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

Throughout N7"s last round, he kept saying "unity" rather than "utility." Just in case there is confusion, I am arguing based on utility not unity. N7 stated that I have not provided any evidence or argument that would lead to acceptance of utility. I will do so. It is worth noting that N7 has not recommended an alternative moral philosophy. This is troubling because even if Utilitarianism is found to be imperfect, it is the only moral framework presented. I would expect an alternate would be presented if he expects us to throw out Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it" No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness" we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good: that each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons." Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire and thus, it is an appealing moral philosophy. However, not all pleasure is equal. That is to say, some pleasures are of more value than others. As the famous saying goes, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied: better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."(1) N7 asked "How could we possibly know which actions have a tendency to bring about more unity and which don't?" Whether this is a question about time to make the utility calculation, or questioning if we can know the ends of an action the answer is the same. Again I quote John Stuart Mill "There has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species." (1) Based on all of human history and experience, we can with great accuracy determine the ends of most actions. Especially as the resolution highlights what is "permissible" not what is morally perfect. We see that utility provides solid backing for determining moral permissibility. Aside from this, this contention arises when utility is mistakenly taken to be a decision-making procedure rather than what it is. A criterion of what is right. N7 uses an example from "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," arguing that this "pinpoints the fact that we value not only unity but moral rights." Note that he hasn't provided any evidence or argument that moral rights exist, he only states that they do. Aside from this, we as a society do similar to this hypothetical. Consider, anytime quarantines are put in place, or perhaps the imprisonment of criminals. It is essentially the same case; they are imprisoned with the utility or benefit of a safer society. The only difference between these realities and N7 hypothetical is the former have the element of reality. I was amused to see that equality was brought up. Utilitarianism subscribes to such equality. All human lives are equal in value and should be regarded as such. This is why the resolution is easy to affirm. If 1 life = 1 life, then 5 lives is of greater value than 1. N7 brings up slavery, contending that "slavery would be morally justified under utilitarianism." The response to this is found in his own statement prior. "If enslavement brings about more happiness." It would be hard to observe slavery and conclude that it brings about more happiness than it deprives. Take American Slavery for example, think of the total pain and absence of pleasure. Surely, we see that Utilitarian ethics would deem American Slavery immoral. N7 introduces Nozick"s famous Utilitarian Monster. We see this concern diminish when applied to reality. In fact, just the opposite occurs. The more resources we already have, the less impact they have on our happiness. For example, $100 might make N7 happy, but what about Bill Gates, what about a starving kid in Africa. The utility monster is an impossibility. The next contention involves moral duty. The motive of duty impacting the morality of action is a myth. Nothing about motive impacts morality. Consider, "He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble."(1) Consider honesty, typically honesty is considered a moral good, that is to say it produces good results. Say I were hiding a woman from an abusive man and he asks if I have seen her? Surely the moral thing to do is to lie. Same with promises, surely N7 can think of a reasonable time to break a promise. It is the result, not the motive, or duty that determines morality. The final concern raised by my opponent is the experience machine. This has already been addressed in earlier comments. There are higher and lower pleasures. One aspect that would make a pleasure higher is the fact that it is real. I believe at this point I have responded sufficiently to every concern N7 has presented about Utility. It becomes clear that Utilitarian ethics is a reasonable, and effective way to determine morality. Being that this is the only portion of my argument that N7 contended the rest of my statements hold. I maintain that "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people." (1) http://www.utilitarianism.com...