I thought the Slippery Slope discussion is about the fact that more and more groups of people will become "candidates" for the "right" to die.
We started with the group of people who (1) are terminally ill, that means that they are in the process of dying, who (2) are suffering unbearably and who (3) had voluntarily asked for euthanasia and (4) wrote that down in a document.
The "slippery slope" is a political process and it is what the Freethinkers need in order to come to what is their end goal in this euthanasia discussion and that is the "Right to die for All". That means that they ultimately have to eliminate every criterium in deciding whether somebody has a "right" to die, because of the simple fact that they believe that everybody has that right. Remember: the human subject is autonomous and there is no higher moral authority that stands above him or her, according to the freethinkers. They are doing this, changing and ultimately eliminating the criteria, in a very intelligent, eloquent and seamingly rational, logical, philosophical and scientific way. They first introduce a number of criteria as described in this post. Then the political and judicial battle begins to get these criteria excepted by the majority of the people. After that they start "working" on these criteria to "prove" that they are not adequate and optimal and desirable in a number of ways. The most popular tools they are using in this political discussion of changing the criteria are: (1)You have to be compassionate.(2) You have to give people equal treatment. That means you cannot deny somebody "rights" that you allready gave to another group of people.(3) You have to reason very carefully (a key word in the Dutch discussion) and thus morally correct (in the end, of course, they hold the monopoly of what is morally correct, not their opponents). (4) They will be stating that the situation has changed and that there are new insights in the field of science which, of course, support their way of seeing things, their way of reasoning and that's why there should be a change in our thinking about the issues that play a part in establishing new criteria. (5) Portraying your opponents in a negative way: as being uncompassionate, unscientific, unphilosophical, they just don't understand what the freethinkers are talking about , they are not willing to accept the "modernisation" of society. They do not accept the advances of science. They are stopping the process of progress. To be short: they are "medieval" thinkers.(6) The lender of last resort: The ultimate way to fight their opponents is to simply label the opponents as fools, clowns, or even better religious fundamentalists and you can dismiss their analysis as being "rubbish" and "nonsense".
That's why I say "The euthanasia discussion is a political fight disguised as a philosophical and scientifical debate ".
The "Slippery Slope" process is what Freethinkers need to reach their political goal "The Right to die for All". Of course they cannot reveal that political agenda, because it will frighten people of. They know that and everybody who reveals this "policy of the slippery slope" is being accused of frightening the people. They do not want to upset people. Of course not. It intervenes with their ultimate goal.
That's why I say, "They have a political agenda and that political agenda is a secret one". They will deny that agenda. I've given the reasons for doing that and you can read about that in the "Ann Nicol Gaylor, Freethinker" thread. It is the "BBC incident".
About the BBC incident:
A very difficult thing for the Freethinker movement is that the political processes in the countries where they want to realise their political goals are almost impossible to synchronise. People can study the Dutch situation to see how they operate and to see what their doing. That's very unwanted and it interferes with their activities in a more than unpleasant way. It reveals too much ... It sure does ...
You can see the Slippery Slope process doing it's work following this political process taking place in for instance the United States. The Terry Schiavo case is a miniscule particle in this whole development and it is very interesting and illuminating to see things develop in the same way and direction as they did in the Netherlands ...
The United States are different from the Netherlands. In the first place it is much larger, more complicated as well. Maybe the Freethinkers will be stopped before they reach their goal in this euthanasia discussion .... but that remains to be seen ...
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, claiming that some argument leads to a "Slippery Slope" is itself a counter-argument. As it happens, it is a very poor counter-argument. Not only is it invalid (in the strict, deductive sense), but there are innumerable counter-examples to the "Slippery Slope" form of counter-argumentation. As I posted last time, "Slippery Slope" arguments can be used to show both that no man is bald and that all men are (again, you should really look this up). "Slippery Slope" arguments really are a form of fear-mongering. They assume that if a claim is accepted, logic itself will force us to accept a series of other claims, each worse than the last, until we are forced to some wholly unacceptable conclusion. But, of course, this is just silly. Just becasue I claim that a person with one hair on their head is bald (and also that a person with 2 hairs, 3 hairs and so on are also bald) does not mean that I am forced to accept that a person with tens of thousands of hairs is also bald. I can stop at any point on the "Slope".
I thought the Slippery Slope discussion is about the fact that more and more groups of people will become "candidates" for the "right" to die.
We started with the group of people who (1) are terminally ill, that means that they a ...[text shortened]... this euthanasia discussion .... but that remains to be seen ...
If you want to know more about how horrible these types of arguments are, then look up the "Sorites Fallacy", or the "Sorites Paradox"; the name the Greeks gave to this form of argument when they figured out it was bunk.
Ivanhoe, again you refer to freethinkers as if they were some sort of a global coherent group with political ambitions and a united will to further sinister and offensive policies. I've already explained more than once why this kind of a lumping together is simply wrong.
I know many freethinkers, but not one that I would ever see promoting an idea like "the right to die for all". This site has a lot of freethinkers playing, and I don't see anyone standing forth to defend the idea.
Some Christian groups try to interfere with the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, while the great majority of Christians accept that evolution does occur, and view the process as simply a tool of creation.
Now should I talk about "the Christians" trying to shakle progress, and using the case of the theory of evolution as a sprigboard to further their eventual goals of forming theocratic states, and eventually shackling entire societies into the only worldview they accept, you would most probably be offended by such talk. And rightly so! The actions and opinions of individual groups within a single worldview do NOT imply that all, or even a large fraction, of people holding that worldview would share those opinions. It would be unjust and wrong of me to judge all Christians on the basis of the actions of a relatively small group within Christians.
Just as it is wrong and unjust for you to take what you call the Duch freethinker movement, and generalize to condemn the entire worldview - it is predudicial, and borders on beeing outright offensive.
If you want to argue that a worldview that does not contain supernatural sources of morality must inevitably lead into "the right to die for all", then please do argue that case, but do not presume to know the minds of all freethinkers, or even a majority of them, on the basis of your experience of a vocal minority.
-Jarno
"Besides, Slippery Slope arguments are invalid. They can be used to show that no man is bald or that all men are (seriously, look it up). There is no reason to take your Slippery Slope worries seriously, and carping about the Slippery Slope is merely fear-mongering on your part. Unless you can show that my position entails that people will unjustly be put to death, you haven't given a reason to think that my position is in error. All your hand-waving about the Slippery Slope to the contrary notwithstanding. " bbarr
Just to make clear the way you reason:
"Unless you can show that my position entails that people will unjustly be put to death, you haven't given a reason to think that my position is in error."
This is a beautiful example . There are more...
Is the next sentence the same or is there a fundamental difference in it ?
"Unless you can show that my position entails that people will be put to death, you haven't given a reason to think that my position is in error."
Is there a fundamental difference between the two questions ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeUh, yes, the first sentence has the word "unjustly" in it.
"Besides, Slippery Slope arguments are invalid. They can be used to show that no man is bald or that all men are (seriously, look it up). There is no reason to take your Slippery Slope worries seriously, and carping about the Slippery Slop ...[text shortened]... y position is in error."
Is there a fundamental difference ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, I object to your reformulation. It is no objection to my view that it allows people to be put to death. Indeed, that is the whole point of the view, to allow people who want to die the option to die. Of course, this option will only be available subject to the constraints I mentioned earlier. It would be an objection to my view if it allows someone to be put to death unjustly. Don't you see the difference between the sentence with the moral qualifier 'unjustly' and the one without it? Strange you would think it O.K. to leave out such a crucial part of the claim...
You are correct. Now the next question : Do you make any objections to replace the original question in your post for the one I formulated ?
Just to keep pace with your edits... No, I do not think that it is O.K. to replace my claim with your completely different claim. Your claim is ridiculous in the context of my view.
Pyrrho,
I'm adressing those Freethinkers who, as a result of their accepting Freethinker philosophy or ideology come to the conclusion that every human being has a Right to Die. Of course I know there are Freethinkers who do not hold that view. You are one of them. You are the example of a humanist person to show the Freethinkers I'm referring to that it is not necessary at all to be a religious person to reach a position that opposes strongly the "Right to die for all" idea. I hope that you will be able to hold and defend that position in Finland and here on RHP in the near future and that you will not accept that "Right to Die for All", not now and not in the future ...
IvanH
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is the bit that I have a problem with accepting - you say that these views they hold are a "result of their accepting freethinker philosophy", but you have yet to qualify this statement.
...as a result of their accepting Freethinker philosophy or ideology come to the conclusion that every human being has a Right to Die...
What in particular about freethinker ideology "leads to the conclusion that every human being has a right to die"? I'm interested in the actual chain of logic that would reasonably lead from freethinker ideals to the conclusion that it would be morally right to assist the suicide of anyone who wants to kill themselves. Personally, I cannot think of a logical chain with that conclusion that couldn't be refuted quite effortlessly, and which thus could concievably be held as an opinion by anything but some fringe minority. (After all, there is no idea so absurd that it wouldn't find it's champions in this world.)
-Jarno
"Your claim is ridiculous in the context of my view." bbarr
Exactly, bbarr.
It was merely a question to ask you to leave out the word unjustly, but a question that may be able to show us something important. Do you want me to show that ? Allow me to continu ...
It's about a discussion I once had with an advocate of the death penalty. I myself am opposed to the idea of death penalty.
He said to me, being convinced that he was right; "Unless you can show that my position entails that people be unjustly be put to death, you haven't given a reason to think that my position is in error".
After that I asked him if it would be ok to take out the word "unjustly" out of the sentence and if he would be willing to accept the adjusted sentence as a sentence of his own.
"Of course not, he answered," that would be ridiculous in the context of my view."
I agreed with him.
What is your opinion about the way this advocate of death penalty is reasoning ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think he is correct to not want you to put words in his mouth. If I were him, I would wait for you to provide something in the vicinity of an argument or an objection to my actual view, not a view of your own devising. Do you have any of those?
"Your claim is ridiculous in the context of my view." bbarr
Exactly, bbarr.
It was merely a question to ask you to leave out the word unjustly, but a question that may be able to show us something important. Do you want me to show that ? Allow me to continu ...
It's about a discussion I once had with an advocate of the death penalty. I myself a ...[text shortened]... with him.
What is your opinion about the way this advocate of death penalty is reasoning ?
Originally posted by Pyrrho
This is the bit that I have a problem with accepting - you say that these views they hold are a "result of their accepting freethinker philosophy", but you have yet to qualify this statement.
What in particular about freethinker ideology "leads to the conclusion that every human being has a right to die"? I'm interested in the actual chain of logic t ...[text shortened]... all, there is no idea so absurd that it wouldn't find it's champions in this world.)
-Jarno
I'm afraid you will not find one Freethinker in the US, UK or on this site for that matter to tell us that he holds such views. That would not be very wise to do so regarding the fact that the US and UK public is not ready for these ideas. I assume that is the case for Finland as well.
Maybe the Belgian public is more "advanced" in this respect, because they legalised both abortion and euthanasia . Under certain conditions
(criteria) , of course, but I'm convinced this is not the end of the road for Belgian Freethought.
Maybe one little "hint" could be that bbarr has not objected to this "assumption" of mine.Therefore I will repeat it here: Freethinkers (well, not all of them) believe that every human subject has the right to choose his or her own destiny and therefore has a right to choose death if he or she wishes to do so. That is what the "Right to Die for All" is all about ... Pro Choice !
I'm sure that he would have jumped all over me if this wouln't be the case ... I cannot imagine that he overlooked such fundamental and important philosophical idea ... we are discussing this for quite a while now ...
I'm not claiming that accepting Freethought necessarily leeds to the acceptance of the idea of "The Right to die for All". Absolutely not ..., but there are Freethinkers, you might call them the avant garde of Freethought, who, using the accepted method in Freethought of reason and logic, are advocating and spreading this idea.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYet your writings on the matter give the very strong impression that this is exactly what you are saying - that freethought leads to the acceptance, or at least very serious consideration of the idea of "the right to die for all". Even in this disclaimer, you called the advocates of this idea "the avant garde of Freethought". The avant garde? This would seem to imply that you think that these people are somehow "ahead of the field" of other freethinkers, which, in turn, implies that the logical destination towards which freethinkers everywhere are moving is "the right to die for all".
I'm not claiming that accepting Freethought necessarily leeds to the acceptance of the idea of "The Right to die for All". Absolutely not ..., but there are Freethinkers, you might call them the avant garde of Freethought, who, using the accepted method in Freethought of reason and logic, are advocating and spreading this idea.
This impression is also strengthened by your warnings of what you expect "freethinkers" in other couries to do - you fully expect them to adopt the same stance in the matter as a group of freethinkers in Holland hold. If there is nothing in freethought which with logical inevitability or even probability leads to advocating "the right to die for all", then on what basis should we expect the phenomena in Holland to be nothing but an isolated incident, which may or may not be repeated in other countries? And which may, indeed if it does appear elsewhere, come from some other soure than freethinkers?
If however this expectation is to be justified, then there must be something in freethinker ideology that leads in some way to the "right to die for all". I am still very interested in hearing a plausible reasoning that would start from freethinker ideals and lead to an argument supporting the right to die for all.
Indeed, I would be very interested in hearing precisely what arguments the people in Holland advocating this use.
So far I've yet to encounter anything that would even aproach a plausible argument, and I honestly cannot come up with one.
-Jarno
