Making Euthanasia Illegal is Selfish

BOPI never agreed to defend that pushing a ban is categorically unselfish. The whole point of my argument is that both extremes are illegitimate, because both presuppose that either extreme is an essential property of anti-euthanasia advocacy. It is this presupposition which my criticisms challenge.RebuttalsRebuttal 1Dispensing with all this confusing "I never said you said" business, I wholeheartedly agree that, in some possible world, people can all share a common outlook on euthanasia; however, we live in this world, not a possible world where everyone agrees for the same reasons. My argument is that, among different people, different opinions and values exist. Use DDO as a sample. Some people are pro euthanasia, others against, and others are on the fence. In the realm of pure opinion, there is heterogeneity. If you take the people who are anti-euthanasia, and ask what their justifications and motives for that position are, you will get more than one answer. In sub-opinion realm, heterogeneity also exists.Indeed, individuals' reasons for seeking to ban euthanasia are not homogeneous, nor are they all selfish. Even if 95% of anti-euthanasia advocates are selfish in their justifications, this is insufficient to prove Pro's case, because such a contention merely demonstrates how many people are acting selfishly--not whether selfishness is a particular property of the action. The main thrust of my argument this entire debate is that selfishness is not an essential property of the action of opposing/advocating a ban on euthanasia--rather, it is a property of actors. Even if we up the previous number to 100%, Pro's case is not proven, because this argument does not preclude any individual from seeking to ban euthanasia for unselfish reasons. Pro's only defense here is to invoke an example of two religious people who are heterogeneous in their justifications, but are homogeneous in their selfishness. This is a bad argument on Pro's part, because A) the following claim rests on the essential property presupposition, and B) it's faulty induction: I noted above that, even if 100% of advocates are selfish in their advocacy, this does not prove that the action must inherently be borne of selfishness. If 100% of swans I've encountered are white, this does not preclude the possibility of a black swan.Further, Pro picks on the dying man example, arguing that it's an example of someone who chooses not to be euthanized, rather than to advocate a ban on euthanasia. As I noted when proposing the examples, though, it doesn't really matter what our hypothetical is, because the argument doesn't change. If it's a "benevolent dictator", a dying congressman, a regular dying man, such as the one described above, who doesn't want other families to suffer--it doesn't matter, because the argument is that, even accepting Pro's hypothetical world in which everyone is homogeneous in their position on euthanasia, it does not refute my criticism of the essential property presupposition.Rebuttal 2First of all, ad hominem. He's trying to discredit my advocacy by claiming that I "clearly oppose" freedom of choice, the irony of me being an anarcho-capitalist (and therefore as hard-line a libertarian as you'll ever find) aside.Second of all, that he's made a political argument is irrelevant. He's basically saying "Freedom is good", which doesn't have any bearing on whether selfishness is an inherent property of the action we're discussing. The thrust of the contention is basically that freedom is a fundamental interest, and is therefore something everyone has in common. The problem, however, is that Pro is basically theorizing in terms of a person who has two buttons in front of him--one banning euthanasia, the other dispensing total free choice in the matter. Pro is also theorizing that this individual has perfect information, e.g. everyone's interests, individual impacts on utility for both courses of action, etc. Even if we accept that the person is erring in his judgment of what peoples' interests are, we cannot deny that he is considering what he thinks their interests are. Perhaps he thinks that they would ultimately be happier with a ban than with free choice (coughOreElecough). Still, it's largely irrelevant anyway, given my earlier argument about selfishness being a nonessential property of actors, rather than an essential property of actions (which validates that we can conceive of selfishness as being "conceivably selfish", rather than "necessarily selfish", if we must characterize the action).Further, he criticizes me for dealing only with his rebuttals, and not with his constructive; however, his argument is basically "Freedom is good, and banning euthanasia for reasons that contradict freedom is bad and selfish". Even if we accept this to be the case, my previous criticisms (e.g. heterogeneity, the scale problem, the essential property argument) all apply. There's nothing unique to his constructive that wasn't brought up as offense in the rebuttals. In fact, the political argument as refuted above constitutes a significant portion of his case.Rebuttal 3All that I need to do here is paste my response in R3, because Pro is just repeating his argument: "Pro wants you to think that I'm saying 'Ideological values aren't selfish and they are selfish', which would indeed be contradictory. What I'm actually saying is 'Selfishness isn't inherent/essential, but things can conceivably be selfish'." Sometimes advocating a ban is selfish, sometimes it isn't.Rebuttal 4This is a refutation of the dying man example, which I covered above in discussing how the example itself is irrelevant (though I clarified the dying man and re-offered alternatives anyway). See the last paragraph in Rebuttal 1.ConclusionMore or less, Pro hasn't addressed my criticisms. He's pulled quotes or portions out of their full context, he's mischaracterzed my arguments, and he's continued to insist that I have to prove categorical unselfishness, despite my clear argument about the false binary within which he's trying to trap me. The tl;dr of it is this: Pro says that advocating a ban on euthanasia is inherently selfish, and I say that selfishness isn't an essential property of the action, i.e. not part of its identity, or what makes the action what it is. I leave it to you guys to decide which is more reasonable.