The Instigator
TheBlueWizard
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Anonymousposterperson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified

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 2 votes the winner is...
TheBlueWizard
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,069 times Debate No: 65898
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

TheBlueWizard

Pro

R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals and Convlusions

The opponent agrees to the following definitions:
Voluntary Euthanasia: Legal, consenting, premature ending of one's life in order to alleviate suffering.
Morally Justified: Considered morally right or just.

The opponent also agrees to the following rules:
Rule 1: No forfeits
Rule 2: No Semantics
Rule 3: All sources must be cited and linked if it's a website
Rule 4: there is no rule four

Good luck to my opponent, and may you die in glorious battle! Qua'plah!
TheBlueWizard (bonus points if you get the referance)
Anonymousposterperson

Con

So while I see your point that in some cases, it could be justified, I don't agree. First, when is it voluntary euthanasia and when is it suicide, what is the difference between a fourteen year old boy getting broken up with and trying to hang himself versus a woman at the age of 85 with no quality of life wanting euthanasia? Neither are enjoying their life at that time, so what is the distinction? Also, murderers could use voluntary euthanasia as a way out of punishement, because who's to say it was or wasn't voluntary.
Debate Round No. 1
TheBlueWizard

Pro

The first round was intended only for acceptance of the debate. While I will rebut your case anyway, any further rule violations will result in an automatic loss.

First I will rebut my opponent's case then I will proceed to present my own.

My opponent's first point is that it's impossible to distinguish between euthanasia and suicide. This point is quite easily rebutted. Three things are present that destroy this argument:
1) Age of Consent: A "fourteen year old boy" as you so eloquently put it, is not legally an adult, and has no control over his own medical decisions. He can't submit to euthanasia because his parents control his medical choices.
2) Euthanasia is almost exclusively dealing with illness specifically. Severe depression on a level that prohibits a person from functioning on a acceptable level, cancer, terminal illnesses, ect. ect.
3) Euthanasia is facilitated by a physician. One goes to a doctor to be euthanized. This is not hanging one's self on a grisly rope, taking copious amounts or pills, or slashing one's wrists. One simply goes to a doctor and ends their life.

It should, however, be noted that euthanasia is a form of suicide. The reason I was rebutting my opponent's point is that it's not normal suicide. It's suicide in a specific manor for a specific purpose. If my opponent still cries out after this that euthanasia is suicide and therefore wrong, I ask my opponent to give reasoning why so. Why is prematurely ending one's life morally unjust? One must give a reason, not just state.

My opponent's second point is that murderers can just kill people and claim that was voluntary euthanasia. This claim is simply and utterly silly. The same rational could be applied to thieves and donation, or rapists and sex, or frauds and final wills and testaments. Also, as previously stated, a physician is required to euthanize a person, like in the Netherlands, the most famous country to legalize euthanasia [1].

Both of your arguments are not relevant to the debate. The issue at hand is whether or not the act of legally and voluntarily ending one's own life to alleviate suffering is morally justified, the the difficulties of implementing such a system.

Now on to my own case.

Before we begin to bring any points forth we must first bring forth a method of determining whether or not something is morally just. For this I look toward Immanual Kant [2], the founder of almost all of modern philosophy, and quite possibly the most renowned philosopher in history. His view was that no one action in of its self is either just or unjust, the only thing that could be used to determine the morality of an action was good or bad will behind the action. i.e. Rape is the forcible violation of another's will and is done in bad will, therefore it is wrong. Donating to the poor is done with good will for the poor despite a negative impact on yourself, and therefore is good.

Using this as our method of determining good and evil is the best method because it allows us to use the most influential philosopher of the last few hundred years' philosopher, but more importantly allows us to use a method that is firmly based on a logical view of morals.

Contention 1
Voluntary euthanasia is morally justified because it puts the rights of a person's life into their hands. Voluntary euthanasia is permitting a person to decide their own fate, rather then being forced into staying alive against their will. This is done with good will, as it is stopping the action done in ill will (forcibly making people in suffering continue to live) and replaces it with giving control of people's lives back to them.

Contention 2
Voluntary euthanasia is morally justified because it allows people to die with dignity. Making people with a debilitating illness continue to live out their lives and wither away in pain is wrong. If a person wishes to die on their own terms, then it is best to let them. If a person views living out the rest of their days slowly becoming weaker, frail and in greater pain as undignified, then one can not morally make them carry out their suffering existence until their wither to nothing and die in unbearable pain. The only action that can be taken in good will, is letting a person make a choice about their own life.

As of now, those are my two most major points. I await your response.

Immanual Kant was totally a Ravenclaw,
TheBlueWizard

[1] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org...
[2] Immanual Kant, The Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals; 1785
Anonymousposterperson

Con

Anonymousposterperson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheBlueWizard

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the round, however I'm willing not to make him forfeit the debate (as laid out in rule 1).

So as it stands right now, my opponent hasn't addressed my points and therefore they stand.
Anonymousposterperson

Con

Anonymousposterperson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheBlueWizard

Pro

My opponent has forfeited every round thus far. I henceforth claim victory.
Anonymousposterperson

Con

Anonymousposterperson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheBlueWizard 2 years ago
TheBlueWizard
Actually the referance was "may you die in glorious battle, Qua'plah!"

It was a Star Trek referance.
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
Is TheBlueWizard a gauntlet reference?
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
Who's deciding what is and isn't "morally justified"?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
TheBlueWizardAnonymousposterpersonTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
TheBlueWizardAnonymousposterpersonTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession