Pick Your Own Debate - 1D

Since my opponent has agreed with my position on the government's role, there is no need to go further. The argument at hand is obviously Kant's categorical imperative - specifically his 2nd maxim. He has brought up several counterarguments, alongside with offering a few new ones at the end, so I'll go ahead and tackle these in a linear fashion. ==================== Con Counterargument #1 ==================== Ai ya, I'm really tripping up huh? Yes, my opponent is correct in deducing that I argue that suicide is for the sake of ending one's misery, not happiness (to say it's happiness would be nonsensical). Again, I thank my opponent for not catching me on this and claiming victory, though it would have been totally legitimate. I need to proofread my sh*t! My opponent's interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative, however, is something I need not worry about. He argues that "it is not a case of viewing yourself as merely a means to an end...it is a case of a human being exercising their inalienable right to live and die". Yet, you have to wonder - is this an argument? He has said nothing to show why suicide ISN'T a means to and end, he just said it isn't. This is, unfortuantely, ipse dixit. Let me explain. Kant's categorical imperative states that humans can NEVER be used a means for an end, for a human's action must be considered an an end in himself. So killing yourself to relieve yourself from misery is USING yourself as a means. In fact, Kant was one of the greatest opponent's of suicide in his time[1] - would he be wrong about his own philosophical thinking? ==================== Con Counterargument #2 ==================== My opponent's claim that "Kant's categorical condemning of those who would attempt to stop (i.e. make illegal) suicide than those who would commit it, because that too is an action of self-interest, and far more selfish" is very far reaching, and I'm afraid a jump that is unwarranted. Because can't we simply be condemn suicide BECAUSE it's immoral? This is something Kant would support, and is very reasonably probable, and should be the focus of our condemnation - not because of personal reasons. Just think about it - Kant actually condemns his own beliefs (he was against suicide) with his own categorical imperative. This would be a terribly embarrassing mistake for one of the preeminent philosophers in history, one he certainly did NOT make. ==================== Con Counterargument #3 ==================== ---->>> "Even if we were to conclude from Kant's categorical imperative that suicide is immoral, why should we allow that to decide our laws for us? According to Kant, lying, over-eating, smoking and drinking alcohol are all immoral acts, but nobody would suggest we make telling a few lies at the pub against the law." --> Again, I ask why not? Just because it may seem non intuitive and hard to uphold does not mean it shouldn't be discarded. Because if it can be shown that it is correct (to which my opponent has not shown otherwise), than to do otherwise would be IMMORAL. What should take more precedence, morality or the comfort of not changing current laws? Should the government, in fact just we as people, allow something immoral to happen simply because stopping it is inconvenient? ==================== Con Argument #1 ==================== ---->>>"Indeed, it is the only law I can think of where the 'criminal' can only be punished if they FAIL in their attempt, as you can't imprison a dead person (though I'm sure men have tried)." --> The laws against suicide can be a form of forced rehabilitation, since if we successfully rescue them from a failed suicide attempt, then we can rehabilitate them and probably PREVENT them from committing suicide - an immoral act. ==================== Con Argument #2 ==================== This argument isn't of concern to me, since my basis for arguing against suicide is not for "preventing crime", as I agree that would be a nonsensical goal of anti-suicide laws. I am arguing for anti-suicide laws because we can prevent people from committing suicide (either by intervening or by rescuing them after failed attempts) so future immoral acts won't occur. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Again, I thank my opponent for his patience with my constant blunders - I don't know why I'm messing up so bad in this debate. In pertinence to the debate, however, he has still a heavy burden. Here is a list of things he has failed to uphold, and things he needs to argue for: -Failed to show how the 2nd maxim's interpretation is not against suicide, and in fact is against condemning suicide. -Failed to show why Kant would be wrong in his own philosophy -Failed to show why the impracticality of a law should supersede morality -Has yet to refute Kant's categorical imperative The last point is of utter importance. Because all it seems to boil down to is actually refuting Kant's categorical imperative (unless he wants to make a groundbreaking reinterpret of his ethics). This, however, might be contentious with the voters since if he does follow this plan of attack I have no way to refute his arguments. Truly a dilemma for my opponent. His safest bet is to follow with the arguments he has already presented, but these are already under high scrutiny for the reasons I have already listed. If I have shown that suicide is immoral -- there seems to be no reason to the contrary -- then I have won this debate. The debate floor is open for the last round, what will my opponent do? ---References--- 1. http://plato.stanford.edu...