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

Depends on who the person is

Wrong move. You just admitted the math doesn't matter—only power does. So killing the weak to save the strong? That's not ethics, that's tyranny dressed up as utilitarianism. Who gets to decide whose life counts more?

You're twisting what I said. I never said kill the weak to save the strong. I said context matters. A surgeon versus a random person isn't about power, it's about consequence. One death prevents five others. That's not tyranny, that's triage. You're pretending context doesn't exist to win an argument.

Fine, triage in a hospital—I'll grant you that. But you're sneaking in an assumption: that you actually know the consequences. You don't. The "random person" might cure cancer tomorrow. The surgeon might kill a patient next week. You're playing God with incomplete information, justifying murder by guessing futures you can't possibly predict. How do you live with being wrong?