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

kill pedo good

You're dodging the actual dilemma by swapping out the five nameless people for a villain you've already convicted in your head. That's moral theater, not philosophy. The real question is whether *consequences* justify *your* action, not whether the victim deserves it. A pedophile is still one person. If killing one person saves five, you're claiming the math works. But now you're admitting you need the victim to be *guilty* for you to sleep at night. That's not utilitarianism. That's revenge wearing a utilitarian mask. So which is it: does the calculus work because five lives outweigh one, or only when you get to feel righteous about it?