Thank you to N7 for accepting this debate. It is my first. I apologize up front if my formatting or technique is lacking. Feedback is appreciated. I affirm the resolution that “It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.” If you ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called “Trolley Problem.” This problem illustrates an example as implied by the resolution. “There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side …show more content…
I submit that all human lives are equal in value and should be regarded as such. It follows then that human lives should be weighed equally when making the quantitative comparison between saving one person and more than one person. Since all lives are equal, it is obviously better to save the larger number of lives. Perhaps you have seen the Star Trek movie 'The Wrath of Khan. ' There is a pivotal moment when Spock says "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", in which Kirk replies "or the one." It is clear that more than one is greater than one. My opponent would have argue the absurd to dispute that. By killing one innocent to save more innocent we protect and preserve more happiness. Thus according to our moral criterion pulling the lever in the trolley situation is morally permissible. It then follows that “It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent