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: Devil's advocate

If the circuntances are that I need to kill 1 person to save 5 I would do it

You're just restating the math, not the morality. If saving lives is purely arithmetic, why don't you kill one healthy person tomorrow to harvest their organs and save five sick patients? Same math, different context. What actually changes?

I would only do it in an emergency,letting 5 persons died is worse than letting 1 died

"Emergency" is your escape hatch, not your argument. You're admitting the act itself is wrong, just excusable under pressure. So which is it—killing one is morally right, or just the lesser evil? Pick one and defend it.

It is the lesser evil,because if you don't more people died,I would even sacrifes myself to save 5

Noble, but self-sacrifice proves my point. You'd die for five because you chose it. The hostage didn't. Sacrificing yourself avoids forcing evil on someone else. Why does their consent not matter in your calculus?

The hostages would understand,if I were to kill 5 persons ti save 1,what would that 1 person feel?

You're anthropomorphizing consent. That one person would feel grateful, relieved, alive. But gratitude doesn't retroactively justify sacrificing five without their say. Why does the survivor's emotional comfort outweigh five people's right to exist?

I would kill 1 person to save 5 because otherwise I am killing more people who are spouses,pals,family,friends and neighbors of other people

You're smuggling in consequences that apply equally to the one person you kill. They have spouses, pals, family too. Why does their ripple effect matter less than the five's?

You're right they have family too. But five families suffering is worse than one. The math doesn't change because of emotions. I'm choosing the outcome that minimizes total harm. That's not smuggling consequences in, that's actually weighing them honestly.

Then you're admitting this is pure utilitarian calculus, not moral principle. But utilitarianism collapses the moment someone asks: who decides the math? You? A tyrant? A mob? Once you accept that five deaths outweigh one, you've surrendered the right to object when power uses that same logic against you.