It's obvious that you are referencing philosophical ideas and even philosophers, yet you're using and interpreting them through your own bias perspective. Your arguments don't gain merits by merely mentioning the name of a philosopher. That's argumentum and verecundiam (appeal to authority). Show that Nietzsche agree with you in your last point. Quote what he exactly said and relate it to what you said. That's the proper way to reference authors and sources to support your claims.
Now let us examine your rebutall. First, you didn't make a specific response to my statement that says you used the terms "objective" and "standard" as having similar meaning. You're trying to ignore the fact that your entire argument was totally debunked because it is based on the wrong usage of those terms.
Next, I never mentioned of "time" and "agreement" as requisites for objective morality. There are moral and ethical principles which validity are not dependent on time, and there are those that are considered as objective even though others or majority of people don't agree with them. What I said on "objectivity" itself is that it must be derived from a scientific, reasonable, and fact-based grounds. Therefore, it is the "MANNER" of generating and obtaining the moral principles and rules.
The "death with dignity" is not decided upon by just any people. Again, your interpreting "death with dignity" as "genocide", "mass murder", " tyrannical rule". The death with dignity is a legal action that can be exercised by an individual that meets the conditions and requirements specified under the law of the governments who are supporting such action. Who decides this action? Is is a tyrant? a mob? group of activists? a government? No. The decision to execute death with dignity lies on the person itself. He has the freedom as to whether to use this option or not in instances that he's qualified and eligible to do so.
Your linking death with dignity with murder because according to you if that's the case any one can just use science or good intent as a justification for killing someone. Definitely, you have a bias towards religion and theism. You made an ambiguous and hasty conclusion out of the death with dignity thing by linking it to "murders and evil acts" that can be justified using science or reason. However, Death with dignity is different from what Zionists are doing when they kill people and take the lands of Arabs in the land known today as Israel in pursuit of religious idealogies , which are exploited by imperialists. Death with dignity is different when Anti-Catholic English monarchs subjectively labelled individuals as witches and murdered them.
What's ur argument against death with dignity?Did you raise and resolve the moral dilemma in death with dignity? No! As usual, you used "religious" dogmatism and theological belief to conclude that such action is not objectively moral. You said there are inevitable "religious values". That's funny, because it clearly proves that your arguments are really have an inclination and bias towards religion. So your stand on morality is absolutism and not objective. You said people has inherent divinity and their lives are worth living despite of pain and suffering. That's a purely theological and religious idea. That statement doesn't resolve the moral dilemma in death with dignity. Why is death with dignity being allowed in other countries? The reason is that permitting someone to live further is tantamount to giving him or her more physical pains and agonies. So, lets us weigh the reasons here, Will you prolong the physical pain of a person who based on medical and scientific research and study will surely die? Or Let him or her continue to live because there is a supernatural force who gave that life and he's the only one who can take that life away? So which one is more objective? The latter that construed based on "subjective and fictional theology" or the former which is based on empirical reseach. If the second one is objective, then tell me the reason behind this - I'm a god, and allowed events that eventually lead to ur death at a particular date. Then, I want you to suffer more before your exact time of death. So, your god is a rustless and insensitive god. If not, then tell me the objective reason of that god. For sure, you're answer don't come from a supernatural entity, you will get ur answer to theological ideas created by humans and religious people, not by a god!
But still i believe in 1 God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
lalo na alam na alam mo na mas malinaw ang batayan. Pero sa personal hindi away ,ang away lang jan po is spiritual