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

>>>Please note these dropped points. I have adressed all debated points, and would note that you present no Con arguement. Are you kidding me? Dropped arguments? Is my whole case not about these "dropped arguments?" This is how this is going[...] You- State that because this saves more people, then it is ok to kill the innocent being Me- I bring up point about utility not working unless you consider rights You- Completely ignore that argument and restate what you stated before Me- I bring the point up again and state the fact that you are ignoring the point because you, basically, have no answer for it. You- Ignore the point yet again, and then say I'M THE ONE dropping the argument WHERE IS IT DROPPED? If anything (and i'm not saying it is, just that if there is a drop present then it's this), your inability to go against that argument is the only drop present. So i'll repost the point and allow for you to refute it in the closing round. """"A Value of justice is a very good value. But you, like most others i've debated with this value, fail to come through with your definitions when it comes to supporting your case. In LD, your value criterion supports your value. For instance, what your saying with your V/VC is you know you will have justice when your value criterion of utilitarianism is there. Which is false! Utilitarianism will only work if you take individual rights into consideration, in fact, every instance when utilitarianism is wrong is when it DOES NOT take individual rights into consideration. So basically, by choosing this VC you've already hindered yourself in this debate. For example, You can't have 10 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what's for dinner. This is exactly what you're proposing!""" And as if that wasn't enought, you propose yet another ludacris idea. You state that I have no case. Everything you post is about how killing the innocent is morally permissible because of utility, maximizing total good, life is inherently valuable, etc, right? And you consider that a "case." And everything I post is about how killing the one innocent is not just, it is infringing upon his rights because of a personal view of it being ok, it is murder, etc, YET YOU SAY I HAVE NO CASE??????? How does that work? because you feel I have no value or value criterion? Well first off, to be NEG in LD means to negate the resolution. Meaning, you are the only one who it is MANDATORY to have a value and criiterion for because you have to uphold the resolution. Secondly, I DON'T HAVE TO DEBATE IN LD!!!! You didnt see anywhere that I wanted to debate LD style, and I did not agree to do it even after you tried to. Now, moving onto some arguments that you ACTUALLY HAVE refuted. >>>You said yourself that the actual value of human life is not quantifiable. Human life is of a finite, and significant value. I have demonstrated this, and you have failed to negate this. You are contradicting yourself. How can you state where I'm negating it, then say that I'm not negating it? So, let me define a couple terms. Finite- Having a limit; limited in quantity, degree, or capacity; bounded Infinite- Unlimited or boundless, in time or space; as, infinite duration or distance. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::NOW THAT YOU HAVE THESE DEFINITIONS Lets move to your words::::::::::::::::::::::: >>>You said yourself that the actual value of human life is not quantifiable. Human life is of a finite, and significant value. I have demonstrated this, and you have failed to negate this. I'm saying life's value is infinite, you're saying it's actually finite. Then you say I haven't negated it [....] The simple fact of me saying "The value of human life is equal to the fact that it is unmeasurable. You can't just claim life has a value, but then not say what that value is. If you can not tell me the value of human life, drop this argument. You can't attempt to make human life a giant math problem. If you attempt to, your actions will NEVER be justified." IS REFUTING AND NEGATING YOUR POINT! Moving on.. >>>If a witness to a murder fails to act through moral desicion, not out of fear of consequences or the like, but out of choice, they are indeed responsible for the victim's death. We are speaking about a society, which is not affected by consquences similar to that of the witness, and for all practical resolutional purposes, has complete power. If the witness is responsible, then why do we not hold them to their responsibilities? Why are so many "murderers" allowed to testify against someone else, and then walk free? Maybe because they aren't a murderer at all.... If a patient is sick and has a few months to live, and the doctor has 4 other patients that if they recieve his organs, they will live [....] Is it ok for the doctor to slay the innocent patient in order to save the lives of the other 4? By your VC of utility then it is yes. And in fact, if he doesn't, (by your own words) he is a murderer and should go to jail if he doesn't. Surely you se the flaw in this right? Moving on.... >>>> I am merely demonstrating that utalitarianism is a commonly accepted societal value. Of course it is, Our country (arguably the most powerful, civilized, and just civilization in existance) adopted the idea of it. But what you must understand, as I stated before, is that utility doesn't work if with the vote of the majority, you infringe upon the minorities rights. That's why our government, society, and communities stress individual rights as hard as they do. Examples of when utility has inffringed on the rights of the minority are slavery, the holocaust, and the genocide in darfur. Can you come up with anything good utility has done when they infringe upon the rights of the minority? MINORITY IN THIS SENSE MEANING: The smaller number people/ The voters who didn't win in majority rules (not an actual race of people). ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::BOTTOM LINE IS::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: To know if something is morally permissible or not, you must first understand what morals are. My opponent is confused as to what MORALS actually are. When evaluating morality in an action, morals are based off of good and bad BEHAVIOR. The behavior present in the resolution is either Kill someone, or refuse to kill someone. In seeing this, you realize it is not morally permissible by this criteria. Here's another view of the resolution.. In the situation of the resolution, it is impossible to determine if actions are moral or not by knowing what the consequences are because knowing the future is NOT present nor possible for the person in the actual situation. All he can do is merely speculate what could/should/would happen. The resolution isn't saying if you do this, this will happen. It's more so giving a motive for a crime. Saying, you are doing this...for this (You are killing in order to try to save). It is impossible to prove that you will WITHOUT A DOUBT save those people's lives. For example, Life guards are there TO save.... Surgeons are there TO save.... Policemen are there TO protect and save. But this doesn't mean they will necessarily save you ever time. But that they will TRY to save you. This said[...] You see that if you kill this person, it's possible for the others to not be saved! Leaving you stuck with ALL negatives in the situation. On the other hand, if you do nothing, EVERYTIME, the innocent bystander will always survive. I sit and wait anxiously for your reply