfy your selfish need to feel good about yourself for not giving the decision to end a life while saving two others. Saving as many people as possible that is the right thing that is the moral thing. As for the second argument: "2nd argument: To say that killing someone to save more people is morally permissible is devaluing life. A price can never be put on life, so killing 1 to save 2 or more is still not right." Says you that's like saying that one person is more important than an entire nation. Here's a hypothetical situation: a fugitive from another country who will be sentenced to death if caught has come to your country and you catch him. His country finds out and demands that you return him and if you don't you risk starting war that would cost countless lives. Are you saying you would protect him? Whether or not we want to admit it you can put a price on every life. Even if you want to say we are all equal to each other that just means two people are worth more than one end of subject. Killing is the right and moral thing to do in certain situations and that's all there is to it. (And with that I'll throw it back to lhsdebate for his response)