I was wondering if I could pose a question that doesn't seem to be being talked about very much right now...I don't think either side can presume a specific agent of action. The verb phrase "to kill" is simply not agent-specific. However, since one isn't specified, the Neg can raise that particular fact, either in CX or in a Resolutional Analysis, and use it to launch several lines of attack.
The resolution for September/October doesn't specify an agent, one who will be doing the killing of the innocent. From this, can you fiat anything concerning who the agent might be? Is there an agent or is this an absolute kind of deal? Because if it means anyone can kill in innocent to (in their eyes) save more innocents, then I see some serious problems for Aff. Is it possible to say that the government, or society, or something to that effect is the agent? Then that opens up several more VC options than just utilitarianism. If the government is the agent, you could use the harm principle, the veil of ignorance, those kinds of things...
1. One attack depends on what is known as "role morality." When a person adopts a specific role--doctor, soldier, lawyer--they also adopt a specific code of ethics. In certain situations, for example, lawyers are required to keep a client's secrets, even if that information could, say, convict someone else. (This is called "attorney-client privilege.") The Neg can attack by claiming that the resolution cannot be applied across all (or even most) roles, and the Aff is stuck conditionally affirming.
2. Governments, according to some theorists, act according to different moral rules--or are not beholden to moral rules at all. Since the resolution doesn't specify an agent, then the affirmative might be caught conditionally affirming if their V/C doesn't apply to a governmental entity. As an example, consider a situation like 9/11, where the president has ordered fighter jets scrambled to intercept an airliner full of innocents, an airliner about to be used as a weapon against (potentially) even more innocents. Should the president have the authority to order the plane shot down--to kill innocents to save more? Is the president's moral calculus different from any average citizen's? If not, why not? More generally, consider a program of inoculation against measles. If 1 in a billion people will die from the injection, but it will save 30,000 children from death, is the government permitted to make the vaccination mandatory?
3. One Neg argument could be based on a slippery slope scenario: if we affirm, we allow citizens or governments carte blanche when it comes to terrifying moral decisions. Even if the moral rules are the same for governments and regular folks, each also provides a means to avoid the slippery slope.
a. Governments codify rules in the form of laws, and (potentially) have a deliberative nature that mitigates a potential slippery slope. In fact, we usually expect a governmental check against individuals taking others' lives into their own hands.
b. On the other hand, individuals, unlike governments, feel the sting of guilt, which has its own preventive effect. Even if the Aff argues that killing an innocent to save others is morally permissible, the choice to act in that situation is no less difficult for the person making it--and will likely haunt that person for years to come. As a result, people will never make that decision willy-nilly. (If the Neg attempts to bring up a depraved sociopath, the Affirmative should gently remind all present that the Aff is required to affirm the resolution true as a "general principle," not to defend it against any conceivable exception. Beside, sociopaths aren't bound by moral rules anyhow, so they're a problem on either side of the resolution.)
4. So, what's an Aff to do? Like my reader suggests, it's important to consider whether your V/C truly can apply to all agents in the vast majority of situations where the resolution might be instantiated.
5. As an aside, rule utilitarianism is likely better at covering individuals and governments than act utilitarianism. I leave it to the reader to determine why that might be.
These are disjointed thoughts that could use refinement, or maybe a good bashing. Have at 'em in the comments.