Students' Editorial Begs the Question

Francis Beckwith, whom I enjoy following, posted on Right Reason about a recent editorial in the Baylor University student newspaper on the "right to die."  The argument Beckwith suggests is such: "But people have a lot choices to make during the course of their lives. Shouldn't they be able to choose when and how to end it?"

I think a more accurate capture of their argument is:
1) "People in our society have rights, freedoms and choices throughout their lives."
2) "[Choosing] death is just another one of those decisions."
T 3) We should have the right to choose death.

If I'm wrong, I trust Professor Beckwith will correct me.  I'd welcome that.

In any event, if either of us are correct in our assessments, their argument fails on account of its question-begging or it's first premise.  In regards to its first premise, that we have rights, freedoms, and make choices throughout our lives is clear and verifiable.  What is false, however, is the position that we have the right to do everything.

Comments

[Francis J. Beckwith]

You write:
"1) "People in our society have rights, freedoms and choices throughout their lives."
2) "[Choosing] death is just another one of those decisions."
T 3) We should have the right to choose death."

Here's why your argument begs the question. The question is whether one has a right to die. But your second premise affirms an answer to that question, yes (I am assuming that "decisions" in the second premise means the same thing as "choices" in the first premise). But that answer is the conclusion as well.

I'm not saying that there may not be a good argument for the right to die. All I'm suggesting is that the one found in the Lariat is not one of those arguments, if it is even an argument at all.

I appreciate your interest in my work.

FJB