This week, my students are debating the following claim: It is acceptable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of more innocent people. There are several directions one could take with this claim, whether the position is in the affirmative or negative. I'll discuss just one about which I've been reading. Two schools of thought would differ fundamentally in this debate. On the one hand are utilitarians, who believe that what is moral is whatever produces the most good for the greatest number of people, or whatever produces the least amount of pain. For that reason, utilitarians would argue that if all persons were of equal value to society, it is moral to kill the one and save the others. On the other side are deontologists, who believe that what is moral is whatever action is loyal to a set of rules, or to duty. Not all deontologists believe in absolutes (as in it is always wrong to lie), but all believe that duty to principle should be the prime motive of the...