Bbarr: "Where do you get this stuff? It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed without any moral problems"
You are so clever bbarr. This is also an example of let's say your very "flexible" way of formulating your views.
" .....It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed without any moral problems "
What does this mean ? Does it mean that it is impossible to kill mentally ill people ? That's not what it says, but you sure give the impression. It says that it will be possible but certainly not without moral problems.
What's the difference between these two sentences:
1. " It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed without any moral problems"
2. " It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed."
The latter (second) sentence contains the assurance that mentally ill people cannot be killed (under any circumstances) . Does the former sentence, bbarr's sentence, contain the same assurance. No !
It is possible that they might be killed in the future ? Well who knows, but that will cause difficult moral problems. But as we all know problems are there to be solved.
Very elastic stretchy formulations bbarr.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy not kill all "non-qualifying" beings and then sue for divine forgiveness? Would this not suit you both?
Bbarr: "Where do you get this stuff? It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed without any moral problems"
You are so clever bbarr. This is also an example of let's say your very "flexible" way of formulating your views.
" .....It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed without any mo ...[text shortened]... ll know problems are there to be solved.
Very elastic stretchy formulations bbarr.
Ivanhoe,
I though I'd take one last stab at this subject, though frankly I doubt very much that I can influence your view on this matter one iota.
I never heard any criticism at all from bbarr concerning the tendencies in society which do not obey "his" limitations regarding the questions of life and death. The champion of critical thinking is absolutely silent in these cases. He is sheltering in his ivory tower and maintaines radiosilence.This makes me wonder.
This is really a matter for Bbarr, but I'll give my view on this:
If you present a fringe occurance that shows that someone somewhere has acted in a clearly morally reprehensible manner, in a manner that, one can either expect that every half-sane person objects to, or my own public expalanations of my views and principles make it apparent that I would be against such a thing, then it's hardly necessary to cry out "I condemn this!" in every instance. Equally, if someone doesn't cry foul if I recount a case of, say, child molestation, that harldly gives me reason to suspect or insinuate in public that that person wouldn't object to child molestation. I don't comment "that's terrible!" on every account of an occurance that it is reasonable to think that a sane person would consider terrible, because I expect to get a reasonable benefit of the doubt that I'm not insane or evil; if someone asks me for an opinion honestly not knowing how I would stand on some issue, then I'll respond.
Further, I may not raise a huge public objection to some act by some group that I consider to be a fringe minority, a group promoting something that has no reasonable chance to become widely accepted, and thus threaten the society in any significant way. I have great objections to the belief in "flat earth", that is still held by a tiny minority of religious extremists, but I hardly think it worth my time to raise great objections to that belief, as I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that that belief will have any great influcence.
Jarno: "Maybe this is because freethinkers in general don't agree with you that issues of death are "the essense of Western Culture", nor that some sort of "Culture of Death" would be the ultimate consequence of Western culture in any meaningful sense."
Ivanhoe: "Now freethinkers dó have common opinions. You are contradicting yourself."
That is why I included the qualifier "in general". I feel confident I can say this, because of my personal experience - I know a great number of freethinkers, but not one that thinks that issues of death are particularly prominent in Western culture. I do not discuount the possibility of there being freethinkers that would hold this view, however. I see no contradiction here with my statement that freethought does not include ideas (beyond an attitude towards knowledge), that would be shared by ALL freethinkers.
If I ask bbarr to react to a (prophetic) article in a pro death journal he simply states that this has nothing to do with his position. So what ? Are we purely discussing his position or are we discussing social, cultural and political changes in the western culture. Of course his position is relevant, but it is not the main subject of the debate.
(I haven't read the article, so read the following with that in mind) Perhaps Bbarr isn't rising to the barricades, because he considers things that you've brought out to be fringe phenomena that has no real chance of having a great influence in the Western society in the foreseeable future? As said earlier, I wouldn't waste my time objecting to beliefs (even detrimental ones) that don't have a real chance of doing any harm, because to do so, that fringe belief would have to become a popular belief, and I don't see that happening.
Can you explain how the events in Germany during the thirties and forties could have taken place without there being a slippery slope as you've stated. To assume that in our days the possibility of moral decline is impossible because there is no slippery slope is simply too ridiculous for words.
Let's just see the similarities and differences in the supporters of euthanasia rights, and the supporters of abortion rigths to the policies of Nazi Germany:
Similarities:
There is death involved.
Some of the differences (I can't hope to list all):
In modern support of abortion rights and euthanasia rights, the key word is "RIGHTS" - rights of the individual. In nazi-germany, the concept of the rights of the individual didn't play any part; the state determined who was undesireable, who was to be killed and who was to be forcefully sterilized.
In modern western societies where euthanasia and abortion are hot subjects, the are no threats or generally held hate towards any ethnic or cultural group, and no suggestion that these policies should somehow be used against these groups. In contrast, Hitler got to power in a time when there had been centuries old anti-semitism in Europe (And yes, much of the hate did come from the Christian church), there was a sore and humiliating war defeat in recent memory of the German people, and as Hitler ran short-sighted economic policies, soon there was a need for someone to blame, and the need for wealth and workforce to cover Hitler's war ambitions, all of which could be solved by fueling the already existing hate towards an ethnic group.
In modern societies eugenics is frowned upon, to such extent that with the memory of the first half of 20th century, anything slightly hinting the possibility of a connection with eugenics receives an instant public outcry. In the early 20th century, society had no real experience with the consequences of government policies based on eugenics, and the concept of there beeing "lesser rases" within the human race was widely accepted, as opposed to the modern society, where such concepts are made ridiculous by the knowledge of biology and genetics, as well as a more mature attitude and acceptance of human rights.
When you are talking about the "slippery slope", you imply that there is an inherent threat in the modern attitudes towards abortion and euthanasia, yet there is not a single example of these attitudes leading to anything vaguely similar to Nazi Germany. And what led to nazi Germany wasn't groups that promote the rights of individuals to abortions or euthanasia; the particular conditions of the time, coupled with an existing hate for an ethic group, allowed a group who's views on eugenics, and who's motivations for strerilizations, abortions and killings are diametrically opposite to the views of the supporters of euthanasia and abortion rights.
No, I certainly don't see a "slippery slope", and there is nothing in history to suggest that from the support of the rights of the individual, in a context of a moderately prosperous, stable society, where rasism is widely condemned, where the slightest suggestion of "eugenics" inspires a knee-jerk reaction in the public, where human rights violations are watched and opposed by several organizations as well as the informed public, we could somehow "slip" into views diametrically different. I think the whole notion absurd.
You are right, but I never heard a Freethinker criticising the Culture of Death in a fundamental way. Have you ?
Perhaps there's a good reason for that - "The Culture of Death", as a concept defined by you, includes active euthanasia, the opposition of which, in my experience, depends on religious dogma, which freethinkers reject - without such metaphysical beliefs, it is very difficult indeed to find a reason to oppose active euthanasia, and indeed, it does seem to me that denying the right to active euthanasia is, outside religious dogmas, morally reprehensible.
Also, I don't think that the case for the "slippery slope" is defensible, and would be surpriced to see a freethinker accept that argument as viable.
-Jarno
Originally posted by Pyrrho
Ivanhoe,
I though I'd take one last stab at this subject, though frankly I doubt very much that I can influence your view on this matter one iota.
[quote]I never heard any criticism at all from bbarr concerning the tendencies in society which do not obey "his" limitations regarding the questions of life and death. The champion of critical thinking i ...[text shortened]... fensible, and would be surpriced to see a freethinker accept that argument as viable.
-Jarno
Jarno,
I'm glad we now agree that Freethinkers dó share common notions or ideas. You speak about these notions a couple of times in your post. However there seems to be a need on your side to deny this reality. So be it. However I hope you will agree that whenever I speak about Freethinkers you will not expect of me to use the extended frase of "Freethinkers in general".
Ivanhoe: "I never heard any criticism at all from bbarr concerning the tendencies in society which do not obey "his" limitations regarding the questions of life and death."
Jarno: " .... as I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that that belief will have any great influcence."
The article is in this thread. I would like you to read it and give your reaction to it as an independent (!) non-biased Freethinker.
The question you raise about Eugenics is a very interesting one. The relations between bioetics, abortion and euthanasia will undoubtedly be discussed in this (our) debate.
Jarno: " "The Culture of Death", as a concept defined by you, includes active euthanasia, the opposition of which, in my experience,depends on religious dogma, ... "
That remains to be seen. I'm not at all convinced of that. There are people that oppose the Culture of Death within the framework of humanism. They aren't religious at all. It is a false dichotomy to assume that if you are not religious you have to accept euthanasia, because opposition towards euthanasia is based only on religious ideas. How do Buddhists (not a religion) for example look upon this issue ? Maybe there are Buddhists on RHP that are able to inform us about their stances ? Would be very interesting. What about the humanists on RHP ?
About the slippery slope: This concept is not possible within the context of your theoretical, logical thinking. However, reality, cultural processes, real existing (not necesseraly logical) thinking processes don't always follow the course of our reasoning. That's why I say the "slippery slope argument" may not be viable in theory, but "the slippery slope " surely is a practical reality. Freethinkers (in general !) are not very anxious to take that into consideration. It would only get in their way of making their ideas acceptable for the masses. It would only complicate things.
.
Originally posted by bbarrWhen is a human being dead or alive ? Modern medicine can keep the human body alive for a long long time after the human being is already dead. The body is alive, but the human being is dead.
A human being who is brain dead and kept alive artificially is still alive and thus can be killed. Do these human organisms also have the right to life?
There are scientists who claim that a brain dead person is not dead. This is a complicating factor. The "doctors" don't agree on these matters. In practical cases you just have to trust what the doctor in question is telling you. An other doctor would tell you a different story. Doctors are getting more and more power over life and death because the issues are so complicated and there is no agreement on these matters. This power issue should be of concern to Freethinkers and not only to them !
Here is the article. I asked bbarr to react to this article. Maybe you can do the same.
Where American medicine is leading society these past thirty years was outlined in a prophetic editorial of the pro-death journal, California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association in September 1970 after abortion was legalized in that state:
"….Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.
The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected…Certainly this has required placing relative values on human lives and the impact of the physician in this decision process has been considerable.
One may anticipate further development of these roles as the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society…"
Published in the pro-death journal, California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association in September 1970 after abortion was legalized in that state.
The following part was directed at Bbarr.
The term "semantic gymnastics" was not mine as you can see. However your reasoning is indeed full of semantic gymnastics. The reason why is being revealed in this article by one of your ideological friends. If you have any objections, including the ad hominem fallacy criticism, I would suggest you write a letter to them. Please keep me posted about the results of the correspondence between you and your friends ......
I'm glad we now agree that Freethinkers dó share common notions or ideas.
There are indeed ideas which are more common than others among freethinkers, but no single idea (aside from an attitude towards knowledge), is a part of the ideology of freethought. Moreover, freethinkers aren't some sort of a globally united organization with political goals - individual freethinkers may have their political ideas and goals, and some ideas may be more common among freethinkers than others, but there is no sense in talking about "freethinker policies", or "freethinker goals", as no such things exist, beyond the bare-bones opposition to dogmatism.
That remains to be seen. I'm not at all convinced of that. There are people that oppose the Culture of Death within the framework of humanism. They aren't religious at all. It is a false dichotomy to assume that if you are not religious you have to accept euthanasia, because opposition towards euthanasia is based only on religious ideas. How do Buddhists (not a religion) for example look upon this issue ? Maybe there are Buddhists on RHP that are able to inform us about their stances ? Would be very interesting. What about the humanists on RHP ?
While I agree that Buddhism is the least religion-like of all the religions I'm familiar with (because it contains no absolute dogmatic, and demands no particular belief of people), it does have an extensive metaphysical aspect to it. I'm not sure how a Buddhist would act in a situation where someone was dying a slow agonazing death, causing suffering to themselves and their loved ones who had to watch this suffering, and that dying person asked that his death be hastened. I do know that Buddhism has a great respect for living things, but I also know that the central point of Buddism is to reduce suffering. I'll have to ask my sister about this - she's a buddhist, maybe she'll have some interesting input. Of course, buddhism also states that you should believe nothing unless it agrees with your own reason, not even if it came from the mouth of Buddha himself. So I suspect that in the scenario I presented, killing would be in line with Buddhist ideals.
If you are familiar with some way of arguing against active euthanasia that didn't involve metaphysical beliefs who's validity is under contention, then please let me know. I honestly can't think of any way.
About the slippery slope: This concept is not possible within the context of your theoretical, logical thinking. However, reality, cultural processes, real existing (not necesseraly logical) thinking processes don't always follow the course of our reasoning. That's why I say the "slippery slope argument" may not be viable in theory, but "the slippery slope " surely is a practical reality. Freethinkers (in general !) are not very anxious to take that into consideration. It would only get in their way of making their ideas acceptable for the masses. It would only complicate things.
Here, as so far all along the "slippery slope" argument you are trying to draw from the general to the specific without showing any connection between the two - of course "slippery slopes" do exist in the real world in various places; if you use "soft" drugs, you risk becoming addicted, and eventually moving on to "hard" drugs. It's not a certainty, but it is a risk. But there the reasoning behind that "slippery slope" is quite apparent, and there are examples of that happening to people.
You however, are claiming something very specific: that from secular thoughts on abortion and euthanasia there exists a slippery slope to Nazi-Germany like horror scenarios. It's not enough to point out that "slippery slopes" exist, and then on that basis claim that this particular conection between abortion and euthanasia issues and forced, horrendous state practices involving the kiling of people exists, and that there's a "slippery slope between them".
This seems to be your position, but you have provided absolutely no evidence for it, and can't seem to provide even the basic path your "slippery slope" is supposed to take - how does one get from promoting the rights of individuals into promoting the right of governments to decide over the fates of individuals and groups? What is the gradual series of events that you propose make up this particular "slippery slope"?
So far you've only taken examples of the extremes, and claimed that there's some sort of a slippery slope there, but provided nothing to support that claim, or even to suggest that it should be taken seriously.
I looked up the article, and frankly don't know your purpose in bringing it up - how does this relate to any perceived "slippery slope"? All it shows is some arguments for legalizing euthanasia, followed by an interview of a doctor that euthanizes patients - it was quite long, and I didn't read it much past the quote you picked out from the article, but up to that point, I didn't see anything particularly ominous or sinister about the article, anything that would suggest, or even give an idea of what the "slipery slope" you propose might be like.
If you do still insist that there is a slippery slope from the ideas you critize to some more sinister policies, then I'd like you to comment on a similar argument that I presented earlier in order to show the invalidity of the sort of slippery slope arguing that you practice - what if I were to say that there is a slippery slope from a belief in God to terrorism? If I were to seriously argue that, and as "support" take snippets and quotes from articles of moderate religious people that talked about God, and then taking quotes from the speaches of terrorists where they invoke God, and leave the demonstration at that. Then, based on those illuminations of the extremes, and the one similarity between them, I would claim that there's a slippery slope from one to the other. If you then claimed that you don't see how a moderate religious person with who places great value on life and human rights could somehow "slip" to become a terrorist, I would say that, "well, in your theories of course such a slippery slope doesn't exist, but since slippery slopes do exist in reality, I stand by my contention! "
Wouldn't you agree that that would be an invalid argument? Wouldn't you be justified in asking me to provide an actual path from the moderate life-affirming belief to one that involved blowing up innocent people? And wouldn't you further be justified in asking me to explain, if I actually came up with such scenario, why that scenario is so likely to happen that one could call it a "slippery slope", as opposed to a freak occurance?
Your argument against freethinkers, and people fighting for abortion and euthanasia rights follows the exact same pattern as the hypothetical "slippery slope" argument leading from God belief to terrorism; isn't it reasonable and just to ask that you actually make your argument instead of insinuate things - that you provide a reasonable path for moving from promoting the self-determination over life of individuals to nazi-like horrors? As I argued before, the two are diametrically opposite positions - one is for the rights of the individual, and the other is for the state's (or some power group's) rights over the lifes of individuals.
-Jarno
Ivanhoe,
I claimed that "A creature who has neither the capacity to suffer, nor the capacity for rationality, nor self-awareness is not a creature that needs to be taken into account in our moral deliberations. Such a creature cannot be harmed and hence cannot be morally wronged."
You responded".... and thus can be killed. Right ?"
Right, and this is something to which you have previously agreed. A mentally damaged creature who has no sense of self, can't engage in even rudimentary thought, and can't feel pain or any other sort of suffering is no different than a creature who is brain-dead. In each case, the creature has no mental life at all.
You asked "Does it mean that it is impossible to kill mentally ill people ? That's not what it says, but you sure give the impression. It says that it will be possible but certainly not without moral problems.
What's the difference between these two sentences:
1. " It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed without any moral problems"
2. " It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed."
I respond:
Of course it is possible to kill mentally ill persons, just as it is possible to kill normal persons. It is possible to do all sorts of things that one is morally obligated not to do. I think all persons have a right to live, and because they have that right we are obligated 1) not to kill them unless they are threatening our life or the lives of others, and 2) to save them from death unless doing so requires the sacrifice of our own life or the taking of another's life. In other words, it is morally wrong to either kill persons or fail to render aid when their lives are threatened. This is why I wrote sentence (1) above. My view entails that it is not morally unproblematic to kill mentally ill persons. In fact, my view entails that killing mentally ill persons is morally wrong. Again, on my view it is MORALLY WRONG TO KILL MENTALLY ILL PERSONS. I have no idea why you can't grasp this rudimentary point.
I asked"A human being who is brain dead and kept alive artificially is still alive and thus can be killed. Do these human organisms also have the right to life?"
You responded"When is a human being dead or alive ? Modern medicine can keep the human body alive for a long long time after the human being is already dead. The body is alive, but the human being is dead."
I respond:
So this entails that you think that when a human's brain dies, the human being dies along with it, regardless of whether the human being's body is kept alive. Now, why do you attach so much importance to a human being's brain? What makes the brain more important than, for instance, the heart or kidneys or liver? On your view, a human being could survive the death of his heart or kidneys or liver (he could get transplanted organs, after all). But you deny that a human could similarly survive the death of his brain. Why is this? What is so important about the brain?
Comments on the Slippery Slope
Ivanhoe, I have no doubt that the lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians who shape foreign and domestic policy have a less than adequate grasp on theoretical ethics. I have no doubt that they will make severe mistakes in some of the policies that they put forward. I have no doubt that some of these policies will sometimes prevent us from doing morally right things and if not mandate then at least allow us to do morally wrong things. This is why we must be on guard when those who shape foreign and domestic policy start legislating about war, health care, civil liberties, abortion, euthanasia, etc. etc. Whenever legislation is proposed that either directly involves our treatment of persons or has ramifications for the rights and/or well-being of persons we ought to subject such legislation to critical scrutiny.
In the public domain slippery slopes indeed occur. It happens all the time in legal affairs, where one decision can serve as the precedental basis for another, perhaps slightly different case. Such chains of precedent can gradually lead to decisions that, although legal by definition, are obviously morally wrong. I have never denied that this occurs in the public domain.
What I do deny is that there are any slippery slope arguments applicable to my position as such. I deny this for two reasons, 1) slippery slope arguments are formally invalid (although they may persuade the ignorant), and 2) my position has clear criteria for determining whether a creature is person. Just as in my position on euthanasia, where I argued that in cases where we cannot determine the mental status of a patient we must err on the side of caution, so in abortion if it is unclear whether a fetus has the neural structures necessary to support the capacities for suffering, rationality, and self-awareness, then we must err on the side of caution and treat such a fetus as a person and rights-holder. What is clear is that none of the necessary neural structures are present early in the pregnancy, and hence abortion early in the pregnancy does not violate any person's right to live.
Thus, although it is a lamentable fact that the ignorant and irrational shapers of policy will succumb to slippery slope arguments and as a result violate the rights of persons, this is simply irrelevant to the questions of whether a particular position concerning abortion, euthanasia or whatever is internally consistent and morally sound. Hence, I will simply ignore any slippery slope objections to my position. After all, it is not the fault of my position that it could possibly be misunderstood and misapplied.
Here is an analogy I hope will make this last point clearer: The Roman Catholic Church has a violent and bloody history. This is beyond dispute. The list of the atrocities committed by self-proclaimed Roman Catholics include rape, torture and murder. Notoriously, some of these atrocities are just coming to light. Of course these rapists, torturers and murderers weren't actually Roman Catholic, even though they may have been ordained as priests, bishops or cardinals. How could they be truly Roman Catholic, when their behavior shows a fundamental disregard for the central tenets of Christ's teaching? But suppose I were to argue that we ought to outlaw the Roman Catholic Church in the United States because it has such a checkered past. Suppose I were to claim that allowing the Roman Catholic Church to stay in the United States would create a slippery slope that would eventually lead to the widespread rape of children, new inquisitions against heathens, and the slaughter of millions of "witches"? After all, each of these phenomena has been traced, at one point or another, directly back to self-proclaimed Roman Catholics. Obviously, such an argument is absurd. It is absurd because it ignores the distinction between 1) what self-proclaimed Roman Catholics have in fact done, and 2) what actual Roman Catholic doctrine says about proper behavior for Roman Catholics. Your slippery slope arguments against my views are absurd for similar reasons.
Originally posted by Pyrrho
I'm glad we now agree that Freethinkers dó share common notions or ideas.
There are indeed ideas which are more common than others among freethinkers, but no single idea (aside from an attitude towards knowledge), is a part of the ideology of freethought. Moreover, freethinkers aren't some sort of a globally united organization with po ...[text shortened]... for the state's (or some power group's) rights over the lifes of individuals.
-Jarno
First of all, I never stated that there is an inevitable slippery slope from the present Culture of Death towards a situation similar to the situation in Germany during the thirties and fourties. Of course the forms and appearances of that form of Culture of Death will never return because the historical circumstances are quite different.That being true does however not imply that it is impossible for Western Culture to develop a different Culture of Death. A Culture of Death that is being developed according to the demands of the present.
The Islam forbids killing. Yet there has been a developement towards an Islam interpretation that is known as the "Political Islam". The political Islam reasons that it is morally justifiable to kill non-believers, enemies of the Islam.They do not only preach these ideas, they also practise them. Clearly a slippery slope here, since Islam forbids killing. Same thing could happen in Christianity. It would however not be my interpretation of the teachings of Christ. I would be a fervent opponent of such interpretation.
Jarno: " ..... and that dying person asked that his death be hastened."
Have you ever asked yourself why you are using such euphemisms?Why don't you use the word that is applicable here?
Why do you reduce performimg euthanasia to killing terminately ill human beings ?
Jarno: " causing suffering to themselves and their loved ones who had to watch this suffering, .... "
I'm glad that you admit that performing euthanasia also has to do with ending the suffering of their loved ones. That has always been denied by the Dutch advocates of euthanasia. I wonder what bbarr's position is in this matter.
Jarno: "how[/i] does one get from promoting the rights of individuals into promoting the right of governments to decide over the fates of individuals and groups?"
Who says governments will decide over the fates of individuals and /or groups ?
Other groups may play that roll. Groups with an ideology quite different from fascist or Nazi ideology.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou wouldn't have to wonder if you had bothered to read my post that deals with this very issue. Try to remember what I said about Utilitarianism, my position on Utilitarianism entails my position on the effect the desires of a patient's family have towards the moral status of his/her euthanization.
I wonder what bbarr's position is in this matter.
Originally posted by bbarr-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivanhoe,
[b]I claimed that "A creature who has neither the capacity to suffer, nor the capacity for rationality, nor self-awareness is not a creature that needs to be taken into account in our moral deliberations. Such a creature cann ...[text shortened]... ope arguments against my views are absurd for similar reasons.
[/b]
BBarr:
"I claimed that[/b] "A creature who has neither the capacity to suffer, nor the capacity for rationality, nor self-awareness is not a creature that needs to be taken into account in our moral deliberations. Such a creature cannot be harmed and hence cannot be morally wronged."
You responded".... and thus can be killed. Right ?"
Right, and this is something to which you have previously agreed. A mentally damaged creature who has no sense of self, can't engage in even rudimentary thought, and can't feel pain or any other sort of suffering is no different than a creature who is brain-dead. In each case, the creature has no mental life at all.
You asked "Does it mean that it is impossible to kill mentally ill people ? That's not what it says, but you sure give the impression. It says that it will be possible but certainly not without moral problems.
What's the difference between these two sentences:
1. " It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed without any moral problems"
2. " It most certainly does not entail that mentally ill people can be killed."
I respond:
Of course it is possible to kill mentally ill persons, just as it is possible to kill normal persons. It is possible to do all sorts of things that one is morally obligated not to do. I think all persons have a right to live, and because they have that right we are obligated 1) not to kill them unless they are threatening our life or the lives of others, and 2) to save them from death unless doing so requires the sacrifice of our own life or the taking of another's life. In other words, it is morally wrong to either kill persons or fail to render aid when their lives are threatened. This is why I wrote sentence (1) above. My view entails that it is not morally unproblematic to kill mentally ill persons. In fact, my view entails that killing mentally ill persons is morally wrong. Again, on my view it is MORALLY WRONG TO KILL MENTALLY ILL PERSONS. I have no idea why you can't grasp this rudimentary point.
__________________________________________________________________
In above reasoning you switch from people ( human beings) to persons. I understand. You dont have to explain.
BBarr: "Again, on my view it is MORALLY WRONG TO KILL MENTALLY ILL PERSONS. I have no idea why you can't grasp this rudimentary point."
Yes you can. You changed that one important word. You changed people to persons. Word gymnastics or did you simply make a mistake ? In your eyes it is POSSIBLE to kill mentally ill people, human beings, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to kill mentally ill persons, according your definition of persons.
_________________________________________________________________
It is not morally acceptable to kill a person, however it is morally acceptable to kill the person you see in the mirror.Right ?
Am I correct to assume that the theory you advocate has nothing to do with the dignity of human life but whether or not some(one?)thing(?) holds rights ? Therefore the theory centers around rights and not about human life. Am I correct ?
_________________________________________________________________
BBarr: "What is so important about the brain?"
You tell me !
I know that it has become problematic were the human beings (person's) personality, ego, soul, or whatever you wanna call the "thing" that disappears whenever you die, is located in the body. Maybe it isn't "located" at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that we owe the division between body and "soul" to the rationalist René Descartes ?
_________________________________________________________________
Whenever legislation is proposed that either directly involves our treatment of persons or has ramifications for the rights and/or well-being of persons we ought to subject such legislation to critical scrutiny.
Yes Barr. You are talking about persons and not about human beings. We therefore are not to worry about the fates of human beings being no persons according to your (unchangeable ?) definitions. For instance the unborn human beings who can become persons if we do not intervene.
__________________________________________________________________
" of whether a particular position concerning abortion, euthanasia or whatever is internally consistent and morally sound. "
It certainly is internally consistent, but whether it is morally sound remains to be seen.
Do you state that a particular position is morally sound because it is internally consistent, or does it take more for a position to be morally sound ? In the latter case what are the other conditions for a stance to be morally sound ?
_________________________________________________________________-
I'm glad that you accept the possibility of a slippery slope in practise.
Originally posted by bbarr
You wouldn't have to wonder if you had bothered to read my post that deals with this very issue. Try to remember what I said about Utilitarianism, my position on Utilitarianism entails my position on the effect the desires of a patient's family have towards the moral status of his/her euthanization.
As I remember correctly we've come to the conclusion we both weren't utilitarians. Right ? Therefore the sufferings of loved ones are not relevant for your (our) reasoning.
Maybe Jarno is a utilitarian. Oops !
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou're wrong, and I'm correcting you. We don't owe the division between body and soul to Descartes. We owe it to organised religion. Descartes was a religious man who believed that animals (i.e., non-humans) were mere automatons, consisting of gears and levers, and do not contain souls. His dualism is actually an attempt to ratify the existence of immortal souls within humans, within the theological framework of Christianity.
BBarr: "What is so important about the brain?"
You tell me !
I know that it has become problematic were the human beings (person's) personality, ego, soul, or whatever you wanna call the "thing" that disappears whenever you die, is located in the body. Maybe it isn't "located" at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that we owe th ...[text shortened]... ationalist René Descartes ?
_________________________________________________________________
Being brain-dead means that the brain no longer has control over the body, that the person's capacity for thought, suffering, etc, has left the body. That is the modern conception, both within the medical profession, and within the general public at large (I suspect). This view is incompatible with dualism and is more properly known as materialism; its roots stretch to Aristotle. What is important about the brain in this conception is that the brain is the seat of consciousness, cognition, the capacity for suffering, and all of the things that make us what we are. Therefore without a brain (being brain-dead) we are no longer persons...
In above reasoning you switch from people ( human beings) to persons. I understand. You dont have to explain.
Yes you can. You changed that one important word. You changed people to persons. Word gymnastics or did you simply make a mistake ? In your eyes it is POSSIBLE to kill mentally ill people, human beings, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to kill mentally ill persons, according your definition of persons.
I use ‘persons’ and ‘people’ interchangeably. I take them as synonymous. When I am referring to some genetically human creature, I use the term ‘human organism’. Again, when I write ‘people’, you could just as easily substitute ‘persons’. This is just how I use those words. One more time: I take ‘people’ and ‘persons’ as co-referential. They necessarily have the same extension. When I’m talking about something that is human, but not a person, I have and will continue to use the term ‘human organism’. So go back and substitute persons for people in the above post, and you will have an equivalent formulation of the view. Of course it is possible to kill mentally ill persons, after all, they are not indestructible. It is possible to kill anybody, if you try hard enough. But it is morally wrong to kill mentally ill persons (Christ, I can’t believe I have to write this again; what is this, like the 10th time I’ve had to specify that according to my view killing a mentally ill person is morally wrong?) Just so there is no more confusion on your part: If a mentally ill human organism has the capacity to suffer, then we are obligated not to cause it suffering. If a mentally ill human organism has the capacity to suffer, and also has the capacity for rationality and self-awareness, regardless of how rudimentary those capacities may be, then that mentally ill human organism is also a person and has a right to life. If, however, a mentally ill human organism has none of those capacities, then it has no mental life and thus no harm is done in killing it, for it cannot suffer and has no interests regarding its survival.
Why do you think that my view entails that it is impossible to kill mentally ill persons? Even you could do it, if you had a rifle and the necessary will. Of course, it would be morally wrong to do so, but it is still certainly possible. Perhaps you actually don’t know what the terms ‘possible’ and ‘impossible’ mean. To say an act A is possible is merely to say there is no logical contradiction involved in the doing of A. Since it is not contradictory to kill a mentally ill person (though it is, I repeat, morally wrong), killing a mentally ill person is possible (but, again, morally wrong). To say an act A is impossible is merely to say there is a contradiction involved in doing A. So, for example, it is impossible to count to infinity going one at a time from zero. It is impossible to derive a logical falsehood from the null set of sentences using only valid applications of the rules of inference of a sound deductive system. Get the point?
Originally posted by kyngjKyngj: "We owe it to organised religion."
You're wrong, and I'm correcting you. We don't owe the division between body and soul to Descartes. We owe it to organised religion. Descartes was a religious man who believed that animals (i.e., non-humans) were mere automatons, consistin ...[text shortened]... without a brain (being brain-dead) we are no longer persons...
Thank God there is organised religion we can blame.
Did the Church accept the theories of the rationalist theologian Descartes and made them a part of Her teachings ? I don't think so. In our times there are also theologians claiming the most interesting things. I guess we can blame organised religion for that too. There is a thread going on about anti-Americanism. It deals about the (good) things The US has done. Maybe you should remember not only the bad things but also the good things the Church has done. Maybe just maybe it would bring about a more balanced attitude towards the Roman Catholic church.
Maybe we should also blame the Church for your very ideas kyngj.