Is it right for people to end their life on mars?
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this debate and I want to thank Con for instigating it, hoping for an interesting debate on an unconventional topic.
Since Con, being the instigator, didn't explicitly address it, I assume this debate not to be about euthanasia and the 'right to die' in general, but specifically the right to die on Mars if one desires to do so and has the resources to realize it. As such, I will assume for this debate that a 'right to die' were already established, since otherwise the resolution as such - highlighting 'Mars' - would be meaningless to discuss.
To refute Con's only argument of round one, I will go on to ethically analyze the three important possible cases that could arise if dying specifically on Mars were allowed.
(Case 1) The family wants a person to stay for his death, and the person wants the same
As people are only granted the right, but not the obligation, they could stay with their loved ones if they chose to. Thus, it would be right to allow people to die on Mars.
(Case 2) The family wants a person to stay for his death, but the person wants to visit Mars
To me it appears extremely selfish to force a situation upon a dying loved one, which he doesn't want at all, only because it makes bystanders feel better, and I have to question whether those who'd do this can be considered to feel "true, selfless love" after all . Further, relatives could well find consolation in the knowledge that their loved one died where he could do it most happily.
Also, it is already possible to ban people from visiting you in hospital, without any moral objections being raised about this . Whether one does that, or heads for Mars, is then quite equivalent in terms of being able to decide for not seeing certain people before you die.
Thus, it would be right to allow people to die on Mars.
(Case 3) The family doesn't want a person to stay for his death, and the person wants the same
Everyone would be happy, but only if travelling to Mars were allowed. Thus, it would be right to allow people to die on Mars.
Con stated it was wrong to not be with the people one loves when one is dying. She however didn't justify why this statement should result in not allowing people to do it in general. While people with friends and families will most likely still choose to die peacefully in their presence, those without anyone would be taken the possibility to fulfill their dream of once visiting Mars without any reason whatsoever.
 http://answers.yahoo.com... (reliability supported by 100% agreement in all comments on this religiously and politically neutral site)
charlottekevans forfeited this round.
Sadly my opponent forfeited this round, so I extend all of my arguments for the case of her return.
Since I only refuted my opponent's leading argument in the first round, I will now go on to justify my stance. To be fair, however, I won't add much, so that Con would be able to post both a rebuttal to my refutation and my argument within the character limit of the last round.
The Oxford dictionary defines "right" as "morally good, justified, or acceptable" . I already reasoned in the first round that travelling to Mars to die there, if one is wishing to, is acceptable.
With research  constantly indicating that a majority of people would like to have the right to decide themselves where to die (if possible), allowing people to be able to die on Mars, if they wish to, would also be "morally good" according to a broad range of different ethical systems such as utilitarianism  and Kantian ethics . Since further allowing for something that won't hurt anyone can in my opinion not be unjustified in general, all three definitions of 'being right' are matched, although only one would be required to prove the resolution true.
I want to close this round by addressing one important consideration: As a likely consequence of an economically reasonable accessibility of Mars (and this will be required for our debate to be of any relevance), regions of the planet will surely be annexed by certain states. This would result in Mars being included in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights :
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to
leave any country, including his own [...]."
charlottekevans forfeited this round.
Con conceded the entire debate, which I interpret as agreement with all of my arguments. Thus, the resolution has been established. Nevertheless I want to thank Con for bringing up this unconventional topic as a challenge.
As a final word I want to point out that my line of argumentation mainly concentrated on the right to die on Mars with a society exclusively living on Earth. For the case of an already established Martian colony, the validity of the right to die on Mars would be even more obvious. If people were not allowed to die on Mars, once a person becomes fatally ill, families living there would have to be separated (which Con opposes) and the fatally ill person would have to be transported to Earth in a dangerous and pointless endeavour.
In conclusion: The right to die on Mars should be granted. Vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: FF, Is Con from mars or sumtink?
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.