Resolved: Euthanasia is Immoral.

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...