Killing someone is morally equivalent to letting them die.

I will separate my rebuttal into different sections for different points. =Section1====================================================================== "You don't always have the luxury of saving a person, and it is in that scenario where killing and letting die are not morally equivalent." OK, something my opponent fails to understand: Without the chance to save the victim, the outcome of ANY decision you make will be death. By removing all positive outcomes from the situation, you have made every decision have a negative outcome, and thus be morally equivalent. Similar to how removing the good from the world turns all evil into neutrality. Thus, morals are irrelevant in the current scenario, because the outcome will be the same regardless of what you do. And no, taking Billy's life is not a positive outcome, he just dies faster. So what? The result is still a loss of life. And as you have already acknowledged that the ends justify the means, if the outcomes are the same, then the actions (or inactions) must be morally equivalent. In a situation where there is only one type of outcome, every action is neutral; thus, morally equivalent. "Bob's options in my opponent's scenarios and whether or not the ends justify have nothing to do with whether or not my situations are valid." Actually, it does. If you make all the ends the same, then you have effectively taken the morality out of morals. Nothing can be morally equivalent or inequivalent; nothing can be justified or unjustified; nothing can be good or evil. And, literally, if all ends are the same, then all means are the same too. (Morally speaking, of course.) "They're not the same. A you can kill to stop needless suffering, or you can let Billy die. B you follow Grandma's wishes and not euthanize her, or you can let her follow her wishes and die. C, you can kill Stephen as a baby, or let him live a normal life until he dies." See my above rebuttals. =Section2====================================================================== "I agree that Bob is committing two equal actions. That's because they resulted in the same ends . . . " So you concede? I've already established that same ends = moral equivalence. You just agreed that they have the same ends. My opponent's quote does nothing to support his case. This is because happiness and pain are SUBJECTIVE. My opponent cannot determine what makes me happy, and I cannot determine what causes him pain, because we might differ in our ideals. Now let's look at morals for a second. What you believe causes happiness and pain determines what your decisions are. Your decisions determine the outcome. However, you cannot use happiness and pain to determine morality. To determine what is morally equivalent, much like to determine anything, you cannot turn to subjective reasoning. You must analyze the outcome, and the fact that the subject is aware of such outcomes (since he/she makes the decision). Bob KNOWS that the child will fall out of the window if he loses his balance. If Bob pushes the child, Bob knows that he will fall and die. If Bob lets the child fall, Bob knows he will die. Bob made the decision to either take action or inaction, knowing fully well that the outcome will be the same. Thus, these decisions (killing or letting die) are morally equivalent. "In scenario A, yes Billy dies both ways, but killing leads to more pain and suffering, as he is allowed to scream in agony for a few torturous minutes." How do you scream in agony with a hole in your throat and a punctured lung? Chances are, with injuries this serious, you won't be alive much longer than it takes someone to stab you with a shard of glass. What's more, you have no way of knowing if he will retaliate to your murder attempt, nor do you know if he wants to tells you a final request through sign language, etc. Since you don't know if you will cause happiness or pain, but you DO know that he will die either way, either one of these actions would be morally equivalent to the other. "In B, although Grandma dies in both situations, you deny her and her family the closure they would have received from those few extra days, thereby causing more pain in scenario B if you kill, and less if you let her die." How do you know if she wants to let her family watch her die? Again, since you don't know if you will cause happiness or pain, but you DO know that she will die either way, either one of these actions would be morally equivalent to the other. "In C, Stephen dies both ways, but if you kill him, you deny him of 20 happy years, which leads to less happiness. Obviously there is a difference in the ends, even though death is included in all the ends. It's just that in these situations, killing or letting die changes the exact nature of these ends." How do you know that Stephen will live a happy 20 years? Yet again, since you don't know if you will cause happiness or pain, but you DO know that he will die either way, either one of these actions would be morally equivalent to the other. =Section3====================================================================== "This is never claimed by me. It is not implied." You may not have meant to imply it, but you did. By making all the ends the same, you have made everything morally equivalent. Remember, same ends = moral equivalence. "Saving the person's life is not always an option, and when that occurs, you must still maximize happiness and minimize pain." Too bad it will all provide the same outcome: -1 life. Oops, looks like you made everything morally equivalent again. =Summary====================================================================== Section 1: 1. "The ends justify the means" has been accepted as true. 2. In my scenario, the ends are the same, so the means must be the same. 3. In my opponent's scenarios, the ends are the same for ANY DECISION, installing neutrality. Section 2: 1. My opponent acknowledged that "they resulted in the same ends". Therefore, he has CONCEDED. 2. My opponent attempts to base moral equivalence off of happiness and pain, two subjective ideas. I have shown why it must be based off a determined factor: the outcome, and what the subject's decisions were. 3. My opponent's scenarios provide no positive outcome, so they must be disregarded (see Section 1, Point 3). Also, no matte what happens, the outcome will be the same, making killing and letting die morally equivalent. Section 3: 1. My opponent's scenarios lead to illogical conclusions. So, voters, it looks like a clear PRO vote.