Anne Nicol Gaylor,Freethinker.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"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."

Opinions I hold are based on religious dogm ...[text shortened]... estion before. I certainly do not want to ignore these things.

lol, now you're just going around in circles. Pyrrho already pointed out the flaw in that argument on pg. 5 of the other thread.

But just so you don't have to go look it up, I'll take the liberty of reposting the response originally posted by Pyrrho.

Here is a flaw in that logic - if I understood correctly, you are saying that Mr.X here puts his opposition in an artificially impossible situation in which they cannot conceivably win playing by Mr.X's rules because of how Mr.X presents his case.

However, you present Mr.X's case wrong - there's nothing logically contradicting or problematic in there. Mr.X makes a claim that his position does not logically lead to unjust deaths. Then he points out that in order to argue against his case, you have to show that that claim is false by counter-example - by showing how his position logically leads to an unjust death.

You go wrong here:
"He (let's call him Mr.X) invites his opponent to locate an incident or happening, that took place within(!) the context of Mr.X's own views, that means the incident met the demands of the criteria, definitions and limitations he himself (Mr.X) formulated and introduced. Of course these incidents are "just" according to Mr.X...."

This is how it goes:
Mr X does invite his opponent to locate an incident othat took place as a logical consequence of Mr.X's own views. Mr.X's position (=claim) then is that whatever incident you find that logically follows from his possition will meat Mr.X's criteria of justness.

How do you argue against such an argument? You provide a case that results from the aplication of his views, that leads to an unjust situation. Of course you can't be guaranteed that Mr.X's concept of justice is identical to yours, but when you present such a case that you think leads to an injust situation, you are passing the puck to Mr.X - now Mr.X has to either concede the argument, or explain to you why the situation you came up with either does not logically result from his position, or is not unjust.

Originally posted by bbarr
lol, now you're just going around in circles. Pyrrho already pointed out the flaw in that argument on pg. 5 of the other thread.

Since when does Phyrro speak for you ? I want to hear your answer ... so you cannot say in the future that you did not say that. As Phyrrho stated before I looked too much upon Freethinkers as a group. If I deal with you as an individual you refer to someone in the group ...
Besides, Pyrrho did not react to my question": "How is it possible to select "unjust cases" out of a bag filled with "just cases". I want your reaction as an independent Freethinker ...... I'm not talking to a group am I ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Since when does Phyrro speak for you ? I want to hear your answer ... so you cannot say in the future that you did not say that. As Phyrrho stated before I looked too much upon Freethinkers as a group. If I deal with you as an individual you refer to someone in the group ...
Besides, Pyrrho did not react to my question": "How is it possible to select ...[text shortened]... . I want your reaction as an independent Freethinker ...... I'm not talking to a group am I ?

Well, on this point I agree with Pyrrho. I've presented various criteria that I think must be satisfied in order for euthanasia to be justified. These criteria were explained in the first posts I made in the other thread, and then elaborated on in subsequent posts. I think that these criteria safeguard against unjustly ending a person's life. If you can show that the correct application of my criteria can result in the unjust death of a person, then we'll have something further to discuss. I'm not assuming that my criteria DETERMINE what is just. If I did assume that, then it would be impossible for you to present a counter-example to my view, and I would indeed be asking of you to undertake a "mission impossible". I do think that my criteria are conservative enough to prevent putting people to death unjustly, that is, I think my criteria fall in line with what is morally correct. So, what you need to do is provide a counter-example that you think is allowed by my position and which you think is an unjust case of putting a person to death.

Here's an illustration: Suppose that I hadn't included, within the set of criteria I provided, the requirement that a person not be insane in order to be the beneficiary of a right to die. Then, you could object that my view allows us to allow the clinically depressed to commit suicide. This would be a very good objection, because we all agree that a person who is clinically depressed suffers from a disease that prevents them from seeing things clearly. We all know that we could treat this person for depression (perhaps with therapy, perhaps with drugs, etc.) and that, once recovered, the person would probably be glad we didn't allow them to commit suicide while burdened by depression. In such a case, my view would be defective because it did not cohere with our moral intuitions. Notice that in this illustration I'm not assuming that my view DETERMINES what is morally correct, but, rather, that it supposedly coheres with or tracks what we independently conceive of as being morally correct. As a matter of fact, the view I present in this illustration fails to properly cohere with our moral intuitions, as the objection concerning the depressed patient shows.

So, I'm not asking you to do the impossible, as your objection assumes. I'm asking you to come up with a counter-example to my actual view that shows it allows for someone to be put to death unjustly, just as the counter-example in the illustration above shows that the hypothetical view therein unjustly allows the depressed to kill themselves.

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, on this point I agree with Pyrrho. I've presented various criteria that I think must be satisfied in order for euthanasia to be justified. These criteria were explained in the first posts I made in the other thread, and then elaborat ...[text shortened]... view therein unjustly allows the depressed to kill themselves.

Proposal: Let's talk about what is in essence, in my opinion, going on.

A small number of people do not want the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" to determine our views, reasoning and decisions anymore regarding questions of life and death. This commandment was given by God or made by mankind, whatever you prefer, to give society a certain order a certain structure. Why is it that these people do not accept this rule anymore ? Accepting that rule and obeying that rule is in my opinion a good thing to do whether you are an atheist or a theist. There must be a reason they want to put it aside. I have my doubts about the compassion argument, because these people are not interested at all in for instance pain releaving treatments or in building more hospices for the dying were people can die in a natural way and in a caring environment.

They are not interested in compassion, they want the right to kill.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Proposal: Let's talk about what is in essence, in my opinion, going on.

A small number of people do not want the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" to determine our views, reasoning and decisions anymore regarding questions of life and death. This commandment was given by God or made by mankind, whatever you prefer, to give society a certain order a ...[text shortened]... n a caring environment.

They are not interested in compassion, they want the right to kill.

Weird, why would you think I believe people have a right to kill? I think that there may be times when we have an obligation to kill, but that is not he same thing. If someone attacks my family, I have an obligation to stop them. If the only way I can stop them is to kill them, then I have an obligation to kill them. So, it's obvious that there is no general principle "Thou Shalt Not Kill" that is exceptionless. Even Christians recognize the right to self-defense, and God orders people to committ genocide in the O.T. So the question here is not about the status of some commandment, it is about trying to figure out the circumstances under which we are justified in taking a life, whether we take that life in defense, compassion, or in upholding our end of a contractual agreement with someone who wanted a dignified death.

Originally posted by bbarr
Weird, why would you think I believe people have a right to kill? I think that there may be times when we have an obligation to kill, but that is not he same thing. If someone attacks my family, I have an obligation to stop them. If the only way I can stop them is to kill them, then I have an obligation to kill them. So, it's obvious that there is no gene ...[text shortened]... n, or in upholding our end of a contractual agreement with someone who wanted a dignified death.

bbarr "... and God orders people to commit genocide in the O.T." bbarr

I know you've stated this before. You use the same sort of literal interpretation fundamentalists use to "proove" that the world was created in six days and on the basis of the same sort of literal interpretation you base your ridiculous claim that God ordered genocide.
You even once stated: "How can you love a mass murderer". My problem is how do I talk with people who read in texts the things they want to read and call that logical and reasonable ....

If I tell you in the future that you have a fundamentalist way of understanding the Bible, then you know what I mean.

Taking a life out of compassion.

The National Socialists, yes the Nazis, also had (have) the same ideas you are presenting here to us on this matter. They called this "Der Gnadentod". I'm not sure whether they based their thoughts on the Categoral Imperative of Emmanuel Kant, maybe more on the ideas of Mr. Heidegger, a philosopher admired by the philosophers of the sixties and seventies, until they found out he was a Nazi. These professional thinkers hadn't noticed that by reading his work ...

Anyway, why is it that a thought introduced by an ideology that is widely seen as clearly evil, being a form of the Culture of Death, is now being welcomed as the solution to one of our problems ?

By the way, I will remember that you do not believe people have a "Right to kill" but an "Obligation to Kill". Yes, under certain conditions, of course.
I will remember this , because we cannot discuss everything at the same time.
.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

bbarr "... and God orders people to commit genocide in the O.T." bbarr

I know you've stated this before. You use the same sort of literal interpretation fundamentalists use to "proove" that the world was created in six days and on the basis of the same sort of literal interpretation you base your ridiculous claim that God ordered genocide.
You ...[text shortened]... , of course.
I will remember this , because we cannot discuss everything at the same time.
.

Bbarr, do you have any knowledge of the concept of "Der Gnadentod" . The name the National Socialists used to introduce the idea of euthanasia, killing out of compassion, in Germany in the fourties ?
.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Bbarr, do you have any knowledge of the concept of "Der Gnadentod" . The name the National Socialists used to introduce the idea of euthanasia, killing out of compassion, in Germany in the fourties ?
.

That's a dodgy way to argue.

Originally posted by royalchicken
That's a dodgy way to argue.

Well, bbarr is the professional .... I'm not a philosopher.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Well, bbarr is the professional .... I'm not a philosopher.

I mean that you can't invalidate someone's point by pointing out that a rather nasty person also held that point of view. If I say: "Attila the Hun liked puppies", does that mean that it it morally reprehensible to like puppies? of course not. Similarly, does the fact that Attila the Hun chopped a few heads off imply that it is immoral to chop heads? No. Why do we call Attila evil--because we assumed/knew/discovered beforehand that head-chopping is evil.

Originally posted by royalchicken
I mean that you can't invalidate someone's point by pointing out that a rather nasty person also held that point of view. If I say: "Attila the Hun liked puppies", does that mean that it it morally reprehensible to like puppies? of course not. Similarly, does the fact that Attila the Hun chopped a few heads off imply that it is immoral to chop he ...[text shortened]... o we call Attila evil--because we assumed/knew/discovered beforehand that head-chopping is evil.

Do you know anything about "Der Gnadentod" ?
.

Originally posted by royalchicken
I mean that you can't invalidate someone's point by pointing out that a rather nasty person also held that point of view. If I say: "Attila the Hun liked puppies", does that mean that it it morally reprehensible to like puppies? of course not. Similarly, does the fact that Attila the Hun chopped a few heads off imply that it is immoral to chop he ...[text shortened]... o we call Attila evil--because we assumed/knew/discovered beforehand that head-chopping is evil.

Are you expecting some PR problems for the Freethinkers ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Do you know anything about "Der Gnadentod" ?
.

In fact I do, but it is irrelevant here. That's what I was trying to say before.

Originally posted by royalchicken
In fact I do, but it is irrelevant here. That's what I was trying to say before.

irrelevant ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

irrelevant ?

I believe that the Chicken means that it is irrelevant within the context of this discussion.