It is morally permissible...

" My argument is that it's not a contradiction." A and not A, argued to be both true, in the same context. Fits the definition of contradiction last I checked. "My point is that the resolution, as written is possible."] And my point is that it's not because the doctrine is invalid. "Also, your argument that I ought to kill him is flawed. Even if it is his life, I have no right to play God and take his life. He can kill himself, but I sure as hell can't." There is no God to play. Therefore no flaw. Further, if he has the right to kill himself, he implicitly is the only word in whether he dies- his word is therefore valid in granting you that right. " Immanuel Kant proves that morality must come from the intentions. He said "the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. For all these effects- agreeableness of one's condition and even the promotion of the happiness of others- could have been also brought about by other causes, so that for this there would have been no need of the will of a rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found."" False proof. Human life is a volitional process- no human has ever lived out a modern lifespan without the will of a rational being seeking to make it so. This is therefore something that cannot come from other causes. Further, even if it could, it would be less likely to, therefore you still need the will. Intentions are fluff, they can indicate threats, but they cannot otherwise matter in reality when not achieved. "The principle of double effect requires you to try to avoid the bad consequence, but if it is unavoidable, that's where double effect comes in. " This contradicts your example. The death is not unavoidable. " I pretty much addressed this. The person shooting you is either violating double effect, or is retarded, and cannot be held responsible." How's he violating double effect? I already addressed your bit of intellectual dishonesty with "unavoidable," therefore, on what grounds can one death that is not the goal of the action\be irrelevant to the morality of the action, and the other relevant? And yes, retarded people can be held responsible, for the immoral action of messing with forces they know they don't understand, regardless of the consequences. Reduced intelligence is not the same as no intelligence. "I am saying that A is B, and C is D. To define these variables: A-intentionally killing the patient B-wrong C- Injecting the patient with a lethal amount of morphine in order to relieve his pain. D- right No contradiction, and A and C are both killing an innocent. I win." First, wrong in this context, because you already conceded that A IS C. They are the same action, just different emphasis. So yes, that is indeed a contradiction. (I'll be adding an extra column in this proof, since it has a provisional assumption, it needs an assumption dependence column) 1 1. A>B (A) 2 2. C>D (A) 3 3. C>A (A, your repeated statement) 4 4. B>~D (A, right and wrong are opposites) 5 5. C (Provisional A) 2,5 6. D (2,5 >O) 3,5 7. A (3,5 >O) 1, 3,5 8. B (1,7 >O) 1,3,4,5 9. ~D (4,8 >O) 1,2,3,4,5 10. D&~D (6,9 &I)contradiction 1,2,3,4 11 C>(D&~D, >I), again contradiction Second, you are ignoring the resolution, since you haven't proven that the action IN THE RESOLUTION falls under double effect. Third, of course, if you know you are going to get result X from action Y, and you take action Y, result X is intended- acted towards- anyway.