Resolved: Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified

FINAL REBUTTALSR1. Sanctity of LifePro accuses me of making assumptions, yet makes his own, which is that "if Kant said it, he must be right". Pro doesn't use any logic to provide a base for his assertion that euthanasia patients are irrational beings, but just quotes someone else's interpretation of Kant and implies that this must be true. The only notable contention worthy of discussion is the statement that I have conceded to patients being irrational, when I really haven't. Pro quotes me out of context: "euthanasia patients cannot assess themselves properly", but doesn't realize that I also said, "One cannot assess themselves properly", meaning that I meant no has the right to make the decision that their life is not worth living, not that those in pain are irrational.The definition of "rational" is: "agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible"[1].The question at hand is not what constitutes rationality, but what constitutes worth. According to this definition, a person who is asleep or in a coma is not rational, because he or she is not sensible. Sensibility does not apply when one is not aware. In order to be reasonable, one must have the ability to reason, which does not exist when sleeping, unconscious, or unaware. If someone is in this state, it does not mean that he or she has no worth. What makes them unique is still existent regardless of their state of mind. They are alive and are a member of the human species, so their value is the same as anyone else's. Thus, we see that the notion that worth is dictated by rationality is illogical. My opponent's argument for such an arbitrary claim has not been made, besides quoting a professor he asserts is right.R2. Devaluation of LifePro cites the Bible (which is iffy, but I'll indulge) as the base for his argument that it is better to be dead than alive when it comes to suffering. The writer of Ecclesiastes actually seems to be expressing his feelings of envy towards those who have not experienced sin (those "which have not been"), not advice. Since the Bible was written by God's alleged followers, not himself, there isn't much of a reason to believe that the Bible is 100% directly from him.Pro's argument here is pretty weak: he is stating that the value of life is factored whether someone can make decisions or not. This is not true at all. If I am allowed choice A but not choice B, is my life worth less than those who can choose both A and B? Of course not. This is a ridiculous assertion.Allowing a patient to die shows that life must not have as much inherent worth for those who are disabled. Furthermore, others tend to look down upon such patients which creates a downgrading image of the disabled, as if life means less to them. This misconception is unnecessary and invalid, and hurts the public view towards life.R3. Best interestsHuman beings are an end to themselves, regardless of whether one can properly reason. If one is an end to themselves, that means that they are their own good, and it would be immoral to choose to destroy that end. If someone is their own good, they ought to uphold that good, which is their own inherent worth. As I demonstrated above, the ability to reason has nothing to do with one's worth. My original reasoning can be illustrated:P1: All human beings are an end to themselves.P2: This end means that humans have an inherent goodness.P3: Self-worth is a result of inherent goodness.P4: Extinguishing self-worth by process of elimination is morally wrong.C1: Euthanasia is morally unjust.Self-reasoned motives cannot be seen as equally respectable (in this case) partially because, according to Pro, euthanasia patients are irrational. If one is irrational, then their ability to reason is very limited, so they should not be trusted with making a decision concerning self-elimination, especially since such an issue is one of the most serious that can possibly be made.The other reason for why self-motives are not equally respectable in euthanasia cases are because there is no absolute knowledge existing concerning the future of the patient. It is wrong to make decisions based on human predictions. As I put forth in the second round, there are multiple reasons why euthanasia is obviously unjust.But Pro counters with this: "Euthanasia may be necessary because it may be the only way to end a patient's suffering". The problem with this assertion is the word may. It is unethical to make such decisions based on the rationale, "it may be the only reason, but there's no way to know for sure so we might as well eliminate the patient". What kind of reasoning is this? As moral human beings, the benefit if the doubt should go towards preserving life. If I were hunting and heard a rustling in a nearby bush, would I pull out my gun and blindly shoot? No, because there is no certainty about who are what is inside that bush, so the hunter should be absolutely sure before shooting. Since there is no way to do this in euthanasia cases, eugenics as a whole is unjust.R4. Euthanasia and SuicidePro misreads my argument of the similarities between suicide baiting and euthanasia encouragement by stating that allowing euthanasia isn't suicide baiting. It isn't, but encouraging such is. There really is no big difference between family members of a euthanasia patient pressuring them to be euthanized and a friend telling someone else to go through with suicide. The latter is a legal violation deserving of prosecution, but the former is not. Clearly, this a similarity that shows how unethical euthanasia is.The role of a physician is to preserve life, not eliminate it. Life cannot be made better because that patient does not even contain life anymore, and that patient cannot experience anything else anymore. Suffering is only one component of what they cannot perceive.Legal ability does not constitute justice. Euthanasia cannot be adequately defined as murder in areas where it is legal (because its definition states that murder is only legitimate if it is unlawful), but it can still be seen as an unjust killing. Whether society agrees over its morality is irrelevant to its actual morality. The application of the ad populum fallacy isn't sufficient for justifying such an act. Pro seems to dodge my argument that the difference between euthanasia and suicide is the presence of a physician and creates a straw man by implying that I stated that physicians are murders, which I did not. The definition of murder disallows physicians as being constituted as such.However, a physician act isn't justified just because it isn't murder. The physician may have simply been "doing his duty" or made a misplaced ethical decision.ConclusionI have successfully rebutted all of Pro's points and shown why they are illogical. Pro relies on quotes from other sources supporting his view but doesn't actually show why these views are logically correct or ethically sound. In sum, life is meant to be preserved (whether rational or irrational), it is wrong to devaluate life, eugenics is not in the patient's best interest, and it is too similar to suicide to be considered ethically good.Thus, I negate the resolution of voluntary euthanasia being morally justified. Thanks for the debate Pro and thanks to readers for reading! Vote Con.Source[1] http://www.dictionary.reference.com...