Killing someone is morally equivalent to letting them die.

I confirm that I have agreed to not limiting the topic to one scenario. However, my opponent provides scenarios that obviously do not follow Guideline 2: "Bob does NOT know beforehand that the child will die. However, he knows that if the child loses balance, the child will fall out the window. He knows that if the child falls out the window, the result will be death. He also knows that it is entirely possible to save the child. " And also blatantly ignores the first line of my contention: "In each scenario, Bob has three options: prevent the child from losing balance (saving the child), push the child out the window (killing the child), or let the child fall out the window (letting the child die). We know that in the case of morals, "the ends justify the means", so your decisions are justified by the outcome. " Since all of the scenarios are the same situation in different context, I will only address Scenario A. A) "Your friend Billy and you are driving down I-95 (Yeah East Coast! ), and a tractor trailer rams your car. The car goes flying off the road, and into the median. Billy has a punctured lung, a hole in his neck, a fractured skull, and has lost his arm. He will die within a few minutes, but at this moment he is screaming in intense pain. You are basically okay. You have a shard of glass in your hand that you can use to kill him quickly and end the suffering for Billy. As my opponent agreed, the ends justify the means. The ends of killing Billy would be saving him from a few minutes of intense physical and emotional pain, so it is the moral action. You must kill Billy, as letting him die would be making him suffer needlessly. " Let's compare this to the Bob scenario. In Bob's scenario, he could have saved the child from falling out of the window by helping him keep his balance. Now take a look at the three options Bob had, and their consequences: Help the child (life saved) Push the child (life taken) Let the child fall (allow a life to be taken) So if Bob did not save the child, then due to his action OR his inaction, a life would be lost. Remember, Bob KNEW that the child would die if he lost his balance while looking out the window. Also remember that the end justify the means. Regardless if Bob takes the life or lets it be taken, he KNOWS that the consequence will be a life lost. In Billy's situation, there's not much you can do about a punctured lung, a hole in his neck, a fractured skull and a severed arm - whatever you do, you cannot save Billy's life. The same goes for your grandma in Scenario B, who cannot be saved from her cancer, and Stephen in Scenario C, who cannot be saved from his genetic disorder. My opponent left a very important part out of his scenarios: Bob could have saved the child's life. But you cannot save Billy's life. Thus whatever action or inaction you take is obsolete; ANYTHING you do will ultimately end with a life lost. By this reasoning we conclude one thing: Since any action or inaction will result in a life lost, all decisions are morally equivalent. Now enough about that - on to something else about morals. I will begin with the quote, "Good cannot exist without evil, and vice-versa". We all know that if there is no evil in the world, then nothing can be considered "good"; if there is no good in the world, then nothing can be considered "evil". Now, my opponent provides scenarios that eliminate any possible "good" from happening; you cannot save Billy, Grandma, or Stephen's life. Therefore, with nothing to compare the "evil" to (killing and letting someone die), how would they be evil? Thus, my opponent has taken the morality out of morals, so to speak. By this reasoning we conclude one thing: Since no decision is good or evil, morality cannot be applied to any action or inaction. So, based on the two scenarios my opponent has provided, we have two conclusions: 1. Since any action or inaction will result in a life lost, all decisions are morally equivalent. 2. Since no decision is good or evil, morality cannot be applied to any action or inaction. Now let's analyze these conclusions: 1. This conclusion claims that all decisions are morally equivalent. So, by claiming that ALL decisions apply, one can deduce that saving a life and taking a life are morally equivalent. Obviously, they aren't, which make my opponent's logic flawed. 2. This conclusion claims that all decisions cannot be moral or immoral. My opponent has consequently taken the morality out of a debate about morals. This conclusion does not apply, and is obviously false anyway. So, voters, you see that my opponent uses flawed logic to show moral inequivalence, by providing scenarios with no "good" options.