The Instigator
AlexanderOc
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UchihaMadara
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Suicide Is Immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
UchihaMadara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,112 times Debate No: 62228
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

AlexanderOc

Pro

First round is acceptance.

I. Definitions

Suicide shall be defined as:
A Homo Sapien Sapien intententionally killing himself.

Morality cannot be completely defined and therefore will sway with the debate. Each debater is free to interpret his own connotation, as long as the voters feel it correctly complies with the general ideals of morality.

II. Terms

1. 72 hours to post argument
2. 8,000 character limit
3. BoP rests on Pro ( AlexanderOc) to affirm the resolution
4. Single forfeiture results in loss of conduct point. Multiple resluts in loss of all points.


I turn it over to Con to form his acceptance and such.

UchihaMadara

Con

Many thanks to Pro for challenging me to this debate!
I accept the challenge, of course, along with all the rules and definitions.
I look forward to an interesting discussion!
Debate Round No. 1
AlexanderOc

Pro

I. Opening Construct

A. Human v. Human killing

To keep things simple, I will start off with a generally accepted fundamental of morality, the intentional, unjustified killing of a human is morally incorrect. As examples, consider the morally wrong murderer vs. the morally correct police officer. One kills with no justification, while the other ( is supposed to ) only kill when absolutely necessary. Like when the life of an innocent is hanging in the balance.

Now, when you substitute suicide into the equation, things get a bit weird. One must ask, is there ever justification for suicide? If so, then the justified killing of a human would still bode well with morality. It really depends on specifics. Just as with homicide, not every death is morally justified, while others are. It would therefore not make sense to try to claim "Every suicide is Immoral", just that suicide is generally immoral. So let's look at the general "justification" of suicide.

B. Depression

Let's make yet another comparison to homicide. A man sets a gun to a teen's head and says "This is so you don't have to live with depression." The teen doesn't object because he agrees. I find it hard to believe that the general public will accept the man as morally sound. He most likely will be sent to prison for life. Suicide is comparable.


The only difference is who pulls the trigger. The man is no different from the child in that sense. They both decide that his life is not worth living due to an emotional problem. This applies to any situation really. Whether it be bullying or fascination. If you apply the justification to the killer in a homicide, the moral ideals are not supported.

C. Hurting Others

The main reasoning behind killing being wrong is because people dislike being killed. However this makes little sense, as you wouldn't care if you were killed. You'd be too dead to dislike the consequences of dying. It's not you who has to live with you being dead, it's the people around you. The people who know the one dying are the people who suffer. And generally, causing people to suffer is immoral.

Again, this can be tied back to suicide. Suicide doesn't morally solve problems, it immorally creates them by causing others to grieve.


II. Closing

So, in conclusion, a human killing a human is immoral without justification. Suicide provides bad justification and makes others suffer. Suicide is immoral.

Back to Con for opening refutations.

UchihaMadara

Con

Thanks to Pro for posting his opening arguments so quickly.
As he said in Round 1, he has the burden of proof, so what I must do to negate the resolution is refute all of Pro's arguments.

R1: "Suicide is Murder"

Essentially, Pro argues that because suicide is a form of unjustified murder, and is thus immoral.Of course, I accept the notion that unjustified murder is immoral; where my opponent and I disagree is whether or not suicide falls into that category. It is necessary that we begin by examining exactly *why* we consider murder to be immoral; the primary reason is that it forcibly strips an individual of their life. This is rather uncontroversial, so I will leave it to Pro to contest this if he wishes to do so. Now, suicide, while it may technically be murder, is missing the essential element that makes murder immoral: a lack of consent. When a murderer kills someone, he his called immoral because he has taken away someone else's life without their consent; however, when a guy commits suicide, he has his own *full* consent to strip himself of his life, and thus, there is nothing immoral about it.

Pro presents an analogy that sort of takes consent into consideration :"Let's make yet another comparison to homicide. A man sets a gun to a teen's head and says "This is so you don't have to live with depression." The teen doesn't object because he agrees. I find it hard to believe that the general public will accept the man as morally sound. He most likely will be sent to prison for life. Suicide is comparable."
Needless to say, this analogy is flawed, as it relies on ad populum fallacy; people in general are not always rational, so citing the fact that many people would condemn such an act is not evidence of its immorality. If the teenager in question has *truly* given consent, then there is nothing objectively immoral about it, for the reasons outlined previously.

R2: "Societal Harms"

Before continuing, I will first establish that all humans have a "right to death"-- the right to die when they want to die. I think my opponent would agree that all human beings have a right to life, seeing that he agrees unjustified murder is immoral. Like is the case with any right, we have the right to abstain from exercising it; after all, if we cannot do that, it is no longer a right-- it is an obligation. The right to life does not require us to continue living any more than the right to free speech requires us to speak our minds. Just as we have the right to discard our property, we also have the right to discard our own lives. Hence, people do have the right to death, as an extension of their right to life.

Bringing the focus back to Pro's argument, we see that he cites the negative social consequences of a suicide as reason to consider suicide immoral. However, this argument relies on a consequentialist framework, which essentially ignores all other factors of ethical relevance (e.g. rights, intent, etc), and condemns/condones actions solely based on their practical consequences. In order for this contention to succeed, Pro must first show that consequentialism is a valid ethical system-- that an action's consequences are the only ethically relevant factors in its moral value. More specifically, Pro must show that the negative impact that a suicide has on other people overrides a person's right to death. I will end off with a question for Pro: why should other people be able to obligate us to continue living?

===============
CONCLUSION
===============

Pro has utilized two major lines of argumentation to try demonstrating the immorality of suicide. His first argument fails because it ignores the essential role of coercion in the immorality of murder, which is completely absent from suicide since the individual has his own consent to take his life. His second line of argumentation fails because it is has its basis in the unproven, and somewhat flawed, ethical system of consequentialism.
Pro must successfully counter both of these rebuttals to uphold his case. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
AlexanderOc

Pro

AlexanderOc forfeited this round.
UchihaMadara

Con

Extend all points...
Debate Round No. 3
AlexanderOc

Pro

AlexanderOc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AlexanderOc

Pro

AlexanderOc forfeited this round.
UchihaMadara

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
Haha Alexander, check out the Neg case in this debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Challenge of P2

Suffering is equated to negative feelings in humans. People tend to dislike negative feelings.
The determination of what is good and bad (morality) is dependent on the general instinctual emotions of humans.
The general moral outlook is that anything that is bad, is morally incorrect.

Therefore minimising suffering is not in fact bad.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
P1. Suicide minimises suffering
P2. Minimising suffering is bad
C. Suicide is bad

Defence of P1 a Usually suiciders take their own life because they are escaping problems within life, some form of suffering
Defence of p2- because suffering is good, and maximising suffering is the ultimate good.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
"Objectivity is based in being true; not whether or not you believe it.
The fact that even you, who are openly supporting it, don't believe it only undermines your own case."

According to a few sources, objectivity is based on external reality, not necessarily truth. Truth is a subjective idea, not a construct of external reality. Nature does not deal in truth. The mind tries to determine truth within oneself and how it coincides with the external qualities of "reality."

"LOL. You literally just said "I don't believe in X. I just believe in *X*"

That isn't at all what I said actually. You are reading what you want to read obviously which means you are not qualified to discuss objective reasoning.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
"I am not a proponent for any particular ethical system. I am against that very idea of a particular ethical system being put on others."

Yet that is the exact definition of moral subjectivism/apathy.

"I don't even truly believe in my own argument of the moral standard being don't pass morals onto others, but this is why my argument is purely objective because I myself do not believe to be completely true as well."

Objectivity is based in being true; not whether or not you believe it.
The fact that even you, who are openly supporting it, don't believe it only undermines your own case.

"I am not saying "I believe that my idea of no moral standards is greater than Pro's idea of a moral standard." I am saying that to have a moral standard based on the morals of a single person or a group of people is objectively immoral."

LOL. You literally just said "I don't believe in X. I just believe in *X*"

"If you get a thousand people that believe it is immoral to commit suicide, that has no objective consequence on the morals of someone who believes it is morally sound to commit suicide."

If you actually knew anything on this subject, you would know that ad populum fallacy has never been accepted as a valid argument in debates on ethics. Justifying an ethical system's validity involves deducing the existence of meta-ethical truths and deriving logical conclusions on morality from those truths.

"Using subjective analysis to try, and I emphasize the word try, to create objective standards is, again, illogical, unreasonable, and objectively immoral."

Contradictions abound.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
I am not a proponent for any particular ethical system. I am against that very idea of a particular ethical system being put on others. I don't even truly believe in my own argument of the moral standard being don't pass morals onto others, but this is why my argument is purely objective because I myself do not believe to be completely true as well. If someone wants to believe that their morals are superior or that they can decide what standard of morals that all people should follow, then my personal non-beliefs have no factor on that. But again, that is not my argument. I am not saying "I believe that my idea of no moral standards is greater than Pro's idea of a moral standard." I am saying that to have a moral standard based on the morals of a single person or a group of people is objectively immoral. If you get a thousand people that believe it is immoral to commit suicide, that has no objective consequence on the morals of someone who believes it is morally sound to commit suicide. Using subjective analysis to try, and I emphasize the word try, to create objective standards is, again, illogical, unreasonable, and objectively immoral.

You can try to sugarcoat it all you want by calling it ethical discourse but really what you are advocating is people trying to dictate their ideas onto others, which, as I stated from the beginning, is what Kings and Tyrants do.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
Please prove the validity of your subjectivist/apathetic interpretation of morality before using it to condemn other people's actions.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
"I am not merely regarding it as immoral because I do not like it, I am pointing out that it is objectively immoral. Far from the same thing."

That is *exactly* what proponents of *any* particular ethical system believe they are doing...
How are you not seeing the hypocrisy of your statements.

"What you two are describing falls into the categories of Fascism and Ethnocentrism, so again it is very wrong"

LMFAO. That is the most absurd accusation I've ever heard XD
Ethical disourse = Fascism
That's a new one...

"On the other hand, telling someone that their morals are immoral because they are trying to claim moral superiority over others, especially having to deal with personal actions towards one's own self, is completely moral."

Again, that is your own subjective interpretation of morality (an interpretation rather lacking in logical basis, I migh add)

"This goes back to my original comment of the sort of outlook you two have is why humanity is in such a horrible state of affairs."

So now ethical discourse is responsible for the downfall of humanity too?
*headdesk*
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
On the other hand, telling someone that their morals are immoral because they are trying to claim moral superiority over others, especially having to deal with personal actions towards one's own self, is completely moral. This goes back to my original comment of the sort of outlook you two have is why humanity is in such a horrible state of affairs.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
I am not merely regarding it as immoral because I do not like it, I am pointing out that it is objectively immoral. Far from the same thing.

What you two are describing falls into the categories of Fascism and Ethnocentrism, so again it is very wrong. You can't talk about better morals and what people do to themselves in the same token. You can talk about morals and what a group of people do to others. Such as if a group of people decide that it would be immoral of them to kill someone from another group. But that same group cannot decide it is immoral for a separate person to commit suicide. It it completely illogical, unreasonable, and therefore immoral.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
AlexanderOcUchihaMadaraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
AlexanderOcUchihaMadaraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I want to vote.