Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

== Clarification == OBV 1: My opponent misreads what I wrote here. I never said that he must argue that adolescents ought to NOT have the right to make autonomous medical decisions. I said that because he doesn’t argue this, it means that he has a smaller burden. OBV 2: My opponent misunderstands the second observation too. Since my opponent’s entire rebuttal to my case is in regards to moral nihilism if he fails to hold this to be true then my entire case stands and I win the debate. Therefore, you must prove moral nihilism to be true in order to negate my case. OBV 3: My opponent notes that right =/= justified. My opponent distorts the definition of right and changes it into what somebody is obliged to do. I disagree, and you ought to buy my definition over my opponent’s. My definition was sourced and was taken from a reliable source whereas my opponent’s combating definition of right is bare assertion. Therefore, my definition stands. My opponent’s one does not. Moral Nihilism My opponent attacks my interpretation of the definitions by saying that acceptability isn’t morality. I know that acceptability isn’t morality, I never claimed that it was. I made the claim that acceptability is one of the contributing factors in determining what is right and wrong. My opponent says that there are contradicting definitions from dictionaries but fails to provide examples. I agree that some dictionaries may have different definitions but I disagree that there are any ‘reliable’ dictionaries that are ‘contradictory’ to my definition. Since what is morally good is debatable I analyzed what is primarily makes up the word ‘right’. Right is made up of 4 words (per my definition in the previous round), “morally good, justified and acceptable”. Since what is defined as morally good is subjective and my opponent would clearly disagree (due to his moral nihilistics position that he has taken in this debate). Justified has subjectivism included but in this scenario it is objectively based since I have provided arguments which show that there are reasons as to why this would be detrimental to society. As a result (even if some people may believe the position is wrong), the case is still justified. I have also shown that it is acceptable. My opponent complains that my obligation isn’t to prove that it is acceptable or justified but what they fail to understand is that they still haven’t sufficiently combated the definition of right. It is comparable to a chain reaction. Justified and acceptable are what makes something right (per the definition), right and wrong are what makes up morality, morally good things make up moral obligation (to do good things) [1]. Since I have proven that right equates to justified and acceptable that ultimately means that the chain reaction is set off and I have proven moral obligation. The k fails due to this. Of course social acceptance alone mitigates the objectivity of it but Con fails to understand that it is also about justification and that requires proof and evidence (in this scenario) and as a result the decision is generally considered objective. I don’t need to show that it is objectively moral. I need to show that it’s moral and I have shown that it coincides with the definition of ‘right’. As the chain reaction shows, my arguments are justified and acceptable and are therefore right and there is a moral obligation. My opponent is dismissing normative ethics as irrelevant when they really aren’t. There is no reason to drop or dismiss the libertarian framework because it is based on normative ethics. Normative ethics focuses on what is moral and what is immoral. I have shown this and by doing so I demonstrate moral obligation which fulfills my burden [2]. My opponent states that it does not stand because his argument regards metaethics but he fails to acknowledge that my argument regards normative ethics. If mine regards normative ethics then dismissal of my case is not warranted just because my opponent’s argument conflicts in the sense that it’s metaethical. If normativity fulfills my burden, then I can use normativity. My opponent lies and says that I dropped the libertarian framework in regards to utilitarianism. I made a response to this which my opponent drops. The Buddhist framework shows that things can be objectively moral and more importantly immoral. The Buddhist framework is metaethical in the sense that it says that things are moral if they don’t cause suffering and things are immoral if they do. The libertarian framework was normative and supported my case. The Buddhist framework is metaethical and negates yours. The two frameworks coincide since the libertarian framework shows that restriction is wrong and causes suffering. The Buddhist framework says that suffering is wrong. Therefore my normative and metaethical frameworks work together. Causing suffering is immoral. The definition of suffering is: “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.” [3] Since subjecting people to mental illness when you clearly have the option to do otherwise causes psychological pain [4]. This means that suffering is being caused. Wrong and immoral are synonyms [5]. Causing suffering is clearly wrong and immoral and is justified as such by Kantian deontology. It states: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." [6] It means that humans are rational beings and deserve to be treated and respected because we have the capacity to do so. This also justifies why it is different when referencing to animals because animals are not rational therefore animals are not treated as well as humans are. Under Buddhism and under Kantian deontology objective morals have been proven. I’m extending Buddhism because it was dropped and dismissed after my opponent falsely referred to it as normative rather than metaethical. My opponent continues to attempt to refute God’s existence which is entirely irrelevant because, like I’ve said, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in the existence of God and I have no intention of turning this debate into a debate on the subject on God’s existence (which is what my opponent appears to be doing). Of my opponent’s options the latter is true. I have already said that they are followed by everybody excluding some members of society that are unable to do so. The mentally ill and the uneducated / badly educated. Cannot be expected to be moral. The mentally ill are sometimes unable to even have the brain capacity to understand the concept of morality, let alone what is moral and what is not [7]. The uneducated, if not taught the difference between right and wrong can often have a false sense of morality or have a distorted sense due to their lack of knowledge. Therefore, objective morality does exist (at least to some extent it does) however those incapable or uneducated on the subject should not be expected to understand it. There are also many other exceptions of people that do not follow morality for various other reasons however the list is long and the character limit is finite. Off Topic Arguments The anatomy of the brain and the underdevelopment of it is irrelevant as I have said due to the fact that children and adults are both capable of making equally bad decisions and they do make bad decisions. Using a “fake” scenario to show a child’s immaturity does little to prove your point. My opponent says that it is different for adults because they have nobody to act on their behalf. This is false. Often in times where adults and children are incapable of making the decision the doctor makes the decision. This provides a perfectly acceptable alternative to adults making the decision. So, I ask my opponent again, what makes this any different to when an adult makes the decision? Adults can and do react equally as bad as children do. The underdevelopment of the brain is irrelevant because this doesn’t prevent irrational thinking. My opponent asserts that it becomes worse than the adults decision. This is false. Children are proven to be equal to (if not more) rational than adults [8]. The purpose of the frontal lobe is to help with voluntary movement and to house the motor cortex. It also relates to predicting future consequences [9]. This is probably what my opponent refers to when he says that they are less rational than adults. Whilst it is true that the the frontal lobe does mitigate adolescents ability to predict future consequences, the system (as I have clearly said), includes counselling and clear information given to the child about what the possible consequences are. As a result, the frontal lobe development is irrelevant because they don’t need to foresee the consequences, the consequences are already given to them. Psychological torture and the tortures that I mentioned are immoral because, as already stated, they cause suffering and suffering is considered to be immoral. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] https://www.google.co.uk... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://www.google.co.uk... [6] https://www.reddit.com... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org...