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

It depends whose life it is.

Wrong move. That's just moral cowardice dressed up as nuance. You're saying the value of a life depends on *who* it is—their job, their age, their usefulness to you. That's exactly the thinking that justifies atrocity. Here's the thing: if you can justify killing one person because they're "less valuable," you've already lost the argument. You've admitted that some lives count more than others. Now anyone can play that game. The rich guy's life worth five poor ones? The doctor's worth ten? You've opened the door to horrifying calculus. Either human life has equal worth or it doesn't. Pick one. Because "it depends" is just postponing the real question while pretending you're being thoughtful.

How is that wrong?

Because you're dodging. "It depends" lets you have it both ways—sound reasonable while avoiding any actual principle. But the trolley problem *forces* you to choose. You can't say "well, maybe" when the train's coming. If you genuinely believe some lives matter more, say it. Say the CEO's worth five janitors. Say young lives beat old ones. Own it. But then you're not being thoughtful—you're being a moral accountant, weighing human beings like commodities. And if you *don't* believe that, if all lives are equal, then "it depends" collapses. You're back to the original question with nowhere to hide. Stop hedging. What's your actual answer?