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

I negate that Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. I accept all my opponent's definitions, except for morally permissible; I would only ask that we look to an objective standard of morality, as opposed to one society sets up; only with an objective morality is there any accountability, because a society could easily dictate that murder was moral, even though, objectively, it is not. Before presenting my case, allow me to clarify my own burden; I have but one objective in today's round. I must prove that killing an innocent to save more lives is not morally permissible; despite what my opponent might claim, I do NOT have to prove that killing a majority of people to save one life is morally permissible. The value, implied by the resolution, is Morality. Morality is defined as what is right, or what is good; look to this value because, as I said, it is intrinsic to the resolution, and morality is the basis upon which we make all rational and ethical decisions. The criterion will be The Synderesis. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, explains that the morality of an action stems from the intent, methods, and ends of an action. I ask you to weigh the round on this because it is the most rigorous weighing standard in the round; for an action to be considered moral, it must pass the three tiers of Synderesis. If it fails even one of the three tests (intents, methods, effects), then it cannot possibly be moral, even if it passes the other two. The three contentions will discuss the three prongs of The Synderesis. Contention I - The Intents are immoral. The objective of a government is to protect ALL citizens; not some of them; John Rawls states in a Theory of Justice, that "Each person possesses an inviolability founded upon justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override." Each person does have an inviolability in society, because they gave up their absolute freedom in return for the government's protection; however, the majority in this case would have the government deny that protection for their own selfish ends; they would have no qualms about sacrificing an individual; truly, there is no morality or safety in a society where random individuals can be killed off for some 'greater good'; I honestly doubt that my opponent would consent to being murdered to safe the lives of 10 people she's never met. I know I wouldn't. Contention II - The means are immoral. Murder is immoral. Plain and simple; justifiable in cases of self defense, but always immoral. Just look at the resolution; 'it is morally permissible to kill' should be the big tip-off here; if it's always immoral to kill, then it doesn't matter how many people are murdered; if only that one innocent is killed, it's still immoral, no matter how many lives are saved by doing so. Contention III - The ends are immoral. If the government has no qualms about killing one innocent person, then what we end up with is an unsafe society; a society where no man has the protection he was promised; a society where citizens' liberties are violated and restricted more and more, where the basic dignity of humankind is lost; and by saying that it's permissible, we're essentially consenting to murder, and handing our lives to the government on a silver platter; the effect of affirming is that we deem is socially acceptable to slaughter innocent people; and in no way is that moral. Seeing that my opponent can in no way meet the burdens of the Synderesis, we must negate the resolution. Now, moving on to the affirmative, I'd like to use her quote at the top to support my stance; "No sacrifice short of individual liberty, individual self-respect, and individual enterprise is too great a price to pay for permanent peace." Keep in mind that, when an individual is being murdered off, he loses all three of these things; there's a point at which sacrifice turns to disposal; the affirmative has crossed that line. My opponent tries to give us an ultimatum; kill one or kill all; this is a huge either/or fallacy, first of all; she's trying to trap us into affirming or complete annihilation; please, don't let those scare tactics work on you. Second of all, look back to my burden; I don't have to prove that it's morally permissible to kill off the majority; I only have to prove that it isn't permissible to kill an innocent individual. Her value of sacrifice is first of all, entirely circular; she says sacrifice is her value because we're killing an innocent person, which she says is sacrifice; so her value is sacrifice because we're murdering innocents, when you boil it down logically; second of all, because of the circular logic here, she doesn't give you any reason to value sacrifice in the round; the reason is, because it isn't valuable. Honestly, what does the greater good matter if one is not around to share in it? My life doesn't belong to society, and I'd like to keep it that way. On Utilitarianism, first of all, Jeremy Bentham points out that the 'greatest good' is measured in happiness; pleasure. Obviously, pleasure is no standard to judge by, especially in matters of morality; we can't allow the 'happiness' of the majority to crush the natural rights of an individual. Second of all, Look back to A Theory of Justice: "The rights secured by justice are not subject to bargaining or the calculus of social interests. Justice does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many." We can look back at the inviolability of the individual, and how it's hypocritical and immoral of the government to disregard its promise to protect the life and rights of EVERY individual; third and finally, I'd rather you look to Synderesis in the round; Utilitarianism is a narrow criterion, looking at only the effects; Synderesis looks to all 3 tiers; if you try to use utilitarianism, just know that the ends ignore the means, not justify them. Her first contention tries to put a percentage, a VALUE, on human life; first of all, don't let her do that; there's no value on the life of an innocent; it's got an unlimited, inviolable intrinsic worth that we as a society cannot violate. Second of all, you can really drop this contention, because again, I don't have to prove that killing a whole group of innocent people is morally permissible; her flawed logic here is "Either A or B; not A, therefore B." She assumes we have to kill one or the other, but that's in no way the case; even if we did murder the majority, I'm not saying that's morally permissible; as I said before, no murder is morally permissible, whether it's of one or one million; all I have to prove, once again, is that murdering an individual to save more lives is immoral; that is my ONLY burden. I don't have to promote the murder of the majority. On the second contention, her argument here is basically just a restatement of utilitarian ideology. Just cross apply the responses I made on her criterion, and I really want to pull through the idea that we can't let the majority determine morality; the government has an obligation to try and protect every person, not just most people; and please, don't let her convince you otherwise. Finally, her third contention. Remember that the core issue is whether or not murdering an innocent individual is morally permissible. Every life has moral worth, and it is not morally permissible in any sense to allow society to murder a single person, and rob them of their moral worth, to selfishly protect the majority (because again, killing is ALWAYS morally wrong). She tries to tell you what would be JUSTIFIED; but keep in mind, we're looking to what is morally permissible, not what is justifiable. She even admits that there will be some impact caused by the death of the individual; and that impact, my friends, is the immorality of murdering an innoce