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

I'd like to debate this LD style. I negate the resolution: "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people." I offer the following definitions from American Heritage Dictionary to aid in today's debate: Morally – Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior, of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical. Kill: Deprive of life Innocent: Clear of blame or guilt in a situation, legally blameless Permissible: permitted; allowable My core value for today's debate is morality, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." Every person has the moral obligation that relates to other people, either directly or indirectly involved with him or herself. Immanuel Kant, in his Categorical Imperative, indicated that there is a single moral obligation that is innate and must be observed in all situations and behaviors in order to truly follow moral law. Because this ‘obligation' of every person is innate, Kant stresses the use of "practical reasoning" over any type of decision derived from experience, claiming that practical reasoning is the only way to protect moral obligations. To specify, a moral obligation is a "moral duty towards yourself as well as towards others". The negative upholds this notion by understanding it isn't morally permissible to kill one innocent person because that is contradicting a person's moral duty towards others. My value criterion for today's debate is Kant's Categorical Imperative. This Categorical Imperative, as set by Groundwork, is the standard by against which all moral obligations, or duties, can be judged. Kant mandates three major formulations, including universal law, end in itself and autonomy, be followed in order for a moral maxim to be accepted. As the affirmative, my opponent has the burden to show that killing one innocent person passes through all the formulations in Kant's CI to justify that the act is, indeed, moral. If the act of killing one person to save the lives of many fails to achieve all 3 formulations of the Categorical Imperative, the act cannot be deemed moral and the affirmative cannot achieve the negative's core value, urging a negative ballot. Contention One: the killing of an innocent person in itself is a contradictory idea, conflicting with the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative. An innocent person is, as defined above, is a person free culpability or blame in a situation and is "legally blameless". However, the act of killing, the "deprivation of life", is the deprivation of a basic human right to which every human is entitled. In the case of a criminal, punishment such as killing could be justifiable as punishment. However, since the person is innocent, he or she has done nothing to serve the ‘punishment' to culpability as a criminal might. Since the affirmative advocates ‘punishing' someone who is free from blame by depriving them of their basic right to life, the affirmative fails to achieve the formulation of Universal Law and perfect duty under the CI. The idea of killing an innocent person is, in itself, a contradictory idea. Contention Two: The affirmative world doesn't fit under the third formulation of the Categorical Imperative of autonomy. A maxim can only be considered moral if it passes through the 3 formulations of the CI. The third formulation is the Formulation of Autonomy. Basically, the people creating the maxim must employ a veil of ignorance, where they do not know if they will be the one involved in the situation or not. For example, the person trying to affirm a maxim that advocates the permissibility of stealing must determine whether or not he would be fulfilling his "moral duty" to himself under the core value of morality if he was the victim of the theft or his "moral duty" to others in society if he was the thief. In either instance, the person doesn't fulfill his moral obligation to himself and others and thus, the action cannot be considered immoral. The same concept applies here, in that it is NOT morally permissible to kill one innocent person because to do so would not fulfill the moral obligation to others in society and thus would not fulfill the requirements of a ‘veil of ignorance' in the third formulation. Since advocating the affirmative side isn't moral through the steps laid out in the negative's value criterion of the Categorical Imperative and this criterion is the clearest means to achieve morality, the negative's core value, I can see a negative ballot.