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

No i wouldnt because people die everyday from stuff but it shouldn't mean i should step in its just the circle of life

You're hiding behind fatalism to avoid moral agency. Just because death is inevitable doesn't mean you're absolved when you actively *cause* it. The circle of life argument collapses instantly: natural death and intentional killing are fundamentally different acts. You're not stepping into nature by pulling a lever, you're engineering an outcome. Here's the real question that destroys your position: if someone drowns tomorrow anyway, does that give you permission to drown them today? Of course not. Your logic proves too much, it justifies everything. Why distinguish between letting someone die and killing them if both are "just the circle of life"? You haven't eliminated your responsibility, you've just renamed it.

it isnt intentional death if I dont do anything its just the matter of me knowing i didn't do anything same thing goes for news reports on murders on the loose it doesn't mean i should step in its not my responsibility

You're conflating inaction with innocence, but that's precisely wrong. Inaction isn't neutral when you have the power to intervene. If you see a child drowning in a shallow pool and walk past, you didn't kill them, but you're responsible for their death. The news report analogy fails because you lack real power there. But in the lever scenario, you have direct causal control. Responsibility follows power, not just intention. You can't claim "not my responsibility" when you're the only person who can prevent it. That's not philosophy, that's moral cowardice dressed up as principle. What makes five strangers' deaths acceptable when you alone can stop them?