04 Feb 04
2 edits
Ivanhoe, you do seem to have a knack for arriving at the least generous, most sinister and demonizing interpretations that you are able to draw from the posts of people who disagree with you on these matters. Perhaps it is this desire to see something really sinister in people that disagree with you that has led to the need for Bbarr to explain time after time, to the point of absurdity, that he really, REALLY isn't waiting eagerly to assasinate mentally ill people, with an evil smirk on his face, on the first opportunity. 😕
Jarno: " ..... and that dying person asked that his death be hastened."
Ivanhoe: "Have you ever asked yourself why you are using such euphemisms?Why don't you use the word that is applicable here?"
I have used the word "kill" in connection with euthanasia before, so that rules out any suggestion that I might be avoiding it's use - I might just as well said "..... and that dying person asked that he be killed to spare him needless suffering". Am I now not allowed to use the but a limited way of framing my views? Surely everybody is entitled to his own preference of presentation, and you can hardly claim that your own use of language in this issue is neutral. I could ask you similarly: Why, for example, do you use "Culture of Death" in connection with euthanasia, who's motivation is compassion; why do you emphasize the death part of it, instead of the compassion? Why isn't it a Culture of Compassion, when talking about euthanasia - or if you are against it, at least "Culture of Missplaced Compassion"? Clearly you consider the death part of it more important, and more dominating, which is why you emphasize it - I disagree - I think the compassion of it is central, and thus I emphasize that. Nothing wrong there.
Jarno: " causing suffering to themselves and their loved ones who had to watch this suffering, .... "
Ivanhoe: "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."
There you go with the loaded interpretations again - of course the wants and desires of people other than the dying must have NO bearing on the matter of whether to perform euthanasia or not; whether or not euthanasia is performed must be purely the decision of the dying person. But that does not change the fact that when someone is dying slowly, people around them suffer also - because loving someone means also empathasing with them. If that suffering is eased because of euthanasia, so much the better; and I would dare to say that that suffering would only be eased in euthanasia if the loved ones of the dying knew that this was in accordance to the will of the dying person.
So no, I'm not in any way suggesting or insinuating that people other than the one person directly involved be given any power of decision over the matter. In fact I am directly and forcefully against any such suggestion.
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?"
Ivanhoe: "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."
So let me re-frase that then - how does one get from promoting the rights of individuals into promoting the right of any ideological group to rule over the fates of individuals?
Also, you say that you don't suggest that the "Culture of Death" will necessarily be anything like Nazi Germany - may I ask what it is you suggest it will be like then? What could it be like, and how could it be reached from the views of proponents of euthanasia and abortion rights?
Again, the very point on which these proponents base their ideas is the right for an individual to control his fate - to not have any ruling organization, be it government or an ideological group, to rule over these matters against the wishes of the individuals involved.
Surely if you are proposing that there's a "slippery slope", you should give us some idea of what is at the end of that slope, in addition to establishing that there is such a slope; providing a way in which the views of the people you critisize could lead to the views and policies you propose are at the end of that slippery slope.
-Jarno
04 Feb 04
Ivanhoe: "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."
So are you saying then that it would be correct for me to use my God -> terrorism slippery slope argument? Is it a good argument against Christianity that it is conceivable that Christians might migrate towards a life-ending view from a life-affirming one? Should we ban Christianity then, on the basis of the possibility of this "slippery slope"? If not, then why is your "slippery slope" argument, which is identical in form to my hypothetical God -> terrorism argument, valid against euthanasia?
Surely whether a policy or ideology is good or not, whether it should be opposed or not depends on the merits and correctness of that policy or ideology as it is intended, not on vague hypothetical scenarios of how someone might distort it. Would you not agree?
-Jarno
04 Feb 04
I have been following this thread with some interest, but have not posted yet because I felt that my views were already being expressed with a finer degree of logic and literacy than I could have done.
Ivanhoe, your arguments do not follow on clearly from each other. I believe I have seen other threads in which you have conducted a fine debate, with elegantly constructed arguments that allow logic to progress. But not this one. You have ignored points that have been raised by others (particularly bbar) and constantly repeated mis-quotations from others posts, tried to pick apart wording in an incredible display of semantics. And when you have lost one case of argument, you then rubbish that case's context and move on to more and more ludicrous statements.
I feel this thread has been argued to a standstill, and it's inherent value as a discourse of views about a topical and controversial issue has been negated.
04 Feb 04
3 edits
Originally posted by PyrrhoYes, I agree.
[quote]
Ivanhoe: "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, enem ...[text shortened]... os of how someone might distort it. Would you not agree?
-Jarno
I'm not advocating forbidding the Islam. I haven't made a proposal to forbid anything.
Jarno: "If not, then why is your "slippery slope" argument, which is identical in form to my hypothetical God -> terrorism argument, valid against euthanasia?"
In the Netherlands about a thousand human beings(persons) are being killed by doctors yearly without having consented to their killing.These are the reported cases. According to Dutch law this is killing. These doctors are not being prosecuted.
Why is it each time political/judicial agreements are reached about abortion and euthanasia these agreements are put aside in practise and why is it that the advocates of abortion and euthanasia NEVER protest against these practises and developments that are against the law ? On the contrary they state that we should follow the cultural and social developments in society. Critical thinking ? I don't think so.
What I'm trying to do is compare practise with the theory you and Bbarr are presenting. There seems to be a huge gap between theory and practise. A development of changing ethics has been introduced in the Netherlands and I'm not sure where it will end. The euthanasia discussion is now being pushed away by discussions about increased violence (!) in society and the immigration issue, connected with the (political) Islam issue.
.
04 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by garyminfordGary,
I have been following this thread with some interest, but have not posted yet because I felt that my views were already being expressed with a finer degree of logic and literacy than I could have done.
Ivanhoe, your arguments do not fo ...[text shortened]... of views about a topical and controversial issue has been negated.
What I'm doing is explore things. I'm not writing down statements and reasoning that I have written down before.This is all new to me. I'm not a philosopher, I'm not an expert. I'm trying to understand and I'm trying to formulate a position. I do not expect to be nominated for a Nobelprize in any field ...... all I can do is do my utmost.
04 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, I'd like you to point out one statement in my previous post that is anti-church. I didn't even mention any bad thing that the church has done. Your sarcasm and defensiveness were misplaced. You asked to be corrected if you were wrong, and you were.
Kyngj: "We owe it to organised religion."
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 th ...[text shortened]... Catholic church.
Maybe we should also blame the Church for your very ideas kyngj.
Dualism was merely formalised by Descartes, the division between body and an eternal soul has been around since biblical times. This is a fact - simply stating that the distinction between the two is due to the church doesn't denigrate the church. It is not an imbalanced impression of the Roman Catholic church, it is not remembering only the bad things.
Simply because I state that a modern conception (with roots in pre-Christian times) is not compatible with the church's view, it does not follow that I'm attacking the church. It does not follow that I dislike the church. Even if I disagree with the church on this point, I'm not presenting an anti-church view.
Please think before you post next time, being reactionary doesn't help, and defending against perceived attacks that were not actually made doesn't help either.
04 Feb 04
Originally posted by kyngj
Ivanhoe, I'd like you to point out one statement in my previous post that is anti-church. I didn't even mention any bad thing that the church has done. Your sarcasm and defensiveness were misplaced. You asked to be corrected if you were wrong, and you were.
Dualism was merely formalised by Descartes, the division between body and an eternal soul has been ...[text shortened]... help, and defending against perceived attacks that were not actually made doesn't help either.
Kingj: "Dualism was merely formalised by Descartes, ......" Yes Kyngj, merely formalised. That means that Descartes is responsible for formalising this dualism. He is responsible for that, not organised religion. The Church never made this formalisation a part of Her teachings.
04 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoePlease, this is merely a matter of semantics!
Kingj: "Dualism was merely formalised by Descartes, ......" Yes Kyngj, merely formalised. That means that Descartes is responsible for formalising this dualism. He is responsible for that, not organised religion. The Church never made this formalisation a part of Her teachings.
formalising = putting it in some sort of scientific wording. Making the distinction was done by the church long before Descartes was ever born. Again, this is not a value-laden statement, it is simply a statement of fact...
Simply because the church did not make Cartesian dualism a part of her teachings does not imply that the church does not subscribe to a similar, if less formal view. You stated that the distinction between mind and body was due to Descartes, it was not. I wanted to point out that the religious framework had contained these ideas for centennia before the existence of dualism as a theory.
Why do you feel the need to defend this point so aggressively?
04 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by kyngjKyngj: "Please, this is merely a matter of semantics!"
Please, this is merely a matter of semantics!
formalising = putting it in some sort of scientific wording. Making the distinction was done by the church long before Descartes was ever born. Again, this is not a value-laden statement, it i ...[text shortened]...
Why do you feel the need to defend this point so aggressively?
So be it !
04 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Yes, I agree.
I'm not advocating forbidding the Islam. I haven't made a proposal to forbid anything.
Jarno: "If not, then why is your "slippery slope" argument, which is identical in form to my hypothetical God -> terrorism argument, valid against euthanasia?"
In the Netherlands about a thousand human beings(persons) are being killed by doctors ...[text shortened]... !) in society and the immigration issue, connected with the (political) Islam issue.
.
What I'm trying to do is compare practise with the theory you and Bbarr are presenting. There seems to be a huge gap between theory and practise.
If that is so, then it is this discrepancy between the practice and the theory that you perceive that you should illuminate and concentrate on, not trying to use the "slippery slope" argument as ammunition against the concept of euthanasia as it is intended.
Surely there's a discrepancy also in Christ's teachings and the behaviour of christians around the world; and surely it would be wrong to critisize the ideal on account of people failing to meet it.
If such discrepancies exist, then the proper thing to do is to ask "how do we get the practice closer to the ideal?" not reject the ideal itself. To argue against an ideal that you think is wrong for some reason, you have to challenge that ideal directly, not by pointing out that it may be distorted.
That doesn't mean that it's not an important practice to point out discrepancies between practice and ideal, but if the motivation of this pointing out is to attack the ideal indirectly, then it is likely to be counter-productive; the proponent's of the ideal aren't likely to hear your arguments when you try to point out discrepancies between the ideal and the practice, because they recognize it as an attack on the ideal itself; and ideal which they believe with every fiber of their body to be morally correct.
If there is something morally reprehensible, something against the ideal, occuring in what is supposed to be the practice of that ideal, then a you should point that discrepancy out, without trying to bundle suggestions and insinuation that this discrepancy is also an argument against the ideal - after all, it isn't a valid argument against the ideal, just as my hypothetical God belief -> terrorism "slippery slope" isn't a valid argument against theism.
Why is it each time political/judicial agreements are reached about abortion and euthanasia these agreements are put aside in practise and why is it that the advocates of abortion and euthanasia NEVER protest against these practises and developments that are against the law ?
Perhaps this is because the protestor's do as you do - bundle the protest against the practice with the protest against the ideal. Would you join in, if someone attacked ideals that you hold dear alongside with valid arguments against wrong practices, or would you be more concerned with defending the attack against your ideal?
In the Netherlands about a thousand human beings(persons) are being killed by doctors yearly without having consented to their killing.These are the reported cases. According to Dutch law this is killing. These doctors are not being prosecuted.
Could you elaborate on this a little - you make it sound like doctors are wantonly killing patients who want to live, and getting away with it. What sorts of circumstances are you talking about? If there is killing being done without the concent of the person being killed, then that is in my view morally reprehensible, and clearly wrong. But again, a wrong practice does not imply that the ideal is not good - if practice goes against the ideal, then the correct question to ask, the correct lesson to draw from that would be how to safeguard against abuses of the ideal. Rejecting the ideal on account of abuses of it makes as little sense as it would for a Christian to abandon his belief after seeing another Christian act in a manner that is against Christian ideals.
-Jarno
05 Feb 04
Originally posted by PyrrhoJarno: "If that is so, then it is this discrepancy between the practice and the theory that you perceive that you should illuminate and concentrate on, not trying to use the "slippery slope" argument as ammunition against the concept of euthanasia as it is intended."
What I'm trying to do is compare practise with the theory you and Bbarr are presenting. There seems to be a huge gap between theory and practise.
If that is so, then it is this discrepancy between the practice and the theory that you perceive that you should illuminate and concentrate on, not trying to use the "slippery slope" argument ...[text shortened]... after seeing another Christian act in a manner that is against Christian ideals.
-Jarno
The intentions ? Whose intentions. We will come to that later in the discussion.
Jarno: "the correct lesson to draw from that would be how to safeguard against abuses of the ideal."
The advocates of the Culture of Death are not very willing to investigate anything at all, but as you've explained that's the fault of their (political) opponents.
Jarno: "If there is killing being done without the concent of the person being killed, then that is in my view morally reprehensible, and clearly wrong. "
Reasoning within the terms of the Dutch euthanasia law that is correct.
I hope you don't mind that i will leave it at that. I only have 24 hours a day at my disposal. I want to concentrate on the things that I find the most striking and most important issues in this discussion. Most issues you raise are important and will come back in future discussions. So, don't despair !
05 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't mind at all - while these technically matters of life or death, we're not in a life-or-death hurry! 😉
I hope you don't mind that i will leave it at that. I only have 24 hours a day at my disposal. I want to concentrate on the things that I find the most striking and most important issues in this discussion. Most issues you raise are important and will come back in future discussions. So, don't despair !
I do tend to write rather lengthy posts, so I my forum-stamina is also taxed by long debates, interesting though they may be; a little break will be quite wellcome! 🙂
-Jarno