Wanting Someone to Not Commit Suicide Is Equally As Selfish As Wanting to Commit Suicide

As this is the last round, i must say i enjoyed reading your arguments, they were very logical and did not pander to emotions, that being said i will address the flaws you pointed out in my argument. Pro claims that the value of life is purely subjective "as is the pain of emotional trauma". Con once again argues that constitutions around the world value the right to life as something sacred, some going even as far as stipulating that the right to life cannot be limited. The law or more appropriately the constitution (especially human rights) are a reflection on societies moral beliefs, law stems from customs which have been practiced by the society for several years. Human life is also regarded as sacred in ancient cultures which stemmed mainstream religions such as hinduism, islam,and christianity. This is a general indicator that the majority of people value human life, ofcourse in this instance you could argue that the majority's views are irrelevant to Steve's decisions. Con however argues that by stopping Steve from committing suicide, Matthew and Jane act in the best interests of society, it is not their desires they pursue, it is that of the general ,morality of the majority, by defending a stance which seeks to maintain the position that human life is extremely valuable. Con also seeks to counter Pro's assertion that rationality is irrelevant, infact rationality ties up to Con's current counter argument. Matthew and Jane understand the irrationality of Steve's actions, on top of defending society in general, Matthew and Jane, selflessly seek to stop Steve from committing a somewhat irrational act, they understand that after a while, after thinking things through Steve would be able to see things from a more objective and rational manner and act as such. Steve infact does owe a lot to his grandchildren, Steve gave life to his children and his grandchildren are essentially descendants of Steve without him, they would not exist, the mere fact that he gave birth to their parents makes them linked in blood and genetically. Furthermore humans instinctively act in a manner that aides people in their groups. Think of Steve's family as a clan, Steve has a duty to ensure the continued existence of this clan, by defending it from potential dangers that may arise, by stopping Steve from committing suicide you're not merely seeing him as a means to an end,you're seeing him as an integral and necessary part of a clan, they need him and instinctively he owes a duty to protect them. The person who stops the suicide here acts in the best interests of however many grandchildren Steve has, that again is not a selfish act. The person who stops the suicide may not have any family ties with Steve, but still tries to help Steve's family It is selfless for a man to step out of his safety zone and try and help someone he barely knows by stopping him from committing suicide. This person has a choice to stay away, and keep his nose out of a potentially drama filled scenario, but he still chooses to help. Con argues that is the definition of selflessness With regards to your second counter argument, regarding the race. Con argues that suicide in this instance would more appropriately be boycotting the race. There is a 100 metre line set, some get there faster, some slower, committing suicide is choosing to not run the race of life. By not running the race X robs himself of finding out how it would have turned out. It is also important to note that X's existence or non existence may not have any relevance to Y's life yet he still chooses to make an effort to connect to Mr X. Much like the Steve analogy he sees things from a more objective perspective. Furthermore Con argues that if these desires are polar opposites, does it not then naturally follow that the selfishness present in these desires are also polar opposites? With regards to the right to life counter argument, Con refers to paragraph 1 regarding the constitutions,cultures and religions, the facts speak for themselves, what is purely subjective is the idea of selfishness itself. What one regards as selfish is not regarded as selfish by another. Much like Pro argues donating money can both be regarded as selfish and selfless at the same time. Since by implication of Pro's assertion it is clear that Pro agrees that the term selfish itself is somewhat subjective as there is no certainty on what is and what isn't selfish. Is it not therefore Pro's submission that the act of stopping Steve from killing himself has are some elements of selflessness, whether or not the intention was selfless or selfish is debatable, we cannot look into the minds of people, all we can do is judge from their actions and the result of their actions Once again that was truly enjoyable and thank you for a good argument