Killing someone is morally equivalent to letting them die.

"OK, something my opponent fails to understand: Without the chance to save the victim, the outcome of ANY decision you make will be death. By removing all positive outcomes from the situation, you have made every decision have a negative outcome, and thus be morally equivalent. Similar to how removing the good from the world turns all evil into neutrality. Thus, morals are irrelevant in the current scenario, because the outcome will be the same regardless of what you do. And no, taking Billy's life is not a positive outcome, he just dies faster. So what? The result is still a loss of life. And as you have already acknowledged that the ends justify the means, if the outcomes are the same, then the actions (or inactions) must be morally equivalent. In a situation where there is only one type of outcome, every action is neutral; thus, morally equivalent." What my opponent fails to understand is that under this logic, all negative outcomes would be equivalent. I think it can be agreed that death is negative. So under this logic, one dead is just as bad as 6 billion dead. This is absolutely absurd. A situation in which there is more negative outcomes is not equal to one with less. All of my scenarios have outcomes that are negative, but depending on whether you kill the person or let them die, they are more or less negative. "Actually, it does. If you make all the ends the same, then you have effectively taken the morality out of morals. Nothing can be morally equivalent or inequivalent (sic); nothing can be justified or unjustified; nothing can be good or evil. And, literally, if all ends are the same, then all means are the same too. (Morally speaking, of course.)" The ends aren't the same! Just being negative does not mean they are equivalent. My opponent and I are both humans, but we are not the same! The ends are different, and they are more negative or less negative depending on one's actions. The ends are not equivalent, so the means are not equivalent. "See my above rebuttals." Your above rebuttals don't address this. Yeah, they are negative, but they are less negative or more negative than the alternative. "So you concede? I've already established that same ends = moral equivalence. You just agreed that they have the same ends." I concede that in one situation they are equivalent, as the ends were the same. I contend however that in many situations the ends are not the same. "My opponent's quote does nothing to support his case. This is because happiness and pain are SUBJECTIVE. My opponent cannot determine what makes me happy, and I cannot determine what causes him pain, because we might differ in our ideals. Now let's look at morals for a second. What you believe causes happiness and pain determines what your decisions are. Your decisions determine the outcome. However, you cannot use happiness and pain to determine morality. To determine what is morally equivalent, much like to determine anything, you cannot turn to subjective reasoning. You must analyze the outcome, and the fact that the subject is aware of such outcomes (since he/she makes the decision)." Happiness is caused by endorphins and dopamine, which are genetically wired to emit these chemicals under certain stimuli. These include not dying. Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage." Cancer, punctured lungs, amputated arms, and holey necks cause tissue damage. They definitely cause pain. Pain and happiness are quantifiable neurological phenomenon that can be included in moral calculi. "How do you know if she wants to let her family watch her die? Again, since you don't know if you will cause happiness or pain, but you DO know that she will die either way, either one of these actions would be morally equivalent to the other." I know she wants to let her family watch her die because SHE SAID SO! I know it will cause happiness because it is something that has been studied and has been shown to be true. Death causes pain to loved ones. If you get a goodbye, however, it causes less pain. Killing leads to more pain than letting die. Obviously they are not equivalent. "How do you know that Stephen will live a happy 20 years? Yet again, since you don't know if you will cause happiness or pain, but you DO know that he will die either way, either one of these actions would be morally equivalent to the other." The vast majority of people in developed nations are happy to be alive. It is not definite, but very likely that Stephen's going to live a happy life. Killing Stephen would prevent him from happiness. "How do you scream in agony with a hole in your throat and a punctured lung? Chances are, with injuries this serious, you won't be alive much longer than it takes someone to stab you with a shard of glass. What's more, you have no way of knowing if he will retaliate to your murder attempt, nor do you know if he wants to tells you a final request through sign language, etc. Since you don't know if you will cause happiness or pain, but you DO know that he will die either way, either one of these actions would be morally equivalent to the other." Forgot that one. For the purposes of the scenario, he lives a few more minutes that he will spend in agony. He cannot retaliate, as he is missing some limbs, and last requests are probably not the first thing on his mind. Killing him saves him from the agony of those last few minutes. "You may not have meant to imply it, but you did. By making all the ends the same, you have made everything morally equivalent. Remember, same ends = moral equivalence." THE ENDS ARE NOT THE SAME!!! There is pain, suffering, rights violations and other negative impacts that are not included in one scenario, but are in the other. "Too bad it will all provide the same outcome: -1 life. Oops, looks like you made everything morally equivalent again." It's a different outcome, -1 life, -3 happiness, etc. Oops looks like you made everything not morally equivalent again. "1. "The ends justify the means" has been accepted as true. 2. In my scenario, the ends are the same, so the means must be the same. 3. In my opponent's scenarios, the ends are the same for ANY DECISION, installing neutrality." I agree with 1 and 2. 3 however is a lie. They are different ends, as I have shown COUNTLESS times. "1. My opponent acknowledged that "they resulted in the same ends". Therefore, he has CONCEDED. 2. My opponent attempts to base moral equivalence off of happiness and pain, two subjective ideas. I have shown why it must be based off a determined factor: the outcome, and what the subject's decisions were. 3. My opponent's scenarios provide no positive outcome, so they must be disregarded (see Section 1, Point 3). Also, no matte (sic) what happens, the outcome will be the same, making killing and letting die morally equivalent." 1. I conceded that in one scenario they were equivalent, but by no means in all. 2. I showed that pain and happiness were not subjective, but that they are biological functions. 3. THE OUTCOME IS NOT THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "1. My opponent's scenarios lead to illogical conclusions." Uhh... no. You just misconstrued and misinterpreted my argument. Your stupidity has nothing to do with my argument's validity. So voters, the vote goes to CON without a doubt.