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

My opponent provides several compelling arguments however, there is a major flaw in the base on which his negation is built. That flaw lies in his definition of morality as normative, therefor absolute and then his transition to a statement claiming that morality is individually based, which negates his first claim of the absolute nature of morality. Logically, morality cannot be both absolute and individually based. Morals and societal agreement of normative behavior are either individually or societally established or they are absolute. They cannot be all three. I argue that morality is established individually, supported by societal acceptance and agreement but is not and has never been absolute. Society influences each humans acceptance and notion of what is moral or right and wrong, and those ideas change with human situation and debate and perspective of the things that are real and important in life. For examples to prove this we only need to look at examples of ancient man's notion of morality. Take for instance the practice of Mayan's, sacrificing innocents in the hopes of gaining a better harvest, or the actions of the Israelites documented in Numbers 31, slaughtering captive Midianite boys and mothers, in the hopes of ridding themselves of unclean practices. It is clear that today, we as humans believe those actions and behavior to be incredibly immoral and unacceptable, however humans living at the time accepted the practice as not only moral, but morally imperative. This clearly indicates that morality, is not in fact absolute, but rather a human construct built to support survival of the species, (not survival of the individual, as craftily assumed by my formidable opponent? Affirmative rebuttals 1. Killing one innocent person to save the lives of more people actually fortifies the equal worth of all individuals. My opponent contends that killing an innocent undermines society's duty to protect and maintain the equal human worth of all people. At face value, this appears valid, but denies the loss of value and greater human life that would result, if the individual was left alive. In order to contend that killing the individual is unequal and requires a position of superiority, one MUST ignore the fact that not killing the individual would result in the loss of far more individual human lives. Therefore, if equality of value is acknowledged in individual human life, we would have no other choice but to sacrifice one, for the many as the many hold more intrinsic value. If all human life is weighed equally, then it is clear that the loss of more human life, is more immoral and tragic than the loss of one human life. We see examples that affirm human acceptance of the value multiple human lives over the individual, in the stories and myths we have constructed that give great weight to personal sacrifice for many. For instance the story of Jesus, sacrificing his own life for the lives of many, would not be considered a venerable act. Instead Jesus would be considered immoral for allowing his own innocent life to be taken. The same can be applied to countless stories of selflessness that surround many religions and that are used as a 'moral' ground to teach children about the value of human life. A) Dehumanization. The sacrifice of a single human as a means to save multiple humans can be viewed in many ways. Instead of devaluing the required sacrifice of the individual, I choose to view that death, not as a means to an ends or that person as a tool, rather, I choose to view that person's death as an affirmation of life. That person, rather than being a tool, is truly a savior and protector of human life. 2. John Locke's Social Contract does affirm the rights of the individual, but only when those rights don't infringe on society. For instance. According to Loche's Contract, I have an inalienable right to life. That right however is forfeited when I commit crime or actively threaten the lives of others. While that would disqualify me as an innocent, it still highlights the fact, that when society is threatened, inalienable rights quickly become alienable. If the innocent life or existence of an individual threatens the lives of many, mankind, valuing individual human life, must be compelled to protect it to the best of his ability. In this scenario, that includes taking one innocent life. B) Protection of individual's rights is of paramount importance to our society, but slightly less so than protection of the society itself. For instance, an example of the plague can be utilized here. If an innocent individual contracted a new strain of plague, that was airborne and highly contagious, we as a protective society, would be forced to alienate that individual's human rights and perhaps even kill that innocent in order to protect our species and society. My opponents defense of the rights of the individual at all cost, would lead to the death of millions, and if completely adhered to by all, would lead to the eventual extinction of the human race due to disease. Morality dictates that isolating and extinguishing the plague ridden human, irregardless of his rights, would be morally permissible simple because of the resulting affirmation and protection of all other individuals. 3. Self Preservation Finally my opponent skillfully attempts to portray my opening statement as a position of self preservation. This is not at all included as a position statement made in round one. In fact, my position is one of preservation of the species, and a quick read of the affirmative opening statement will quickly show the reader, that it is quite impossible to draw an inference of valued self preservation from said statement. In reality my opponent is arguing against his own position of self preservation, through his position of placing the rights of the individual above the lives of the species and society. I agree completely with his assessment of focussed self preservation as harmful to the human race, which is why we as humans must focus on our species as a whole verses each individual. We must strive to protect individual rights while assessing what is good for our species and society and at times make tough decisions that can infringe on an individuals life, in order to support the rest of humanity. Morality is not solely based on self-preservation, or solely based on the individual, it is in fact agreed on by society and supports the preservation of the species. This doesn't condone dehumanization, but in fact affirms the value of human life and the value of the individual through protecting us as a species first and foremost.