Killing someone is morally equivalent to letting them die.

"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.'" What Bob knows has nothing to do with anything but YOUR scenario. My scenarios do not have this feature. That's why I picked them. 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. "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." 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. "Since all of the scenarios are the same situation in different context, I will only address Scenario A." 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. "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 Thus whatever action or inaction you take is obsolete; ANYTHING you do will ultimately end with a life lost.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." I agree that Bob is committing two equal actions. That's because they resulted in the same ends. Morality is "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded- namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain." 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. 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. 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. Although my opponent argues that there can be no evil if there is no good, my case stands. There is still good in my scenarios. It may not be the ideal good, but it is still maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness, as is allowed. "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." 1. This is never claimed by me. It is not implied. You are wrong. saving a life is not equivalent to killing a person, the ends are different. My scenarios the ends were different too. 2. That is also not implied or stated in my argument. I provided a good action and a bad action. Saving the person's life is not always an option, and when that occurs, you must still maximize happiness and minimize pain. The action that does this is the good one, and the action that doesn't is bad.