The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cermank
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Resolved: Euthanasia is Immoral.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Cermank
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,120 times Debate No: 24537
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Con

~~Definitions~~

Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to deathpainlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extrememedical measures, a person or animal suffering from anincurable, especially a painful, disease or condition.

Immoral- Not moral. (Morality will defined below)


~~Rules~~

1. First round for acceptance.

2. No Plagarisms.

3. No new arguments at the last round.


Good Luck. :)

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cermank

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Greetings, I would like to thank my opponent for her acceptance of this debate.


I will basically be negating the resolution and ultimately proving that the practice of Euthanasia is not in the slightest bit immoral. However, I will be doing this in an uncommon way. I will be proving my case by also proving that Objective moral facts do not exist. I will start out my case with the following syllogism:

P1: In order for Euthanasia to be immoral Objective moral facts must exist.

P2: Objective moral facts do not exist.

C: Euthanasia is not immoral.

I am going to assume that the majority of my opponent's reputtel of my case will be centered at my second premise, so I will focus on it more then the first.'

P2: I will sum this up with two sub-premises.

Sub-premise 1: Disagreement

Each culture throughout the world has it's own conception of right and wrong. While Atheists may fined gay marriage ok, the christians do not. So, if there were objective moral facts then there would be less disagreement on what is right and what is wrong.

Sub-Premise 2: Lack of Evidence.

There is no real evidence to suggest that Objective moral facts actually exist in the first place. If there is no evidence to suggest that they do exist then they can't be fact. Many religions say their way is the true basis for morality however, they have no proof that their religion is true. So, it is up to my opponent to state evidence for whether morality actually exists.

Conclusion

Since there is a lack of evidence of whether objective morality exists and a huge dispute on whether what is right and wrong to begin with it is fair to say that objective morals do not exist. And since they do not exist it is impossible to say that Euthanasia is actually immoral.

I will now await my opponent's reply.

Thank You for reading.

Cermank

Pro


I thank my opponent for providing his arguments.


I would like to proceed in this round by first rebutting his claims, and then consequently laying down my arguments. He has made one argument in the previous round, namely, objective moral facts do not exist. Therefore, in this round, I would lay down my reasons to why objective moral values do, in fact, exist. This is an important premise to my argument too – since it is based on the existence of objective morals.


Before I go onto the rebuttal, I’d like to point out that the claim of existence of objective moral values is ontological in nature, not epistemological, i.e in layman terms- I have to prove the existence of objective morals, not how we know which actions would be classified as good and which evil. Without expanding on the basis for morality, my task at hand is to prove that there does exist a basis.


Rebuttal


Con tries to support his argument by pointing out that there are disagreements about the correct moral code throughout the world.


First, I’d like to question the very basic premise of the argument. This doesn’t really support his case because existence of an objective moral code does not entail people actually following that moral code.


Let me try to explain the argument by drawing a parallel between objective morals and objective physical world. We know that an objective physical world does exist. We know the Earth is round, for example. It was round even when the humans believed it to be flat. Just because people had a flawed idea about its existence, it’s nature did not cease to be objective. Similarly, just because people don’t agree on a single uniform moral code does not prove subjectivity of the morals.


Now, let us focus on the argument itself. We will find that that is not true either. When talking about roasting a live baby in a microwave just for fun, we intuitively recognize that it is something that should not be done. Even if we do not believe in God, as I don’t, there is a component of reality beyond us that says we should not do such things. If we know examples of things that are wrong regardless of the time, place, situation, objective morality does exist.


Let us look as moral subjectivism one last time. I would like to take the help of the useful rule of modus tollens to express it.


P: Moral subjectivism is true


T: (a thought experiment) Torturing and killing infants just for fun


R: The man doing T isn’t morally wrong.


P-> (T->R)


~(T->R)


~P


P being negated, moral relativism is not true.


One might argue that T is a contrived thought experiment, but that does not challenge the premise. Similarly, one can also say that T is an extreme example, and has never, and will never happen, but again- that does not challenge the premise.


Surely morality must have a better source than popular vote?


I now want to lay down my argument. I would argue about the immorality of Euthanasia based on Kant’s theory of deontology.


Argument


Kant’s theory of deontology [1]: Kant’s theory of deontology is based on formulation of a categorical imperative, something that is guided by our maxims. Any action that is not a categorical imperative, the maxims governing then cannot be made universal laws, and hence those actions are immoral.


Let me explain it better. Categorical imperatives are actions that are done for the sake of themselves, not as a means to achieve a third end aim. Kant summarizes categorical imperatives by stating, ‘ They aren’t concerned with what is to result from the conduct, or even what is to happen during the conduct; but only the form and principle through which the conduct follows.’ This is why only categorical imperatives can be made into universal laws.


If our actions are governed by maxims that cannot be universally applied, they are immoral.


Suicide cannot be made a categorical imperative, because it violates the maxim of ‘loving thy self’. Ending one’s life is not a decision made by a person who loves his life. Even if suicide leads to a positive effect on one’s life- i.e ending of the pain/stress/unhappiness in one’s life, the maxim governing this action is low self worth, something that cannot be made into a universal maxim. Hence, suicide is distinctly an immoral action.


Extending the argument, and applying the same logic, Euthanasia would also be a distinctly immoral action.



1. http://en.wikipedia.org...




Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

~~Defense~~

I will concede my first point.

However, I will be defending my second. There is no real evidence to suggest that Objective moral facts actually exist. My opponent states that intuition is proof for objective morality when this isn't sufficient enough. What one percieves to completely repulsive another may be completely OK with. We see this in a lot of issues. Intuition is merely a subjective opinion. There is no scientific or logical proof that suggests that there is right and wrong.


~~Rebuttel~~

My opponent has given no real reason as to why Kant's theory should be accepted or why it is Objective. Therefore, there is no real reason for me to really bother with it. She merely assumes that it is correct without reason nor warrants.

Conclusion

My opponent has not provided any evidence for Objective morality, and has given a theory without stating why it should be accepted. Until she provides evidence for Objective Morality and reason as to why Kant's ethics should be accepted or rather why it is Objective we can assume that there is no objective morality and that Euthanasia is not immoral.

I will await my opponent's response.

Thank You.i
Cermank

Pro

My opponent has conceded his first point.

Now, my opponent made an assertion that I haven’t provided any reason as to why objective morality exists. First of all, I’d like to point out that the burden of proof rests on both of us. If I claim that objective morality exists, his counterclaim must be that ethical relativism or ethical subjectivism exists. He has yet to meet his burden of proof.

Now on to my argument. I noticed that Con has dropped a lot of my arguments. He hasn’t replied to the modus tollens, where I refute moral subjectivism. He hasn’t given specific arguments against the intuition argument, for another. As I stated in my previous argument, if I can provide even a single case which is objectively wrong, moral objectivity does exist. He would have to provide a society, a timeline, where roasting live babies for fun was ‘OK’ to effectively rebut it.

He has completely dropped the Kant’s theory, stating that he has ‘no real reason to bother with it’. He hasn’t pointed out why he thinks it’s wrong, or Why it isn’t applicable in the society. Untill he does that, I really have nothing more to say.

I would urge my opponent to address these in the next round.

Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Cermank

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by 123chess456 4 years ago
123chess456
me head is hurting
Posted by Cermank 4 years ago
Cermank
@airmax

That sucks.

Thanks for your vote, and your comments. I think I've a better idea of how to present my next arguments now. Thank you.
Posted by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
@Cermank

In general a RFD is suppose to explain why someone voted the way they did. Unfortunately, when a FF occurs the reason for the vote, and the reason why the debater won, is because of the FF. In this case without your opponents final round, the FF is specifically why you won this debate. I'd say it was fairly even going into the 4th round and had your opponent offered a final and thorough argument it could have gone either way.

With that said, you did pretty well in making a case for objective morality, and via the resolution specifically. Your arguments were also well organized and well written. You also did a good job in pointing out some of the flaws in your opponents argument and insisting that he address yours.

However, without Con's final round it's impossible to know if these arguments would have stood should he have responded to them. So ultimately the FF is the reason your opponent lost. Nonetheless, you won the debate, and did an excellent job of arguing your side.
Posted by Cermank 4 years ago
Cermank
:(

I put efforts in my argument. A critique of something of that? I thought RFD's were supposed to provide an opinion on the way arguments were presented.
Posted by Cermank 4 years ago
Cermank
Yeah, I could sense it.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Not because I want to. I just have two other debates besides this one.
Posted by Cermank 4 years ago
Cermank
You post fast.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Yes, just not the last round.
Posted by Cermank 4 years ago
Cermank
Does this mean we can add arguments in the third round too?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
DeathbeforedishonourCermankTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
DeathbeforedishonourCermankTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll give Conduct to Pro for the last round forfeit by Con. However, on arguments it seems as though Con was carrying the debate up until his forfeit. Pro's argument against subjectivism wasn't really an argument but a presupposition that torturing babies was immoral. Likewise the CI argument wasn't an argument at all, but an explanation of what Kant claimed. Pro was more interested in just defining positions for Con to refute rather than defending them on her own.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
DeathbeforedishonourCermankTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While I don't feel either debater actually carries their BOP, assuming it is shared, Pro makes a better go of it with her 2nd and 3rd round. Con concedes some of Pro's arguments, and while he may have had a chance to still win the debate, his FF in the final round ultimately left Pro's final arguments uncontested. Args to Pro for arguments left un-rebutted. Conduct to Pro for FF.