The Instigator
DogInTheBox
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Mercy Killing Morally Correct

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 84613
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

DogInTheBox

Pro

R1: Debate
R2: Debate
R3: Debate
R4: Review (Telling each other the flaw in their debates and tell each other how to get better)

I am Pro (Believing Mercy Killing is okay) you are con and are trying to prove that it is wrong.

Definition: To Mercy Kill is to kill someone who does not have much time to live and would suffer if not killed until the end
Jerry947

Con

I would like to start off by asking my opponent what do they mean when they say something is "morally correct?"

Without a God, all reasons to be moral are subjective (or based on opinion). And subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. For example If a person makes the claim that murder is wrong, then why is it really wrong? Your opinion that murder is wrong does not create an ethical standard in which people have to follow. So generally speaking, without a God there is no morality that has any meaning.

That said, the Christian God would consider mercy killing immoral. You can feel free to disagree with this but that is where he stands. What gives people the right to decide when they die? In fact, what gives people the right to do anything? According to Thomas Jefferson (a deist), third President of the United States, said that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So from a historical standpoint, the founders of the United States even believed that rights came from a God and that the right to death was not one of them.

And is it really just to murder someone just because they are in pain? Think about what they might be able to accomplish in their last days on earth. Maybe their presence is needed among family members or maybe they can still do something good in their last days. They may suffer, but our time on earth is very short and the suffering will be nothing compared to the eternity in what comes after death. Whether there is a heaven/hell or not...their death will end their existence on earth for an eternity. Isn't the last bit of time of earth worth the suffering to do something good especially when an eternity of peace awaits them?

Source: http://www.brainyquote.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DogInTheBox

Pro

What is the point of prolonging anyone's suffering? (Method of killing can be anything, but I'd like to focus on euthanasia and turning off life support) Letting them live any longer while they are in pain is sheer torment when their suffering could be ended.
(Also, meaning of morally correct here is 'Correct in the sense of morals according to you)

"Whether there is a heaven/hell or not...their death will end their existence on earth for an eternity. Isn't the last bit of time on earth worth the suffering to do something good especially when an eternity of peace awaits them?"

Their period of suffering may not be so short, as some people who are terminally ill live longer than a week. Before that week ends, they could be resting, but to not pull the plug on their life support would just give them unnecessary pain. They are going to lose their life and most people on death's door don't think of "accomplishing anything good" because they can't in their state; they think about their last wishes and regrets in life.

Let's assume you were a doctor, and had a patient who had multiple autoimmune diseases, genetic disorders, and brain cancer at the same time. That patient will not be able to "accomplish anything good" in their last moments due to the multiple and deadly diseases they have. Sure their family might need them, but do you think they would want to see their loved one suffer until they die?

In addition to that let's suppose your most loved family member was lying down on that clinic bed, having a disease that would kill them, and make their life a living hell before they die. Would you want to see that happen to them until the day they finally leave this world? Many parents I know would not want to see their beloved child in pain until the day they finally lose them.

"So generally speaking, without a God there is no morality that has any meaning."

That comes down to personal preference of people. You say morals have no meaning without a god, but atheists have morals and do not believe in god. Let's take this back to history, King Henry VIII killed his wives, why? Because he wanted a new one. He was a christian, and according to the bible, murder is wrong. That is in the bible is it not? And doesn't said bible enforce morality? Yet somehow, the king did it. Though indirectly, it still counts. I also fail to see how the founding fathers and the 'all men are created equal' line is any relevant to this debate as we are speaking about whether or not mercy killing is morally correct.

Sources

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC/articles/PMC1070877/
www.luminarium.org/renlit/sixwives.htm
www.positiveatheism.org/host/cohen02.htm
Jerry947

Con

1. You claim that "they are going to lose their life and most people on death's door don't think of accomplishing anything good because they can't in their state; they think about their last wishes and regrets in life." Two things, one being that miracles do happen and it would be a mistake to end a life when miracles have happened. Second of all, a week is not long at all when you compare it to an eternity of peace. Actually, 100 years of suffering is nothing compared to an eternity of peace. Why end the life of a person when humans have so little time as it is? While it is true that many people don't think about accomplishing anything good, many other people do. People should not just give up because of the state of pain they are in.

2. If I was a doctor, the patient would have already died due to my lack of medical skills. We can discuss bizarre events and rare cases all we want but the fact is that people shouldn't murder themselves just because they are in pain.

3. You had to bring my family member into it didn't you? These are all emotional arguments you are using and they honestly do not have much substance. I personally would want my family member to stick it out until the end. Why should they give up on life when they can spend their last moments with their family? As a Christian I know that my family member would suffer for only a little longer and then spend an eternity in heaven. Their suffering would be nothing compared to what awaited them.

4. "You say morals have no meaning without a god, but atheists have morals and do not believe in god."
Yes...but those morals are meaningless since they have not created any ethical standard in which people have to follow.

5. "Let's take this back to history, King Henry VIII killed his wives, why? Because he wanted a new one. He was a christian, and according to the bible, murder is wrong."
King Henry was not a true Christian. He abused the churches power to get things he desired and he murdered people. There isn't much else to say here. And yes, the Bible does say that murder is wrong.

6. "And doesn't said bible enforce morality? Yet somehow, the king did it."
The Bible condemns immoral behavior and gives people reasons to be moral. The Bible does not have a verse that directly says "God enforces morality." God gives humans the ability to make good and bad choices in order for us to have freewill.

7. My point about the founding fathers was that they acknowledged that rights came from a God and that life was one of those rights. Mercy killing was not encouraged and it is not a right given to people. The bigger picture is that people do not have the right to decide when they die. People do not decide what rights humans have. If so, humans could take away or add rights whenever they wanted and no one could say whether it was right/wrong since it would all be subjective. The founding fathers rightly recognized that only a God could give people unalienable rights. And the right to die wasn't one granted by the Christian God or one granted by the founding fathers.

8. I find your definition of morality very disturbing. Your definition is as follows "correct in the sense of morals according to you." A person could argue anything was moral using this definition and they wouldn't be right or wrong because no universal moral standard would be set in place. We couldn't even say the Hitler was wrong because he merely had a different moral standard than you have. And you could say that your standard was better because you leave morality up to a persons' opinions. You could literally argue anything to be moral and never be wrong if this is the definition you use.

Thanks for the quick response. I will eagerly await for the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
DogInTheBox

Pro

"Two things, one being that miracles do happen and it would be a mistake to end a life when miracles have happened."

You speak as if miracles happen more often than they do, this is life; it is no movie. Have you ever seen Osmosis Jones? That was simply an example of Deus Ex Machina.

"Yes...but those morals are meaningless since they have not created any ethical standard in which people have to follow."

First, let's define ethical.

eth"i"cal
G2;eTHək(ə)l/
adjective: ethical

1.
of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.

Those morals that belong to atheists do have meaning, you act as if your morals have value because of your 'God.' So far, you have backed up every single one of your counter arguments with a reason relating to god, the bible, or Christianity, might I ask if you can back up 'God?"

"People do not decide what rights humans have. If so, humans could take away or add rights whenever they wanted and no one could say whether it was right/wrong since it would all be subjective. The founding fathers rightly recognized that only a God could give people unalienable rights. And the right to die wasn't one granted by the Christian God or one granted by the founding fathers."

People do in fact, decide what rights humans have, look at our long list of laws, and yes, humans do take away and add rights, but the process is not as simple as it seems. In addition, the founding fathers did believe god gave unalienable rights, but who was it that actually gave them their rights? Did god magically come down to America and say "Here are your rights?" The truth is simple, the founding fathers created those rights, and then American soldiers had to fight and even die for them.

Also, the right to die is a Ninth Amendment right.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Of course, it is unlisted, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that dying is prohibited.

"King Henry was not a true Christian. He abused the churches power to get things he desired and he murdered people. There isn't much else to say here. And yes, the Bible does say that murder is wrong."

Then what is a true Christian? There are many interpretations, including yours, but how do you know which is true?

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com...

Ephesians 5:5

"For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God."

It sounds to me like you have to be moral or else you won't have entry to heaven. To many, it would sound enforced.

This was a good debate, and I look forward to the review.
Jerry947

Con

I am glad to see that you admit that miracles have happened. The definition of a miracle is "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." Technically you just admitted that there are divine forces out there. But I realize you probably define a miracle a bit differently. As for how often miracles happen I made no suggestion that they happen all of the time. I merely stated that since they have happened it would be a mistake to end a life when they still have the possibility of survival. I have not seen Osmosis Jones but the idea of Deus Ex Machina is like a miracle.

You stated that "those morals that belong to atheists do have meaning, you act as if your morals have value because of your God." Okay...so prove it. Don't just restate something, tell me why you feel the morals have meaning. Using your definition of morality people could just make up any definition of morality. Atheists could literally just make up anything they wanted but their opinions would be useless since they have no affect on other people. Remember what I said about Hitler? Here it is again: We couldn't even say the Hitler was wrong because he merely had a different moral standard than you have. And you could say that your standard was better because you leave morality up to a persons' opinions. You could literally argue anything to be moral and never be wrong if this is the definition you use. Don't you see the problem with your definition?

It was said "so far, you have backed up every single one of your counter arguments with a reason relating to god, the bible, or Christianity, might I ask if you can back up 'God?" This is not really true. I have stated that morality is meaningless without God. That statement does not require me to back up the existence of God. You have also not been able to prove that statement wrong. I have also used the founding fathers to prove my points and I have used logic to show that a few more weeks in pain might be worth it considering that an eternity of peace follows death. You responded by asserting subjective morality has meaning and by using emotional arguments such as this one: "In addition to that let's suppose your most loved family member was lying down on that clinic bed, having a disease that would kill them." I have only mentioned God to state something about morality, and to answer your questions about King Henry, and to answer your off topic questions about the Bible.

"People do in fact, decide what rights humans have, look at our long list of laws, and yes, humans do take away and add rights, but the process is not as simple as it seems."
So you should have no problem with Hitler since he only took away rights. And since rights come from humans according to you, we can't say Hitler was wrong for what he did since everything is subjective in your worldview. That is my biggest problem with the atheist worldview by the way.

"The truth is simple, the founding fathers created those rights, and then American soldiers had to fight and even die for them." Notice how none of those rights included the right to kill yourself? Or the right to have someone kill you if you are unable? But aside from that the founders argued that those were rights that couldn't be taken away because they were given by a God. If they were given by humans like you believe, rights are meaningless just like morality since they could be taken and added at any time. And no one could take issue with what rights they have since their opinion on what rights they have has no bearing on anyone else.

The example about the ninth amendment is okay but fails considering the majority of the states in the US do not see mercy killing as a right guaranteed by the Constitution. What you are doing is simply sharing your opinion about the rights that the amendment gives us. Apparently, since rights are created by humans, you should feel okay with the majority of people disagreeing with you since there is no set standard of rights and everything is subjective in your worldview.

"Then what is a true Christian? There are many interpretations, including yours, but how do you know which is true?"
There are not many different interpretations of what a Christian is. There are Christians with different beliefs but they are all united in the sense that they have all accepted Jesus as their Savior. Christians change in their behavior and therefore would not abuse the churches power and then kill their wives. It goes against the teaching of Christ. In other words, when someone doesn't quack like a duck or look like a duck...he isn't a duck.

Then Ephesians 5:5 was quoted and this was said "It sounds to me like you have to be moral or else you won't have entry to heaven. To many, it would sound enforced." Wouldn't it be ridiculous for a person to read the first instruction on the Betty Crocker cake mix box and then skip the rest of the instructions and then try to make the cake. Then they get angry when the cake doesn't turn out right. Wouldn't that be ludicrous? It is kind of like what you are doing now. You read one verse without reading the whole book and then claim something that the verse doesn't say. The verse claims that no immoral person will make it to heaven. That is true, but notice how it says nothing about God enforcing morality. Actually, you wouldn't even have had to read the whole book. How about just a few verses later: " For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord (Ephesians 5:8-10). Since Christians are in the light (they are saved), they are by status moral and are excepted to do good in the sight of God.

"This was a good debate, and I look forward to the review."
Isn't there another round? If not...it has been a pleasure debating with you. This has been a very interesting debate and I thank you for getting me to think about this issue.
Debate Round No. 3
DogInTheBox

Pro

Alright so this is the review of your debate

When you quote me you gotta add an extra line of space because its confusing, you use the bible as a source, and most people don't find that a very reliable one. I can't point out much since this is a morality based debate, but morally you've done well in this.
Jerry947

Con

Here is the review of your debate:

You use a lot of emotional arguments. I didn't really care as much but some people get nervous when you start mentioning their dead family members. I would think about morality if I were you. The moral argument for God is a powerful one in case you are interested in the existence of God. Thanks for a good debate and you did a wonderful job expressing your point of view.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
I have to make a vote in the comments to get my voting priveleges back so don't take this seriously

This debate was a strange one. However the clear winner for more convincing arguments was pro. When Con argued through Rounds 1 through 3 he used God. He adjusted for an actual argument in Round 4 where he actually brings up some valid points however Pro was doing this the whole debate. Con brings up that Pro was being emotional but he wasn't doing any better by just tying God into all of his arguments

Sources: While Con did list some source he did not tie it into his argument as well as Pro did.

Spelling wasn't an issue for either opponents and conduct as well

So points for Pro for convicining arguments and sources

To be honest you both need to get better. Con was right about Pro being emotional. You need to use graphs or facts that state that mercing killing is not moral. Whether it be through majority opinion or some other facts. However Con needs to stop using the "god" argument. Unless Pro accepts the fact that she believes in God's morals its a very poor argument
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
https://www.google.com...

Here is the source for the morality definition.
Posted by DogInTheBox 1 year ago
DogInTheBox
Yup, all about death.
Posted by moneystacker 1 year ago
moneystacker
So this is Preety much a debate about assisted suicude and euthanasia? Just want to be sure
No votes have been placed for this debate.