Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Deaf twins going blind electively euthanized

EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 7:53:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com...

Discuss.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 8:01:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Their situation is sad, but I am glad that they were able to do this.

Some people just don't realize that being granted the freedom to live our life according to our wishes necessarily includes being granted the freedom to end our life according to our wishes.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 8:03:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 8:01:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
Their situation is sad, but I am glad that they were able to do this.

Some people just don't realize that being granted the freedom to live our life according to our wishes necessarily includes being granted the freedom to end our life according to our wishes.

I agree. Somethings are just too painful to live through, physically or mentally. People should be allowed to end their life if they want to, and they shouldn't have to do it alone, if they don't want to. Better in a hospital, then at home, where a family member has to discover the body.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:11:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 8:03:36 PM, EvanK wrote:
At 1/14/2013 8:01:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
Their situation is sad, but I am glad that they were able to do this.

Some people just don't realize that being granted the freedom to live our life according to our wishes necessarily includes being granted the freedom to end our life according to our wishes.

I agree. Somethings are just too painful to live through, physically or mentally. People should be allowed to end their life if they want to, and they shouldn't have to do it alone, if they don't want to. Better in a hospital, then at home, where a family member has to discover the body.

That's an excellent point. One objection to suicide is about how it is so traumatic for the family, but that can be viewed as an effect of its illegality and state of cultural taboo; people who wish to die have to do it covertly and suddenly, lest they be stopped. If the level of euthanasia described in the article was allowed, however, people would be more open. They would discuss their plans, making the effect less sudden and less traumatic (relatively speaking). Also, but fostering an open line of communication about the issue, "please for help" would more easily and more quickly recognized. People openly seeking euthanasia might be made to realize that that course of action is a mistake.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:36:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Belgian law, however, allows doctors to euthanize "suffering" patients who are both mentally sound, over 18 and want to die.

Belgian lawmakers are considering a law that would extend euthanasia to dementia patients and children, whose families and doctors consented.

Can children really be capable of making such a decision?
yang.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:59:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Euthanasia is slowly being extended to those not suffering from terminal illnesses it seems. I'm a little worried about social effects - it's like if life becomes too difficult and you decide to kill yourself that choice has been legitimized. It seems to have the effect of devaluing human life in general, and whenever someone's disabled or even just feeling down in Belgium they always have the option of the government putting them out of their misery with full legal acceptance - it's like only accepting life when it's fun.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 11:05:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 10:36:05 AM, tulle wrote:
Belgian law, however, allows doctors to euthanize "suffering" patients who are both mentally sound, over 18 and want to die.

Belgian lawmakers are considering a law that would extend euthanasia to dementia patients and children, whose families and doctors consented.

Can children really be capable of making such a decision?

No, that's why it requires the consent of families and doctors.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 11:10:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 10:59:44 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Euthanasia is slowly being extended to those not suffering from terminal illnesses it seems. I'm a little worried about social effects - it's like if life becomes too difficult and you decide to kill yourself that choice has been legitimized. It seems to have the effect of devaluing human life in general, and whenever someone's disabled or even just feeling down in Belgium they always have the option of the government putting them out of their misery with full legal acceptance - it's like only accepting life when it's fun.

Some would argue that forcing people to live every possible second of their life, regardless of physical or emotional pain or distress, is dehumanizing. Since when does the quantity of one's life necessarily and always outweigh the quality of one's life? Who are we do say that another person's assessment of their own life is invalid?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 11:22:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 11:10:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 10:59:44 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Euthanasia is slowly being extended to those not suffering from terminal illnesses it seems. I'm a little worried about social effects - it's like if life becomes too difficult and you decide to kill yourself that choice has been legitimized. It seems to have the effect of devaluing human life in general, and whenever someone's disabled or even just feeling down in Belgium they always have the option of the government putting them out of their misery with full legal acceptance - it's like only accepting life when it's fun.

Some would argue that forcing people to live every possible second of their life, regardless of physical or emotional pain or distress, is dehumanizing. Since when does the quantity of one's life necessarily and always outweigh the quality of one's life? Who are we do say that another person's assessment of their own life is invalid?

I think we can both agree that there's no objective line where life suddenly becomes "too difficult." Even severely disabled people have lived rewarding lives - a key factor here is mental toughness. I just don't agree that the individual's autonomy is the number one value. It seems that for the field of ethics to make sense we need to presuppose that human life has intrinsic value and that we ought to go through great lengths to protect it. It just seems that there's a higher law at work here that extends beyond the individual's preferences.

For the record, I don't believe in an unconditional stance against euthanasia. I do feel you need to consider the social effects where all of a sudden death is an acceptable way out of your problems and the government is ready to assist you in it.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 11:27:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 11:05:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 10:36:05 AM, tulle wrote:
Belgian law, however, allows doctors to euthanize "suffering" patients who are both mentally sound, over 18 and want to die.

Belgian lawmakers are considering a law that would extend euthanasia to dementia patients and children, whose families and doctors consented.

Can children really be capable of making such a decision?

No, that's why it requires the consent of families and doctors.

I don't think I could support this for children. It just doesn't sit right, as if...it could be taken advantage of somehow. I know it's not an articulated position, but I find myself quite offended at assisted child suicide.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 12:25:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 11:22:50 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/15/2013 11:10:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 10:59:44 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Euthanasia is slowly being extended to those not suffering from terminal illnesses it seems. I'm a little worried about social effects - it's like if life becomes too difficult and you decide to kill yourself that choice has been legitimized. It seems to have the effect of devaluing human life in general, and whenever someone's disabled or even just feeling down in Belgium they always have the option of the government putting them out of their misery with full legal acceptance - it's like only accepting life when it's fun.

Some would argue that forcing people to live every possible second of their life, regardless of physical or emotional pain or distress, is dehumanizing. Since when does the quantity of one's life necessarily and always outweigh the quality of one's life? Who are we do say that another person's assessment of their own life is invalid?

I think we can both agree that there's no objective line where life suddenly becomes "too difficult."

Then you must allow euthanasia. Disallowing euthanasia is saying there is an objective line where life becomes "too difficult:" never.

Even severely disabled people have lived rewarding lives - a key factor here is mental toughness.

LOL. Wow. Blaming the victim, really? Sorry, but if you're going to say that because some people can have rewarding lives despite debilitating factors that everyone must absolutely be forced to try, to their very last dying breath, regardless of the situation, you're going to have to present a better argument. It's up to the person to decide for themselves whether or not they think it's worth it.

What's funny is you absolutely don't apply this logic elsewhere, unless you are going to sit there and say that you've never given up on anything, anywhere, at anytime.

I just don't agree that the individual's autonomy is the number one value. It seems that for the field of ethics to make sense we need to presuppose that human life has intrinsic value and that we ought to go through great lengths to protect it. It just seems that there's a higher law at work here that extends beyond the individual's preferences.

Again, you are presupposing that the quantity of life necessarily trumps the quality of life. Deciding what the value of my life is, intrinsically or not, is perhaps the most important freedom any individual happens. If this is what you are calling individual autonomy then it is the number one value. My life is that. Mine. It is mine to decide what purpose, meaning, value it has. You don't get to decide that for me, and then not only decide the value of my life, but force me to live according to your decision.


For the record, I don't believe in an unconditional stance against euthanasia. I do feel you need to consider the social effects where all of a sudden death is an acceptable way out of your problems and the government is ready to assist you in it.

The social effects of euthanasia are better than the social effects of suicide, as I discussed earlier.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 12:26:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 11:27:35 AM, Heineken wrote:
At 1/15/2013 11:05:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 10:36:05 AM, tulle wrote:
Belgian law, however, allows doctors to euthanize "suffering" patients who are both mentally sound, over 18 and want to die.

Belgian lawmakers are considering a law that would extend euthanasia to dementia patients and children, whose families and doctors consented.

Can children really be capable of making such a decision?

No, that's why it requires the consent of families and doctors.

I don't think I could support this for children. It just doesn't sit right, as if...it could be taken advantage of somehow. I know it's not an articulated position, but I find myself quite offended at assisted child suicide.

I totally agree. The decision is just too important to ever be out of the hands of the individual, unless there is no expectation that they'll ever be competent enough to understand it.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 12:36:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is a dark side to disallowing euthanasia. Basically, the underlying principle here is that someone else get's to decide the value of my life. In disallowing euthanasia, they've decided that my life is so valuable, I must live it, no matter what.

The problem is, once I give someone else that authority, then my life is at their whim. Today they decide it is supremely valuable. What if tomorrow they decide it's worthless?

Unacceptable. Totally unacceptable.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 12:47:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 12:36:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
There is a dark side to disallowing euthanasia. Basically, the underlying principle here is that someone else get's to decide the value of my life. In disallowing euthanasia, they've decided that my life is so valuable, I must live it, no matter what.

The problem is, once I give someone else that authority, then my life is at their whim. Today they decide it is supremely valuable. What if tomorrow they decide it's worthless?

Unacceptable. Totally unacceptable.

So true. But what if some random teen breaks up with his gf and gets depressed and suddenly wants to end his life? Should we allow that as well?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 1:35:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 12:47:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/15/2013 12:36:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
There is a dark side to disallowing euthanasia. Basically, the underlying principle here is that someone else get's to decide the value of my life. In disallowing euthanasia, they've decided that my life is so valuable, I must live it, no matter what.

The problem is, once I give someone else that authority, then my life is at their whim. Today they decide it is supremely valuable. What if tomorrow they decide it's worthless?

Unacceptable. Totally unacceptable.

So true. But what if some random teen breaks up with his gf and gets depressed and suddenly wants to end his life? Should we allow that as well?

Not if they are a minor.

If they aren't a minor, then yes. But, if suicide isn't taboo/illegal, then he's more likely to openly talk about his feelings which increases the potential that they are resolved without him taking his life.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 2:36:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 12:25:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 11:22:50 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/15/2013 11:10:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 10:59:44 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Euthanasia is slowly being extended to those not suffering from terminal illnesses it seems. I'm a little worried about social effects - it's like if life becomes too difficult and you decide to kill yourself that choice has been legitimized. It seems to have the effect of devaluing human life in general, and whenever someone's disabled or even just feeling down in Belgium they always have the option of the government putting them out of their misery with full legal acceptance - it's like only accepting life when it's fun.

Some would argue that forcing people to live every possible second of their life, regardless of physical or emotional pain or distress, is dehumanizing. Since when does the quantity of one's life necessarily and always outweigh the quality of one's life? Who are we do say that another person's assessment of their own life is invalid?

I think we can both agree that there's no objective line where life suddenly becomes "too difficult."

Then you must allow euthanasia. Disallowing euthanasia is saying there is an objective line where life becomes "too difficult:" never.


I don't entirely follow. If someone gets fired and wants the government to kill them, do you allow that? Does personal choice override everything for you? You can't fall back on the idea of only assisted suicide being limited to those with "sound minds" or in good judgments because the phrase is way too ambiguous and by their very nature they're wishing for self destruction. That alone could disqualify them of being of "sound mind." I'm saying it's a slippery slope.

Even severely disabled people have lived rewarding lives - a key factor here is mental toughness.

LOL. Wow. Blaming the victim, really? Sorry, but if you're going to say that because some people can have rewarding lives despite debilitating factors that everyone must absolutely be forced to try, to their very last dying breath, regardless of the situation, you're going to have to present a better argument. It's up to the person to decide for themselves whether or not they think it's worth it.

It's never implied that everybody should be forced to try. This isn't my main argument, but you just seem to supporting individual autonomy regardless of social consequences. If you feel that the balance of pleasure over pain is morality just come out and say it, it will clarify the discussion.

What's funny is you absolutely don't apply this logic elsewhere, unless you are going to sit there and say that you've never given up on anything, anywhere, at anytime.

I just don't agree that the individual's autonomy is the number one value. It seems that for the field of ethics to make sense we need to presuppose that human life has intrinsic value and that we ought to go through great lengths to protect it. It just seems that there's a higher law at work here that extends beyond the individual's preferences.

Again, you are presupposing that the quantity of life necessarily trumps the quality of life. Deciding what the value of my life is, intrinsically or not, is perhaps the most important freedom any individual happens. If this is what you are calling individual autonomy then it is the number one value. My life is that. Mine. It is mine to decide what purpose, meaning, value it has. You don't get to decide that for me, and then not only decide the value of my life, but force me to live according to your decision.


Yes, I'm saying that life as a general phenomenon must be affirmed as intrinsically valuable before we even begin discussions of ethics. You cannot decide what the value of your life is, or anyone else's for that matter. It's like you believe you're the master of your own little universe able to decide seemingly everything about the nature of morality, reality, etc. There's a clear underlying logic that pervades ethical discourse and you seem to be denying it.

This is really where the core of our disagreement is. What if you went the other way and decided that your life is worth 1,000x more than everyone elses? Aren't you free to decide your own value here? Who am I to get in your way when you're already master of your own universe?

For the record, I don't believe in an unconditional stance against euthanasia. I do feel you need to consider the social effects where all of a sudden death is an acceptable way out of your problems and the government is ready to assist you in it.

The social effects of euthanasia are better than the social effects of suicide, as I discussed earlier.

I don't agree. Society stigmatizes one, it legitimates the other.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 2:51:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 2:36:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/15/2013 12:25:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 11:22:50 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/15/2013 11:10:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 10:59:44 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Euthanasia is slowly being extended to those not suffering from terminal illnesses it seems. I'm a little worried about social effects - it's like if life becomes too difficult and you decide to kill yourself that choice has been legitimized. It seems to have the effect of devaluing human life in general, and whenever someone's disabled or even just feeling down in Belgium they always have the option of the government putting them out of their misery with full legal acceptance - it's like only accepting life when it's fun.

Some would argue that forcing people to live every possible second of their life, regardless of physical or emotional pain or distress, is dehumanizing. Since when does the quantity of one's life necessarily and always outweigh the quality of one's life? Who are we do say that another person's assessment of their own life is invalid?

I think we can both agree that there's no objective line where life suddenly becomes "too difficult."

Then you must allow euthanasia. Disallowing euthanasia is saying there is an objective line where life becomes "too difficult:" never.


I don't entirely follow. If someone gets fired and wants the government to kill them, do you allow that?

Adult? Yes.

Does personal choice override everything for you?

What are we overriding here?

You can't fall back on the idea of only assisted suicide being limited to those with "sound minds" or in good judgments because the phrase is way too ambiguous and by their very nature they're wishing for self destruction. That alone could disqualify them of being of "sound mind." I'm saying it's a slippery slope.

Mental capacity is already an established legal concept in force for a variety of things. I see no reason to suddenly abandon it here.


Even severely disabled people have lived rewarding lives - a key factor here is mental toughness.

LOL. Wow. Blaming the victim, really? Sorry, but if you're going to say that because some people can have rewarding lives despite debilitating factors that everyone must absolutely be forced to try, to their very last dying breath, regardless of the situation, you're going to have to present a better argument. It's up to the person to decide for themselves whether or not they think it's worth it.

It's never implied that everybody should be forced to try.

Ok. Who's allowed to stop trying? And why does anyone else get to decide that other than the people themselves?

This isn't my main argument, but you just seem to supporting individual autonomy regardless of social consequences.

1. I've noted beneficial social consequences that might arise from accepted euthanasia (open discussion about topics actually reducing the desire to die)
2. I've noted that some of the alleged negative consequences (devaluation of life) could actually be a result of disallowing euthanasia.

If you feel that the balance of pleasure over pain is morality just come out and say it, it will clarify the discussion.

I'd like some clarification of what these "social consequences" are. I can think of a view specific scenarios where euthanasia might be disallowed, but as a general rule: no.


What's funny is you absolutely don't apply this logic elsewhere, unless you are going to sit there and say that you've never given up on anything, anywhere, at anytime.

I just don't agree that the individual's autonomy is the number one value. It seems that for the field of ethics to make sense we need to presuppose that human life has intrinsic value and that we ought to go through great lengths to protect it. It just seems that there's a higher law at work here that extends beyond the individual's preferences.

Again, you are presupposing that the quantity of life necessarily trumps the quality of life. Deciding what the value of my life is, intrinsically or not, is perhaps the most important freedom any individual happens. If this is what you are calling individual autonomy then it is the number one value. My life is that. Mine. It is mine to decide what purpose, meaning, value it has. You don't get to decide that for me, and then not only decide the value of my life, but force me to live according to your decision.


Yes, I'm saying that life as a general phenomenon must be affirmed as intrinsically valuable before we even begin discussions of ethics.

I'm not having a discussion of ethics, I'm having a discussion of personal rights vs. government regulation.

You cannot decide what the value of your life is, or anyone else's for that matter.

Except you just decided the value of my life. What gives you that right?

It's like you believe you're the master of your own little universe able to decide seemingly everything about the nature of morality, reality, etc. There's a clear underlying logic that pervades ethical discourse and you seem to be denying it.

Life has no intrinsic value, the only value is that which we assign it ourselves. I'm not alone in this belief.


This is really where the core of our disagreement is. What if you went the other way and decided that your life is worth 1,000x more than everyone elses?

I don't even know what that means. That question is incoherent to me. I don't know what it means for one life to be worth more than another.

Aren't you free to decide your own value here? Who am I to get in your way when you're already master of your own universe?

Yes, I am free to decide what my life means to me. It's my life. Not anyone else's.


For the record, I don't believe in an unconditional stance against euthanasia. I do feel you need to consider the social effects where all of a sudden death is an acceptable way out of your problems and the government is ready to assist you in it.

The social effects of euthanasia are better than the social effects of suicide, as I discussed earlier.

I don't agree. Society stigmatizes one, it legitimates the other.

Let's put it another way: which is worse, a person suddenly dying in a tragic accident, or a person finally dying after a long and protracted illness, where everyone involved has had plenty of time to come to terms and prepare for the inevitable? Because that's the difference between suicide and euthanasia.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 2:58:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 1:35:42 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 12:47:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/15/2013 12:36:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
There is a dark side to disallowing euthanasia. Basically, the underlying principle here is that someone else get's to decide the value of my life. In disallowing euthanasia, they've decided that my life is so valuable, I must live it, no matter what.

The problem is, once I give someone else that authority, then my life is at their whim. Today they decide it is supremely valuable. What if tomorrow they decide it's worthless?

Unacceptable. Totally unacceptable.

So true. But what if some random teen breaks up with his gf and gets depressed and suddenly wants to end his life? Should we allow that as well?

Not if they are a minor.

If they aren't a minor, then yes. But, if suicide isn't taboo/illegal, then he's more likely to openly talk about his feelings which increases the potential that they are resolved without him taking his life.

So minors don't have control over the value of their own life?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 3:09:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I want to narrow it down to the issue of value:

Except you just decided the value of my life. What gives you that right?

I don't decide your value, nor does anyone else on the planet. I think it's just there. I think it's presupposed in moral systems, even secular ones, really. In utilitarianism everyone's happiness is valued equally, which indicates a kind of underlying egalitarianism.

You're saying that you assign your own value - if you can do that, why can't you make yourself with 1000x the normal person? Or if you assign yourself no value does that make it acceptable for someone to rape or assault you?

The question of rights is inevitably a moral issue for the simply fact that rights entail duties. To claim a special privilege that belongs to oneself more or less unconditionally is to say that others have a duty not to violate it. It would seem to be a moral duty.

Let's put it another way: which is worse, a person suddenly dying in a tragic accident, or a person finally dying after a long and protracted illness, where everyone involved has had plenty of time to come to terms and prepare for the inevitable? Because that's the difference between suicide and euthanasia.

The accident is worse, but if the family is decent they shouldn't be "coming to terms" with a disabled, but not terminally ill 45 year old man deciding to kill himself. Please, tell me where this leads. The implication is that whenever someone's life dips below the point where they can tolerate it they should just off themselves. Where does it stop? It's like if I did an honest prediction and saw that my life expected happiness levels were minus utility I should just kill myself now.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 3:57:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
OMG, nobody claimed that you should commit suicide if your life currently has a negative utility. The only thing that's being claimed is that as the master of your own life, you should have the choice to end it if you would like to end it. The only reason that our lives life have value is that we choose to give them value. If I don't value my own life, I have no obligation to protect it. That doesn't mean that other people can take it away from me though, because that would be a violation of my choice.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 4:07:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 3:57:08 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
OMG, nobody claimed that you should commit suicide if your life currently has a negative utility. The only thing that's being claimed is that as the master of your own life, you should have the choice to end it if you would like to end it. The only reason that our lives life have value is that we choose to give them value. If I don't value my own life, I have no obligation to protect it. That doesn't mean that other people can take it away from me though, because that would be a violation of my choice.

If your life has no value you've undermined any philosophical reason for anyone to respect it.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 4:18:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 4:07:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/15/2013 3:57:08 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
OMG, nobody claimed that you should commit suicide if your life currently has a negative utility. The only thing that's being claimed is that as the master of your own life, you should have the choice to end it if you would like to end it. The only reason that our lives life have value is that we choose to give them value. If I don't value my own life, I have no obligation to protect it. That doesn't mean that other people can take it away from me though, because that would be a violation of my choice.

If your life has no value you've undermined any philosophical reason for anyone to respect it.

Life has no inherent value. What gives it value is my choice to give it value. People have to respect it because of mutual contracts to respect life. I presume that people have entered into this agreement with me, but if they demonstrate that they have not, I can justifiably harm them.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 4:29:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 4:18:52 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/15/2013 4:07:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/15/2013 3:57:08 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
OMG, nobody claimed that you should commit suicide if your life currently has a negative utility. The only thing that's being claimed is that as the master of your own life, you should have the choice to end it if you would like to end it. The only reason that our lives life have value is that we choose to give them value. If I don't value my own life, I have no obligation to protect it. That doesn't mean that other people can take it away from me though, because that would be a violation of my choice.

If your life has no value you've undermined any philosophical reason for anyone to respect it.

Life has no inherent value. What gives it value is my choice to give it value. People have to respect it because of mutual contracts to respect life. I presume that people have entered into this agreement with me, but if they demonstrate that they have not, I can justifiably harm them.

That implies that newborns or babies don't have value because they never explicitly give themselves value, do you agree? It also implies that you simply believing something makes it true.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 5:08:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 2:58:43 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/15/2013 1:35:42 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/15/2013 12:47:09 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/15/2013 12:36:25 PM, drafterman wrote:
There is a dark side to disallowing euthanasia. Basically, the underlying principle here is that someone else get's to decide the value of my life. In disallowing euthanasia, they've decided that my life is so valuable, I must live it, no matter what.

The problem is, once I give someone else that authority, then my life is at their whim. Today they decide it is supremely valuable. What if tomorrow they decide it's worthless?

Unacceptable. Totally unacceptable.

So true. But what if some random teen breaks up with his gf and gets depressed and suddenly wants to end his life? Should we allow that as well?

Not if they are a minor.

If they aren't a minor, then yes. But, if suicide isn't taboo/illegal, then he's more likely to openly talk about his feelings which increases the potential that they are resolved without him taking his life.

So minors don't have control over the value of their own life?

In the sense that they can legally enforce that value? No.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 5:17:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 3:09:39 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I want to narrow it down to the issue of value:

Except you just decided the value of my life. What gives you that right?

I don't decide your value, nor does anyone else on the planet. I think it's just there. I think it's presupposed in moral systems, even secular ones, really. In utilitarianism everyone's happiness is valued equally, which indicates a kind of underlying egalitarianism.

The fact that you presuppose it doesnt make it not a decision on your part, especially with regards to your decision that I have to act in accordance with that presupposition.


You're saying that you assign your own value - if you can do that, why can't you make yourself with 1000x the normal person? Or if you assign yourself no value does that make it acceptable for someone to rape or assault you?

Again, comparing relative values to life is a nonsensical concept to me. And, no, it doesnt make it acceptable for other people to do those things.


The question of rights is inevitably a moral issue for the simply fact that rights entail duties. To claim a special privilege that belongs to oneself more or less unconditionally is to say that others have a duty not to violate it. It would seem to be a moral duty.

I agree. So stop violating my right to assign meaning to my life.


Let's put it another way: which is worse, a person suddenly dying in a tragic accident, or a person finally dying after a long and protracted illness, where everyone involved has had plenty of time to come to terms and prepare for the inevitable? Because that's the difference between suicide and euthanasia.

The accident is worse, but if the family is decent they shouldn't be "coming to terms" with a disabled, but not terminally ill 45 year old man deciding to kill himself. Please, tell me where this leads.

It leads to the support of the notion that euthanasia is better than sudden suicide, which you were contesting.

The implication is that whenever someone's life dips below the point where they can tolerate it they should just off themselves.

Should be allowed. Not just should. You just inserted an imperative into a conversation about allowed options, why? Are you trying to sabotage the conversation?

Where does it stop? It's like if I did an honest prediction and saw that my life expected happiness levels were minus utility I should just kill myself now.

Again with the imperative. No one is suggesting a duty or imperative to kill ones self. Stop it.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 6:44:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 4:29:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/15/2013 4:18:52 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/15/2013 4:07:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 1/15/2013 3:57:08 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
OMG, nobody claimed that you should commit suicide if your life currently has a negative utility. The only thing that's being claimed is that as the master of your own life, you should have the choice to end it if you would like to end it. The only reason that our lives life have value is that we choose to give them value. If I don't value my own life, I have no obligation to protect it. That doesn't mean that other people can take it away from me though, because that would be a violation of my choice.

If your life has no value you've undermined any philosophical reason for anyone to respect it.

Life has no inherent value. What gives it value is my choice to give it value. People have to respect it because of mutual contracts to respect life. I presume that people have entered into this agreement with me, but if they demonstrate that they have not, I can justifiably harm them.

That implies that newborns or babies don't have value because they never explicitly give themselves value, do you agree?
Sure, the being has to have a baseline conception of self before it can deem it's life valuable. That's why I would say that whales, dolphins, and chimps have value. It's also why we can restrict the freedom of infants and small children. This conception of morality presumes rationality as a requirement for being a moral agent.
It also implies that you simply believing something makes it true.
That's a huge strawman. It's not that anything is true because I say so; it's that things have value because I say so. Value is entirely subjective. It's dependent on how much importance an individual attaches to something. For example, I probably value gold earrings more than you do because they aren't as useful for you as they are for me. Value is a measure of what something is worth to me. Nothing has any sort of intrinsic value because the concept itself is entirely constructed.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:33:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems that for the field of ethics to make sense we need to presuppose that human life has intrinsic value and that we ought to go through great lengths to protect it. It just seems that there's a higher law at work here that extends beyond the individual's preferences.

"Dingus, my n*****s don't wanna work."

"Mingus, it's okay, just whip them until they work anyway. There's a higher law at work than their preferences. We's civilizin' em for Jesus.'
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:37:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The question of rights is inevitably a moral issue for the simply fact that rights entail duties.
No they don't.

To claim a special privilege that belongs to oneself more or less unconditionally is to say that others have a duty not to violate it.
The term "duty" refers to affirmative, not negative, obligations. Like "jury duty." Rights require of others-- nothing. It's just a very strong requirement for a particular sort of nothing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:51:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you want a tl;dr just skip down to the last paragraph. Neither of us can realistically expect to change each other's minds.

I agree. So stop violating my right to assign meaning to my life.

We aren't talking about meaning, we're talking about value. It doesn't make sense to say that you reach a point where you just affirm your own value and from then on people can't kill you.

Again, comparing relative values to life is a nonsensical concept to me. And, no, it doesnt make it acceptable for other people to do those things.

Why? You say you assign your own value. There are depressed people out there who don't assign themselves value, so clearly you can compare values if you're going to assign them.

It leads to the support of the notion that euthanasia is better than sudden suicide, which you were contesting.

I need clarification - "better" or "worse" in what sense? Morally, I object to both. Socially speaking, I'd rather have the suicide because the other is legal acceptance.

Again with the imperative. No one is suggesting a duty or imperative to kill ones self. Stop it.

People don't live in isolated little bubbles. If the option for a safe, legal, socially acceptable "way out" is allowed it's tantamount to encouraging it. Again with the slippery slope, would you accept an 18 year old who lost his job and wants to kill himself should be able to be euthanized? You've just placed the individual at the center of the universe and any objection that I give you basically just accuse me of hating freedom or the victim.

I guess at its heart it's a conflict of values. You value individual autonomy to an enormous extent which you identify with the individual's preferences. On the other hand, I'm very cognizant that an individual's immediate preferences can absolutely work against an inner, "real" self.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 11:54:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 11:37:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The question of rights is inevitably a moral issue for the simply fact that rights entail duties.
No they don't.

To claim a special privilege that belongs to oneself more or less unconditionally is to say that others have a duty not to violate it.
The term "duty" refers to affirmative, not negative, obligations. Like "jury duty." Rights require of others-- nothing. It's just a very strong requirement for a particular sort of nothing.

Have you considered the duty to protect rights via taking up arms?