Suicide Is Immoral

Thanks to Pro for posting his opening arguments so quickly. As he said in Round 1, he has the burden of proof, so what I must do to negate the resolution is refute all of Pro's arguments. R1: "Suicide is Murder" Essentially, Pro argues that because suicide is a form of unjustified murder, and is thus immoral.Of course, I accept the notion that unjustified murder is immoral; where my opponent and I disagree is whether or not suicide falls into that category. It is necessary that we begin by examining exactly *why* we consider murder to be immoral; the primary reason is that it forcibly strips an individual of their life. This is rather uncontroversial, so I will leave it to Pro to contest this if he wishes to do so. Now, suicide, while it may technically be murder, is missing the essential element that makes murder immoral: a lack of consent. When a murderer kills someone, he his called immoral because he has taken away someone else's life without their consent; however, when a guy commits suicide, he has his own *full* consent to strip himself of his life, and thus, there is nothing immoral about it. Pro presents an analogy that sort of takes consent into consideration :"Let's make yet another comparison to homicide. A man sets a gun to a teen's head and says "This is so you don't have to live with depression." The teen doesn't object because he agrees. I find it hard to believe that the general public will accept the man as morally sound. He most likely will be sent to prison for life. Suicide is comparable." Needless to say, this analogy is flawed, as it relies on ad populum fallacy; people in general are not always rational, so citing the fact that many people would condemn such an act is not evidence of its immorality. If the teenager in question has *truly* given consent, then there is nothing objectively immoral about it, for the reasons outlined previously. R2: "Societal Harms" Before continuing, I will first establish that all humans have a "right to death"-- the right to die when they want to die. I think my opponent would agree that all human beings have a right to life, seeing that he agrees unjustified murder is immoral. Like is the case with any right, we have the right to abstain from exercising it; after all, if we cannot do that, it is no longer a right-- it is an obligation. The right to life does not require us to continue living any more than the right to free speech requires us to speak our minds. Just as we have the right to discard our property, we also have the right to discard our own lives. Hence, people do have the right to death, as an extension of their right to life. Bringing the focus back to Pro's argument, we see that he cites the negative social consequences of a suicide as reason to consider suicide immoral. However, this argument relies on a consequentialist framework, which essentially ignores all other factors of ethical relevance (e.g. rights, intent, etc), and condemns/condones actions solely based on their practical consequences. In order for this contention to succeed, Pro must first show that consequentialism is a valid ethical system-- that an action's consequences are the only ethically relevant factors in its moral value. More specifically, Pro must show that the negative impact that a suicide has on other people overrides a person's right to death. I will end off with a question for Pro: why should other people be able to obligate us to continue living? =============== CONCLUSION =============== Pro has utilized two major lines of argumentation to try demonstrating the immorality of suicide. His first argument fails because it ignores the essential role of coercion in the immorality of murder, which is completely absent from suicide since the individual has his own consent to take his life. His second line of argumentation fails because it is has its basis in the unproven, and somewhat flawed, ethical system of consequentialism. Pro must successfully counter both of these rebuttals to uphold his case. The resolution is negated.