Voluntary Euthanasia

Thanks for the debate, Varrack!CON's CASEC1. LifeSC1. SanctityCon claims: "The fact that they contain autonomy...affirms the claim that human life in particular holds value." In fact, this is not the case, because life and autonomy are not the same. We can imagine a human being locked in a cell, chained to a wall, and tortured into submission. Such a human may have life, but is not autonomous. So, the claim that I am making is that autonomy is what is most valuable, not life itself.Con writes: "[T]he prerequisite of the painting is the easel...It does not matter whether the easel has a practical net worth that is...less...because the existence of the painting depends on...the easel." Con is basically saying here that life only has instrumental value, insofar as he is comparing it to the easel. So, he is directly contradicting his earlier Kant quote--i.e., Con is shifting the goal-posts of his argument and contradicting himself (first, he says life's not an instrument, then he says it is).Also, once we view life as the easel (i.e. an instrument), it is easy to make the jump to affirming Voluntary Euthanasia (VE). Something only has instrumental value because it successfully achieves an end. A hammer or easel is only valuable so long they do their jobs. Con and I agree that life is a prerequisite for autonomy, so when a person is deprived of autonomy, their life is no longer achieving its purpose, i.e. to allow people to exercise their autonomy. Thus, as an instrument, life loses value and it's no longer objectionable to end that life.Even if you don't buy that argument, we can agree that the painting is still worth more than the easel, just as autonomy is worth more than life. If the deprivation of autonomy becomes severe, it will outweigh life (which is less important.) Because the considerations of autonomy outweigh, it is permissible to engage in euthanasia so long as you buy my arguments that VE is the best way to uphold autonomy in the space of the round.Con posits, "We recognize that life is an end in itself...This is brought about by the premise that the life of a living entity is the ultimate goal of the actions of the living entity, with no further actions in mind."This clearly contradicts Con's own comparisons of life to an easel, which is a tool, not an end in itself. Con cannot have it both ways. Secondly, Con's justification for life as an end in itself is clear wrong. Actions such as suicide and requests for VE are proof positive that people do not act solely to preserve their life. Moreover, risk-takers like cliff jumpers or untethered tightrope walkers wouldn't take those actions if they put their life first. Rather, this shows that while humans value their lives as prerequisites, they are willing to jeopardize their lives in order to enrich their experiences. Life is clearly not an end in itself here, the experience is what matters.Next, about deontology, if we value people as ends in themselves, it is ALWAYS immoral to violate their status as ends and use them as tools. To ensure a moral system (this is a debate on morality after all) rules must be strictly enforced. And, if something isn't disallowed, then how can we punish people if they do it? Punishing people for doing stuff that isn't against the rules is unfair--the whole point of having rules is to prevent arbitrary punishment. So, yes, deontology creates a system of strict prohibitions on a variety of actions, and thus violates the principle of non-contradiction--it has no way to resolve disputes between rules. It would be just as absurd, for example, to pass and enforce the following two laws: "all people must go to school," and "school attendance is illegal." It creates a series of catch-22s that leave people in untenable positions. It isn't an issue of learning or not learning, it is an issue of creating understandable, rational, and fair rules; deontology fails to do that, and so it fails to be an effective moral theory.Con DROPS my point No. 8--Kant, that author he cites, actually supports my case by stressing the importance of autonomy. This TURNS Con's case/supports mine.SC2. Devaluation1. Con NEVER DISPUTES that SC2 is dependent on SC1, so if I successfully refuted SC1, SC2 is defeated.2. I argued that the terminally ill will die soon, and so it doesn't really degrade life. Con attempts to say that is true of all humans, but that is really an unfair and inaccurate interpretation of what I said. There is a clear difference between having a few months and many years to live. In the former case, infirmity and pain brought on by illness, as well as the limited time span, will greatly reduce what can be fit into the "painting" of life. Autonomy is being lost rapidly. Whereas, that is not true of a life that has years to go. So, Con's rebuttals here just fall short.3. Con writes: "When the ill make this decision, it indicates that there probably is not much worthy of life to live when in a disabled state." Con seems to be making my point for me, esp. in regards to what I said earlier: euthanizing people is a way of "allowing them to avoid conditions that make them feel less human or degraded."C2. Interests1. Con writes: "My argument here isn't that a perfect knowledge...[is] needed for just any situations, but rather for ones that are related to the elimination of life." Using Con's logic, in any situation where one is deciding to take a life, one would first need perfect knowledge before acting. Let's assume that I am a police officer and I reasonably believe that a suspect is reaching for a gun. Can I shoot him in self-defense? I am 80% sure that he is going to grab it and fire at me, but there is still room for doubt. I am probably justified in firing first, if only to say my life or the lives of bystanders, despite my lack of perfect knowledge. But, even if you don't buy into this example, we can still imagine cases where someone justifiably took the life of another without having perfect knowledge of the situation. So, my original point stands: "We have to...content ourselves with...a certain level of risk in the decisions we choose, but that shouldn't preclude us from being able to make those decisions." We have to go with what the facts lead us to believe is the best choice in the moment we're making that choice--even if that decision is ultimately wrong.2. Con says he would choose the choice with most accurate success rate. Doctor's get it right 83% of the time, but there is no alternative that Con gives. Therefore, doctors are the most accurate in the terms of this debate. And, again, we always accept a level of risk in decision-making, but 83% confidence is a very high level of confidence.3. Con DROPS this point. Extend: "Even if a terminally ill patient outlives the doctor's initial estimate, it may still be in their interests to be euthanized."4. Con CONCEDES this.5. Con says that living wills don't matter because people cannot know what that pain would be like. First, cross-apply my arguments about the ridiculousness of requiring perfect knowledge. Second, people can make reasonable inferences about what it would be like to live like that, in terms of pain and a loss of freedom.6. Con says that patients are less likely to act rationally under pain, but yet, as I said last round: "we are still considered to be able to make rational decisions while stressed." Con also DOESN'T DENY that people in pain are capable of rationality. And, if anything, pain doesn't make us irrational, it just adds another factor the equation. If we realize that this pain is too much to bear, than it does seem rational to want it to end. C3. Similitudes1+2. Con's premise is flawed because suicide and euthanasia are not "practically the same." They may be similar, but they are different enough that one doesn't void the other. Con seems to say that a suicidal person may eventually kill themselves, but the difference in the two cases is that the terminally-ill person WILL die, while the suicidal person does not have to die. Also, including a physician reduces the likelihood of unnecessary suffering in the process, another checkmark in favor of VE.3. Regulation isn't a perfect fix. But should we give up on regulating driving because crashes and deaths still occur? No. Regulations significantly mitigates the problem, and Con never really quantifies the problem anyway.4. A cherry-picked example doesn't show a slope is likely. Every decision we make has a risk of a slope so we can't obsess about vague "what ifs..."5. It's not undoubtedly bad; many people the Netherlands are euthanizing don't have autonomy anyway, so there's no loss there. Con has failed to prove the slope is actually a negative.VOTING ISSUESPer rule 3, if Con dropped/conceded/didn't rebut something, he cannot contest it this round.My BOP is laid out in my OB2, which reads, in part, "I need not demonstrate that my position is...correct or the best stance to take; I just need to show that there are good reasons for [it]...Con needs to show that there is no reasonable ethical...ground for me to stand on."1. Autonomy Autonomy matters more than life; life is just an instrument. VE upholds autonomy by respecting voluntary choices/reducing suffering. Also, losses in autonomy while terminally ill mean euthanasia isn't a harm. People can make rational choices while in pain and/or make living wills beforehand. Plus, the terminally ill are going to die soon anyway. 2. Deontology Con relies on deontology, which is a severely flawed moral system. Con cannot even decide if life is an end or a means. 3. Interests Doctor's prognoses are reliable, and given the expense, pain, and loss of autonomy, euthanasia is in patient's interests. 4. Practicality People are going to try to die regardless, so we should do what we can to ease their passing. There are good reasons to believe in VE. Thus, I affirm. Please VOTE PRO! Thank you!