Bbarr:"I know you want to look at the political process. In my posts I have claimed that it is not an objection to a view that it gets misunderstood and misapplied by politicians. If I have a moral theory that imposes constraints on the practice of euthanasia, and a government or a political movement tries to do away with those constraints through faulty reasoning, then that does not show that the initial moral theory was a bad one." Bbarr.
So, if these restraints are being removed than you will become a political opponent of those politicians, scholars, scientists, philosophers, lobbyists and even people who call themselves Freethinkers who are advocates of removing these restraints ? ....... Promise ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, I would oppose anyone who argues that euthanasia in morally justified in cases where the constraints I've listed in the other thread have not been met. If a person has not consented to death (and I think one must be mentally competent in order to consent) via a living will, and if it is not generally agreed upon by those closest to the patient that s/he would not want to continue living under the current circumstances, then we are obligated to prolong life One exception being cases where the patients capacity for mentality is gone, in which case I think the patient is already dead. And in all cases I think there should be something like a consensus of medical experts as to the condition of the patient prior to deciding to euthanize. If the patient is only in a coma, for instance, then that extremely relevant. Living wills are often based on considerations of quality of life, and we are obligated to determine, to the best of our ability, what the quality of life is for a patient prior to euthanization.
Bbarr:"I know you want to look at the political process. In my posts I have claimed that it is not an objection to a view that it gets misunderstood and misapplied by politicians. If I have a moral theory that imposes constraints on the practice of euthanasia, and a government or a political movement tries to do away with those constraints through faulty re ...[text shortened]... themselves Freethinkers who are advocates of removing these restraints ? ....... Promise ?
Bbarr: "If you think that a method that employs reason is, by definition, a "Freethinker Method", then you also employ a "Freethinker Method" whenever you try to argue." Bbarr
Yes ! When I refer to the Freethinker Method I'm referring to the method used in reality. I do not consider that method rational rather misleading. We can investigate that in the case of Terry Schiavo and in the findings of the organisations of the disabled the "Not dead yet" groups in the US ...
Originally posted by bbarr
Yes, I would oppose anyone who argues that euthanasia in morally justified in cases where the constraints I've listed in the other thread have not been met. If a person has not consented to death (and I think one must be mentally competent in order to consent) via a living will, and if it is not generally agreed upon by those closest to the patient that s/he ...[text shortened]... e, to the best of our ability, what the quality of life is for a patient prior to euthanization.
Suppose you were the judge in the Terry Schiavo case, what would your decision be knowing what we know now and don't knowing what we don't know now ?
BBarr; " My friend uses a completely different method. Whenever he gets a math problem he counts the dollars in his wallet, and however many dollars he has he writes down as the answer. On this occasion, suppose he has $25.00 in his wallet, and thus writes down '25' as his answer to the math problem ......." Bbarr
Whenever he gets a math problem etc....... and each time he finds the correct answer ? ...... I think it will show to all of us when you repeat the experiment that the method he is using is wrong, don't you think so ? I understand what you are trying to say, but your reasoning in this instance is not what I would expect from you. It is of no crucial importance . I understand what you are trying to say. There is only one way of adding correctly .... right ?
Now look at all the attempts (experiments) in history of mankind that tried to releave pain and suffering by introducing killing, no matter what kind of method they used, including the methods used by the Roman Catholic Church, have ended in more suffering and more pain.That is the reason why you and I oppose these methods. You assume that the method you chose, the method based on Kants philosophy and the Categorical Imperative, is an insurance that the suffering will be diminished instead of increased when we decide to kill on the basis of logical reasoning. That implies that you know what kind of relations there are between the acceptance of killing as a rational act and the diminishing and or the increase of pain and suffering in reality, not only in the realm of the philosophical reality but also in the realm of psychology, in the realm of politics, in the realm of sociology, etc,etc. in the realm of reality as a whole. Each time mankind has tried to releave pain by killing, each time the experiment has failed.
The same way the advocates of the death penalty try to reduce suffering, by performing the death penalty in order to diminish crime and the suffering that comes with it. I'm sure they are convinced of the rationality of their reasoning, but I simply do not agree with them. I'm convinced that their ideas increase the suffering in the world in more than one way.
In my view this experiment also has failed but it is very difficult to show or prove this.
Now you stated, just like all the advocates of killing in order to diminish suffering in the world that YOUR method is OK, because you only kill in certain cases and under strict and carefully and logically chosen restrictions. I'm stating that in view of what happened in the past, including the crimes committed by people who belonged to the Church, history has shown us that there is no such thing as "killing will diminish suffering" in the world. It is an illusion and therefore I state that this idea is irrational. Reality, history itself has shown us that time after time.This has nothing to do with religious dogma's, it has to do whether we can learn from history, whether or not we are able to learn from the facts, yes or no. But you bbarr, you claim that all the others that tried this were wrong, but you and your spiritual brothers and sisters are right. Why, because you proved this using a rational method. Are you sure that you know áll the consequenses of performing euthanasia in every aspect of reality and thus can claim that the performance of Euthanasia will diminish suffering ?
We as human beings performed this experiment time and time again in history and each time we had to find out that we did not "count" correctly. Now you are assuming that your way of "counting" brakes the law that we learned in reality that killing increases suffering.
If you do not want the suffering to increase when dealing with questions about life and death, then "add up the correct way" and refrain from killing. This experiment has been repeated many many times in history and the results were always the same ....
Originally posted by ivanhoeI haven't been following the case for a few weeks, so I don't know if there have been developments. The last time I checked there was no consensus between the members of her family as to whether she would have consented to die rather than live in her current state. Additionally, the last time I checked there was no medical consensus as to the particulars of her state. I've heard doctors on Seattle's public radio station claim that Terry Schiavo isn't conscious at all, but merely reacts in various ways to stimuli. I've heard other doctors claim that Terry Schiavo can still experience joy at the arrival of a relative, etc. No doctors have claimed that she has anything more than a fairly rudimentary mental life. Given the situation as of the last time I checked, I think we must prolong her life. If the received medical opinion becomes that Terry Schiavo is actually in a persistent vegetative state, with nothing we would call mentality, then she is already dead as far as I'm concerned. But in the absence of a consensus on her state, we can't justifiably decide to end her life.
Suppose you were the judge in the Terry Schiavo case, what would your decision be knowing what we know now and don't knowing what we don't know now ?
Originally posted by bbarrWell , in the latter case she would allready be dead and therefore there would be no problem about whether to end her life yes or no. In this case you simply "pull the plug" by stopping to feed the dead body. A very sad decision but no moral problem at all.
I haven't been following the case for a few weeks, so I don't know if there have been developments. The last time I checked there was no consensus between the members of her family as to whether she would have consented to die rather than live in her current state. Additionally, the last time I checked there was no medical consensus as to the particulars o ...[text shortened]... . But in the absence of a consensus on her state, we can't justifiably decide to end her life.
So I guess we agree on this, because I also think that in this Terry Schiavo case it is unjust to end the treatment (feeding her).
Do you also agree that this is not a case of a terminal illness, therefore not a case of a dying person ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhenever he gets a math problem etc....... and each time he finds the correct answer ? ...... I think it will show to all of us when you repeat the experiment that the method he is using is wrong, don't you think so ? I understand what you are trying to say, but your reasoning in this instance is not what I would expect from you. It is of no crucial importance . I understand what you are trying to say. There is only one way of adding correctly .... right ?
BBarr; " My friend uses a completely different method. Whenever he gets a math problem he counts the dollars in his wallet, and however many dollars he has he writes down as the answer. On this occasion, suppose he has $25.00 in his wallet, and thus writes down '25' as his answer to the math problem ......." Bbarr
Whenever he gets a math problem etc.. ...[text shortened]... ent has been repeated many many times in history and the results were always the same ....
What I said was that "on this occasion, suppose he has $25.00 in his wallet...". I didn't say that he always happens to have the right amount of money in his wallet. The idea is that is was just a matter of chance that his faulty method led to the correct answer, just as it's the case that the ideologies of brutal regimes may lead to a good policy here or there.
Now look at all the attempts (experiments) in history of mankind that tried to releave pain and suffering by introducing killing, no matter what kind of method they used, including the methods used by the Roman Catholic Church, have ended in more suffering and more pain.
This is an empirical claim that requires support. The Stoics and Epicureans in ancient Greece practiced euthanasia, as have many other cultures throughout human history. In order for you to justify this claim, you'd have to show the policy of euthanasia in each culture where it has been adopted led to an increase in pain and suffering. And it is not good enough to show that their was a lot of pain and suffering in each of these cultures, you have to show that the policy of euthanasia itself directly caused an increase in pain and suffering. You merely assume that this is the case, but you haven't given me any reason to think that this assumption is correct.
You assume that the method you chose, the method based on Kants philosophy and the Categorical Imperative, is an insurance that the suffering will be diminished instead of increased when we decide to kill on the basis of logical reasoning. That implies that you know what kind of relations there are between the acceptance of killing as a rational act and the diminishing and or the increase of pain and suffering in reality, not only in the realm of the philosophical reality but also in the realm of psychology, in the realm of politics, in the realm of sociology, etc,etc. in the realm of reality as a whole.
I do not make any such assumption. If I was a Utilitarian, then I would have to make an assumption of this kind, but I am not an Utilitarian. Let me put this another way. You think that when I say that euthanasia is morally justified, I mean that it will decrease suffering in the world, and that this decrease in suffering is what justifies euthanasia. In effect, you think that I think that acts are right or wrong in virtue of the extent to which they increase or decrease suffering. But I do not think this. I do not think this is the reason why euthanasia is sometimes justified. On my moral theory, certain acts are right or wrong regardless of their effects on happiness. For instance, I think it is wrong to kill a serial killer, even though it may decrease suffering (I'm against the death penalty, by the way). I think it is wrong to lie, even when doing so will spare someone's feelings and thus prevent suffering. I think that euthanasia is sometimes permissible because I think that person's life is their own, and that they have the right to die with dignity if they so choose (subject to the constraints I've mentioned). I think that they have this right regardless of whether it causes members of their family extreme suffering. So my method is not one that is meant to ensure that suffering will be diminished. If I lived in a nation of fundamentalist Christians, then my method would obviously not decrease suffering, because everytime someone was allowed to die with dignity the whole nation would be anguished. But even if I did live in a nation of fundamentalist Christians I would still think that euthanasia is sometimes justified, not because it decreases suffering, but because a person has the fundamental right to live their life as they so choose, as long as they do not violate the autonomy of others by treating them as merely means to the satisfaction of their own ends. So, just to make this point extremely clear: I am not a Utilitarian. Thus, the reason I think euthanasia is justified has nothing at all to do with whether euthanasia will decrease suffering in the community. Thus, I do not need to argue that implementing a policy that permits euthanasia will in fact decrease suffering. Thus, my view does not imply that I "know what kind of relations there are between the acceptance of killing as a rational act and the diminishing and or the increase of pain and suffering in reality, not only in the realm of the philosophical reality but also in the realm of psychology, in the realm of politics, in the realm of sociology, etc,etc. in the realm of reality as a whole." This objection has absolutely no force against my view, though it would have force against someone who thought that it is the effects of an act on the level of suffering among the community that makes that act morally right or wrong.
Each time mankind has tried to releave pain by killing, each time the experiment has failed.
Again, this is an empirical claim that you have yet to support. But even if this claim was supported, it would be irrelevant to my view for the reasons explained above.
Now you stated, just like all the advocates of killing in order to diminish suffering in the world that YOUR method is OK, because you only kill in certain cases and under strict and carefully and logically chosen restrictions. I'm stating that in view of what happened in the past, including the crimes committed by people who belonged to the Church, history has shown us that there is no such thing as "killing will diminish suffering" in the world. It is an illusion and therefore I state that this idea is irrational. Reality, history itself has shown us that time after time.This has nothing to do with religious dogma's, it has to do whether we can learn from history, whether or not we are able to learn from the facts, yes or no. But you bbarr, you claim that all the others that tried this were wrong, but you and your spiritual brothers and sisters are right. Why, because you proved this using a rational method. Are you sure that you know áll the consequenses of performing euthanasia in every aspect of reality and thus can claim that the performance of Euthanasia will diminish suffering ?
Again, you have yet to show that the policy of euthanasia as implemented by, for instance, the ancient Greeks caused an increase in suffering. You are making an empirical claim about the effects of euthanasia on the levels of suffering in a society, and you are providing no evidence. Unless you can show that every time a culture implements a policy according to which euthanasia is permissible suffering increases as direct result of the implementation of that policy, then I have no reason to think that your claim is correct. But regardless of whether you are able to do that, your claim is completely irrelevant to my moral theory, because I don't think acts are right or wrong in virtue of their effects on suffering. Again, you are assuming that a moral theory is rational to the extent that it increases well-being and decreases suffering. This would entail that any act, no matter how apparently vile, would be justified if it happened to increase well-being overall. I reject this view. According to my view, some acts are obligatory and some are forbidden regardless of whether they increase or decrease suffering. Treating someone merely as a means to the satisfaction of your own ends under any circumstance is something I think is wrong.
We as human beings performed this experiment time and time again in history and each time we had to find out that we did not "count" correctly. Now you are assuming that your way of "counting" brakes the law that we learned in reality that killing increases suffering.
If you do not want the suffering to increase when dealing with questions about life and death, then "add up the correct way" and refrain from killing. This experiment has been repeated many many times in history and the results were always the same ....
See all the posts above.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not sure about the facts of the case. Regardless of whether she is terminal my own judgement about what we ought to do is unaffected. But if she is not terminal, if she is in a stable condition, then the Hemolck Society has no business lobbying for her euthanization (if they are) because it violates one of their stated criteria.
Do you also agree that this is not a case of a terminal illness, therefore not a case of a dying person ?
Originally posted by bbarr
I'm not sure about the facts of the case. Regardless of whether she is terminal my own judgement about what we ought to do is unaffected. But if she is not terminal, if she is in a stable condition, then the Hemolck Society has no business lobbying for her euthanization (if they are) because it violates one of their stated criteria.
Absolutely correct.
Bbarr: "You are correct, I think the Catholic Church is dogmatic and irrational. They use the "Bible Thumping Machine" and the "Infallible Pope Machine". This is why they committed the atrocities known as the Crusades and the Inquisition, respectively." Bbarr.
Bbarr, I've got a problem, or maybe WE've got a problem:
Whenever I state things like the above you ask me to come up with arguments supporting that claim. Should I ask the same of you ?
You also assume that you know the reason why they've committed those crimes. Maybe they abused faith in order to reach their political goals?
Should I ask you to provide arguments for your claim ?
My claim would be that these atrocities have more to do with politics at the time than with the teachings of Christ. Now you would be stating that I have to support my claim with arguments, while you lean back in your chair and shake your head for so much stupidity and lack of understanding.
Do you understand my (our?) problem with your attitude towards the way the debate is proceeding ?
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "The Stoics and Epicureans in ancient Greece practiced euthanasia, as have many other cultures throughout human history. In order for you to justify this claim, you'd have to show the policy of euthanasia in each (! IvanH) culture where it has been adopted led to an increase in pain and suffering." Bbarr
[b]Whenever he gets a math problem etc....... and each time he finds the correct answer ? ...... I think it will show to all of us when you repeat the experiment that the method he is using is wrong, don't you think so ? I understand what yo ...[text shortened]... results were always the same ....
See all the posts above. [/b]
Why do you ask me to support my claim with arguments when you state a few sentences later that it is irrelevant to your claim.
Bbarr: "This is an empirical claim that requires support. The Stoics and Epicureans in ancient Greece practiced euthanasia, as have many other cultures throughout human history. In order for you to justify this claim, you'd have to show the policy of euthanasia in each (!) culture where it has been adopted led to an increase in pain and suffering. And it is not good enough to show that their was a lot of pain and suffering in each of these cultures, you have to show that the policy of euthanasia itself directly caused an increase in pain and suffering. You merely assume that this is the case, but you haven't given me any reason to think that this assumption is correct." Bbarr
Let's suppose it was relevant to the discussion: How in the world would I be able to support that claim ? A project like that takes years and years to realise. Maybe it will even fail in view of the fact that nothing is being recorded in that field. Especially not by the Stoics and the Epicurians themselves, in the same way the "Pro Choice" advocates of abortion will not produce records of the suffering of the people involved including the mother, the father, the family and above all the victim itself, especially in the case of late abortions .....
Besides that I have to prove this for each (!!) civilisation ... all right !!
"This is an empirical claim that requires support" Sure and you can lean back while you lay the burden of proof on my shoulders, saddling me with a Mission Impossible.
But it is all, in your view, irrelevant to the subject of the discussion ....
So what is the relevance of your question ?
and why is this irrelevant .... because you are not a Utilitarian. It does not matter in the first place. Well, it shouldn't really matter to me eather ... or should it, being a Christian ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeobviously because its me i have not got a novel to write but i MUST get my opinion accross i would rather die sooner rather than later if i had a terminal illness far too much suffering and pain for me a couple of tablets or an injection that would do for me,i hope it never happens,
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 subject or people who simply are not interested in this issue not to read this post. Maybe it will make you feel uncomfortable ...[text shortened]... remember very well that I did not feel at ease with that statement ...
To be continued.
Originally posted by eddie andersEddie,
obviously because its me i have not got a novel to write but i MUST get my opinion accross i would rather die sooner rather than later if i had a terminal illness far too much suffering and pain for me a couple of tablets or an injection that would do for me,i hope it never happens,
At this moment the pain releaving methods are such that you need not suffering unbearably. There is no need being afraid that you will be left suffering and dying without any help. That is an image often used by advocates of the "Right to die for All" in order to promote their views. It is a misconception to assume that the advocates of euthanasia are "helping" dying people to end suffering and that the opponents of active euthanasia are preventing this and do nothing to help the dying . They, the Freethinkers do not fight this misconception, this lie, no, they are using this very idea in their political propaganda. To show how they argue I've chosen the article of Anne Nicol Gaylor. You can read about this in the beginning of the " Anne Nicol Gaylor, Freethinker" thread.
When I'm expressing my worries about the eventual consequenses of legalising active euthanasia, they accuse mé of hand waving and fear- mongering ....... while théy are using in their political propaganda the fears people have concerning eventual suffering when dying.