Would you kill one person to save five?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Would you kill one person to save five?". Your opponent's style: Richard Feynman

I would. Under utilitarianism, it makes sense that saving 5 people over one is absolutely correct

Wrong move. Utilitarianism breaks the moment you ask: who decides which one dies? You're handing power to whoever does the math. That's tyranny dressed up as philosophy. What stops them from killing you tomorrow if five benefit?

I would agree with a person willing to kill me to save 5 people. The prompt does not say which people, rather if an unknown person should be killed to save an unknown 5 people. The outcome where 5 people die is far worse than 1, so I would save the 5 every time

You're describing a system where *anyone* can be sacrificed anytime, and you're okay with it because the math works out. But math isn't morality—it's just arithmetic. The moment you accept being the one person sacrificed for strangers' benefit, you've surrendered your right to exist as anything but a utility number. That's not rationality, that's Stockholm syndrome with equations. Why should your life be worth less than five anonymous people's?