Originally posted by ivanhoeJust to turn the whole thing on it's head.I went to a party to celebrate someone who was 21.If his parents had not followed their faith he would have been aborted.He is going to University and is perfect.The medical team at the time said abortion or you die to his mother(she had liver problems).Her faith would not allow a termination.The out come is:I went to party to celebrate someone who is 21.And his Mum did too.She made a very brave speech about when it comes down to these things.
"Prolonging dying is a religious idea"
By Anne Nicol Gaylor
"To insist that someone who is suffering from a terminal illness must endure pain and anguish is not civilized. Sustaining life for a terminally ill or comatose patient has become the new religious inquisition."
I found this article on: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/death.html
"To i ...[text shortened]... title of this article "Prolonging dying is a religious idea" is utter nonsense and worse.
Lyn.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAt that time, in the beginning of the discussion people in general were very worried about what is called " the slippery slope".
Jarno, I promised you in a message sent with one of my moves in one of our games that I would respond within a few days to your questions about the Dutch euthanasia discussion. I want to ask people who are sensitive in regard to this subjec ...[text shortened]... not feel at ease with that statement ...
To be continued.
People were afraid that things would evolve further and further in the euthanasia discussion and at the end everybody could ask for euthanasia and we as a society were forced to grant that request on the basis of "dying patients have the right to euthanasia, so why is a person who is not dying denied that same right, such a merciful death ?" The advocates of euthanasia assured everybody that there is no such thing as a "slippery slope". They would not go beyond the possibility of asking for euthanasia for those who were dying and who experienced "unbearable suffering". People were afraid that this new "right", the right to die, would also be applicable to those who were not able to ask for it. The voluntary aspect of the problem could be swept aside. No problem according to the Freethinkers, this is only about voluntary euthanasia, this has nothing to do with performing euthanasia on persons who cannot ask for it, comatose patients, very very old people, very young children, disabled people, etc. They said "We are not advocates of the Nazi doctrine of Euthanasia, der Gnadentod" . There was not and there was not going to be a "slippery slope". The slippery slope argument was and is not accepted by the Freethinkers, because there simply isn't such a thing, they assured their audiences ...
All right, the euthanasia practise in the Netherlands evolved according to the new standards of a voluntary request of a terminally ill patient and you had to experience "unbearable suffering". People were reassured ...
To be continued.
This post also belongs in this thread, just to keep things tidy.
"As an example, "the right to die for all" would not be morally acceptable in my view, because suicide is an act that affects not only the one commiting it, but also people around him. My granmother's brother commited suicide in early adulthood, and it practically tore the family apart. My grandmother still cannot speak of the matter without crying, though it happened more than half a century ago.
Thus it can be seen that allowing the "right to die for all" would result in great suffering, and great suffering is what we want to avoid. One can argue against such absurdity by using reason, without having to base one's views on the dictates of an entity that quite many people don't believe exists in the first place. And for that very reason, solid reasoning is more effective means of fighting mistaken views than a simple "because God said so". If one cannot find reasonable arguments to back one's own views, then one must consider that one is mistaken in those views."
-Jarno
I agree fully with you on this subject. You'd better prepare yourself for a discussion/debate on this subject with your Finnish freethinkers, because they will eventually get to that "right for all to dy" stadium .That's one of the reasons why I decided not to be a Freethinker anymore. In the beginning of the euthanasia discussion they will say that they will never consider such an approach and assure you there is no Slippery Slope. In my opinion the Dutch Freethinkers deceived the people time and time again. I once saw a discussion on BBC television about euthanasia. An official Dutch representative from the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Vrijwillige Euthanasie , the Dutch Organisation for Voluntary Euthanasia, took part in that discussion. The famous Slippery Slope Argument was being discussed. The discussion was about the necessary four criteria to perform euthanasia: The criteria of unbearable suffering, the voluntary written deathwish of the person in question, written while the patient was in possession of all his mental abilities, and the criterium of being a terminally ill patient. The Dutch representative confirmed that these were the necessary criteria in the Dutch discussion at that moment and that would remain that way in order to dismiss the argument of sceptical people in that discussion who claimed that there could be a Slippery Slope. No, the British people need not worrying about that. In fact in Holland at that time one of the criteria was allready swept aside, being the criterium of being a terminally ill patient. In the Netherlands that criterium vanished out of the discussion, because this was not fair towards people who were not terminally ill. They also had a right to die and that was being advocated also by that same man who was discussing euthanasia in this BBC debate and was reassuring the public that there was no slippery slope. He was misleading the public. The other criteria also disappeared in due time. I'v had my doubts about the Freethinker movement for quite some time. From the moment on that I described in another post when Hans van Mierlo stated that it was possible to kill somebody out of love. This happened years before this BBC incident. After this sad incident I knew for sure that I did not want to be a Freethinker anymore. I now can see how they are trying to realise their political agenda in US, France, UK and Germany. It will be very difficult for them in Germany because of the special history of the country. Euthanasia was and still is a part of the National Socialist ideology. Sixty years ago they, the National Socialists, presented this as a great accomplishment and privilege for the superior Germanistic race. They called it "Der Gnadentod".
Again you refer to the freethinkers as if they were a political group, or a group that universally share opinions on matters such as euthanasia. Again, this is a mistake, a serious misconception as to what freethought means.Freethought is a method, much like the scientific method, except that it is applied in the formation of world views. As such, freethought in itself can never contain specific opinions on any matters, because requiring opinions dogmatically is the very anti-thesis of freethought. There can be groups that are composed of freethinkers and share specific opinions, but those opinions are not part of freethinking, even if freethinking is among their opinions.
It is quite possible that there is a group of people who hold the view that everyone should have the right to die at their own hand, that call themselves "Freethinkers". However, if that is the only name they use of themselves, and try to pass of their opinions as part of the ideas of freethought, then they are gravely in error. You cannot link freethought with opinions for the same reason that you cannot link spefic scientific theories as part of the scientific method.
If you indeed abandoned freethought on the basis that you didn't like the "agenda" of "freethinkers", then you had a misconception of what freethinking ment to begin with. Freethinking is simply a method of ariving at the truth which denies accepting anything on the basis of sources that claim absolute authority on the truth, and instead encourages us to scrutinize everything with reason, and to always be willing to abandon old thougths if they are discovered to be in error. This is freethought, bare and simple, and if someone tries to attach specific opinions or agendas on it, then that someone is simply wrong.
Look at it this way - if a group of Christians were to suddenly come up with the idea that sacrificing puppy dogs to God was the "Right Thing To Do", and called themselves simply "Christians", would that then be a valid reason for you to abandon Christianity? I should hope not! Should you consider that a valid reason, then could you have been said to have understood Christianity at all to begin with?
-Jarno
Originally posted by Pyrrho
Again you refer to the freethinkers as if they were a political group, or a group that universally share opinions on matters such as euthanasia. Again, this is a mistake, a serious misconception as to what freethought means.Freethought is a ...[text shortened]... ve understood Christianity at all to begin with?
-Jarno
Well Pyrrho, even on this the freethinkers do not agree as we were able to read in other threads. When I refer to freethinkers I refer to a group of people who do not believe in God and certainly not in a God that has a moral authority. As a result of that they proclaim the human subject to be the highest moral authority there is. The way they reach moral conclusions is following a method that is based on reason and logic. In the social and political reality that has resulted in a way of thinking that is determined by formalism, pragmatism, individualism, intellectualism, elitism and I'm sorry to say arrogance. These are the most fundamental reasons why I rejected Dutch Freethinker thought. They have become part of the liberal establishment. They have embraced ideas which I consider to belong to ideologies that have totalitarian tendencies. The right to kill, morally justified within that same system of thinking, is one of them.
In my opinion that's what is happening in the western civilization as a whole.These developments also play a part in the rejection of Western (American and European) culture and civilization in the Islam world. They look at the past and they see colonialism, imperialism, exploitation etc. and when they look at the present they see the same things and they see the things they also consider to come from satan and these things are the "achievements" of liberal culture: Abortion in connection with woman's lib, homosexuality, pornography, free sexuality, denial of God's existance, the arrogance of the West and not only the arrogance of the conservative economical and political elite, but also the arrogance of the liberal intellectual elite.They feel humiliated and they do not feel respected in more than one way. The United States, as leader of that culture, are called the Big satan. These statements should be taken very seriously. A lot of the Muslims are saying "We don't want your freedom and democracy", meaning what I just described as the "achievements"of Western civilisation. They do not mind taking over or accepting our technology. They do not have any problem with that at all. When we want to understand the roots of Islamic Jihad we have to take these things into consideration.These things constituate the relations of western civilisation with the Islam part of the world.
In a rather different way there is also a clash within western civilisation itself, in which the same issues play a part. The tensions between what is called the "Culture of Life" and the "Culture of Death".
P.S.
Being a christian is not so much becoming part of a group of people that hold certain ideas. The fundament of being a Christian is not in the first place practising a method of thinking or holding certain ideas, but is about having a relationship with your Creator and Lord. A love relationship. That does not mean that you give up free thinking. On the contrary. That relationship gives you the opportunity to start thinking truly free ....... and reason and logic is a part of that thinking.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, I think you a branching out a bit too much here - seems like you're trying to fit your entire list of complaints with the modern world into one post. 🙂
Well Pyrrho, even on this the freethinkers do not agree as we were able to read in other threads. When I refer to freethinkers I refer to a group of people who do not believe in God and certainly not in a God that has a moral authority. As a result of that they proclaim the human subject to be the highest moral authority there is. The way they reach mor ...[text shortened]... pportunity to start thinking truly free ....... and reason and logic is a part of that thinking.
I think a more manageable strategy would be to discuss one subject at a time, to reach some conclusion on it (if it be only an agreement to disagree), before taking on another subject of grand proportion. So I'd rather narrow this discussion back down, though I'm quite willing to discuss other subjects relating to theism and atheism on another thread dedicated to the subject.
In fact, better yet, since, unlike me (and apparrently you as well) most people here don't seem to enjoy religion debates all that much (As became apparent a short while ago), how would you feel about one-on-one e-mail correspondence on subjects of religion and lack thereof? Nothing too hectic-paced. I used to do that some time ago with various people, and I've been thinking about getting back to the "hobby", if I'll find someone that is able to discuss the matters without turning them into feuds. (I've always been of the opinion that though worldviews conflict, the people holding them need not.)
But back to the issue at hand - the original issue of euthanasia, and the "slippery slope". The problem is that just about everything is a "slippery slope" - there is always a way to turn a good idea into a bad one by taking it too far. But does that really give us reason to avoid the good thing altogether, instead of taking it to the point where it does maximally good, and then simply applying the breaks?
You make it seem like if society accepts the concept of allowing terminally ill, greatly suffering patients the option of a painless and dignified death, that that would somehow inevitably lead to the eventual acceptance of a "right to die" for people suffering from no illness. As if society had nothing to say about taking it too far!
A slippery slope isn't very slippery, if the support of the legislative body, and the wide support of the society would be required in order to get to the perilous end of that slope. Especially if the end is a "right to die for all" which is a concept very easy to argue against, and point out the flaws of. I say that if that is the slippery slope, someone bringing up the idea of allowing assisted suicide for all, then bring it on! Free societies welcome debates, and a debate with one side arguing an absurdity is hardly a danger to society.
Also, if a slippery slope argument is used to urge us to stop well in advance of the point of danger, when infact there would still be more benefit, and in this case, easing of suffering to be had, then where do you draw the line? If the line isn't at the point where it naturally should be - the point where a good thing, if taken further, would turn bad, how much good do you sacrifice in order to avoid getting close to that border? In order to avoid the possibility of an uncomfortable debate?
The whole history of the medical profession is full of slipery slopes - for example, if you allow organ transplants, then sinister development becomes available - what is there to prevent a society from harvesting organs from vagrants, and unwanted elements, to save the lives of more "desireable" and "useful" people?
Now that is a legitimate slippery slope. Should we, to avoid such a possibility, disallow organ transplantation? Of course not. We should recognize that democratic free societies would not stand for ideas so morally repugnant, uncompassionate and unreasonable as the proposed "slippery slope". We argue against absurd and harmful ideas, we don't stop a mile before the target, and forfit all benefits, to avoid the debate.
The very idea of slippery-slope argumentation is fundamentally flawed. At the very least, to justify forfiting benefits, one would have to show that the slippery slope really leads inevitably, or even with reasonable likelyhood, to more than mere discussion of harmful ideas.
-Jarno
Pyrrho,
In this thread you can read about the case about the Psychiatrist and the widow and what your reaction to that event was. In another thread we can read that you do not rule out the possibility that you can change your mind about assistance with suicide. Your own views on this subject reflect that when you 've crossed a certain line a lot of things become possible, even things you regard as impossible in your own reasoning. You've stated that in a the case of people defending the "Right to Die for All" you would be more than happy to come and laugh these people out of the "arena" Well, you can come to Holland and I'm sure you will have a lot of fun. However the way you present your own views do not give me any garantee that they will not be able to reason you into accepting their ideas. You know why ? Because you have not drawn a line for yourself in this seemingly philosophical and seemingly logical discussion. In a political proces it is not a matter of what YOU as a person think is reasonable or logical but what is acceptable for the majority of the people. Reason and logic often have nothing to do with what the majority decides. The majority is not automatically morally and logically right.
You asked me in a previous post were I would draw the line. I've given this important question a lot of thought and I came to the conclusion that I draw the line were passive euthanasia changes into active euthanasia. It is the point were the main motive of the treatment of easing and releaving the suffering of a patient turns into that other motive of killing a person in order to end the life and therefore the suffering of the patient. When you have crossed this line as morally acceptable than you have in fact accepted killing as morally acceptable.
Pyrrho,
You write: "In fact, better yet, since, unlike me (and apparrently you as well) most people here don't seem to enjoy religion debates all that much (As became apparent a short while ago), how would you feel about one-on-one e-mail correspondence on subjects of religion and lack thereof? Nothing too hectic-paced. I used to do that some time ago with various people, and I've been thinking about getting back to the "hobby", if I'll find someone that is able to discuss the matters without turning them into feuds. (I've always been of the opinion that though worldviews conflict, the people holding them need not.)"
I would rather discuss these things in public because we will all have to deal with it. We can see this in the Terri Schiavo case. This Euthanasia discussion is about our lives and the lives of our loved ones
.
Good day to all.
First let me ask you not to turn this private. Though I don't usually contribute much to debates I do read them. One may learn much just by watching other people argue, I for one try to validate each side with my own. Those who do not like these subjects can respect the thread (like they've done so far) and not read it.
Now let me add a comment to the subject. "Pain and suffering" is usually considered to be only physical, people talk about cancer, aids, and other very painful deseases... but what about psychological suffering? I can see clearly how a person with cancer should be allowed to die before the suffering becomes unbeareble, the person is going to die anyway. But what about a person suffering from schizophrenia? I am convinced that mental suffering can be much worse than physical.
One requisite is that the patient be in his full mental abilities, so that rules out schizophrenia, but there are hundreds of mental disorders, how exactly do you define "full mental abilities"? Doesn't physical pain alter the mind? I'm sure there is law regarding this definition, could you tell me the current state of it?
Trad
Regarding the "right to die".
I believe everyone has/should have that right. After all we are not asked to come to this world, we are forced, why would/should you force me to stay? I can go down in flames, becoming an alcoholic, beating my wife, drugs, messing up my kids, or I can go down nicely and just kill myself.
The law may say we don't have the right but most of us have the posibility, everyone can jump of a bridge (given the existance of a bridge nearby). Euthanasia comes in handy when you don't have that posibility, when you are in a hospital bed, too week to get up. Why would you deny this person such an option?
Trad
Originally posted by trad
Regarding the "right to die".
I believe everyone has/should have that right. After all we are not asked to come to this world, we are forced, why would/should you force me to stay? I can go down in flames, becoming an alcoholic, beating my wife, drugs, messing up my kids, or I can go down nicely and just kill myself.
The law may say we don't have the ...[text shortened]... re in a hospital bed, too week to get up. Why would you deny this person such an option?
Trad
It sounds so reasonable and it sounds so comforting ....
If you allow killing a person , no matter what "good" reasons you got. You crossed a line that we are not allowed to cross and why not ? Because it is the road towards unhappiness.
By the way, who will be the authority to decide what are the "good" and the "bad" reasons ?
I invite bbarr to answer that last question ...
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy ask me? I've already provided my position in the other thread. My position is based on my broadly Kantian ethical theory. You haven't provided any objections to that position that aren't based on religious dogmatism, and you systematically ignore the constraints my position places on a putative right to die. I have no faith that the world's politicians and lawyers will arrive at a coherent position concerning euthanasia. I'm sure that whatever authority decides these questions will be someone for whom I did not vote.
It sounds so reasonable and it sounds so comforting ....
If you allow killing a person , no matter what "good" reasons you got. You crossed a line that we are not allowed to cross and why not ? Because it is the road towards unhappiness.
By the way, who will be the authority to decide what are the "good" and the "bad" reasons ?
I invite bbarr to answer that last question ...
Originally posted by bbarr"You haven't provided any objections to that position that aren't based on religious dogmatism, and you systematically ignore the constraints my position places on a putative right to die."
Why ask me? I've already provided my position in the other thread. My position is based on my broadly Kantian ethical theory. You haven't provided any objections to that position that aren't based on religious dogmatism, and you systematically ignore the constraints my position places on a putative right to die. I have no faith that the world's politicia ...[text shortened]... sure that whatever authority decides these questions will be someone for whom I did not vote.
Opinions I hold are based on religious dogmatism. Is that really so, bbarr. ... and I even systematically ignore the constraints your position places on a putative right to die. ... is that really so ?
All right then.
Please answer my question about the "bag with the just cases" reasoning. You asked me to find an unjust case in the "bag" of just cases you presented to me. I called that a mission impossible. How do you wanna call that faulty way of reasoning. I've asked you this question before. I certainly do not want to ignore these things.
Originally posted by bbarr
Why ask me? I've already provided my position in the other thread. My position is based on my broadly Kantian ethical theory. You haven't provided any objections to that position that aren't based on religious dogmatism, and you systematically ignore the constraints my position places on a putative right to die. I have no faith that the world's politicia ...[text shortened]... sure that whatever authority decides these questions will be someone for whom I did not vote.
Question: "Who will be the Authority to decide who's to die and who's to live ?
Answer: "Bbarr and his philosophical friends, because they have the magic formula to decide such complicated cases. That magic formula is changed in the way bbarr & friends see fit. They have a monopoly on "logical reasoning". They have a monopoly on "correct moral reasoning". They determine what correct thinking is. Their opponents are dismissed on the basis of their "dogmatic religious" thinking. The "New Thought Police" has the monopoly on correct thinking because they are in the possession of the one and only true thinking machine. The "Logical Thinking Machine". They are not responsible, The Machine is responsible ....