- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by PyrrhoI can't really see any plausible argument for *not* allowing people to die if they really want to. Is there one that is non-religious?
Yet 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 s ...[text shortened]... that would even aproach a plausible argument, and I honestly cannot come up with one.
-Jarno
Originally posted by iamatigerYes. The death of a person causes serious problems for people close to them, and no one should arbitrarily be able to inflict such problems on others.
I can't really see any plausible argument for *not* allowing people to die if they really want to. Is there one that is non-religious?
Pyrrho,
I will cut and paste one of my sentences of one of my previous posts:
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 imagine that you will not find this very convincing, but I hope that you do not expect me to explain Freethinker thoughts and ways of reasoning. I'm sure I will not do a good job in the eyes of Freethinkers who holds these views. Maybe bbarr knows something about this. After all these are the things he is studing at University. He can come forward and explain what his personal views are, maybe he draws a line somewhere the way you do in regard to the "Right to Die" discussion and maybe he knows something about the latest developements in the realm of Freethought in this respect and maybe he even knows something about the developements in Freethought in countries outside the US. Assuming that Freethinkers are not dogmatic and willing to change their ideas on the basis of new facts and insights, you should not be surprised that Freethinkers hold these views,which are apparently new for you. Moreover these ideas are not fundamentally contradicting any thoughts or even methods within Freethought as far as I know. They do not have any fixed ideas, they do not have any dogma's .
Originally posted by iamatigerCertainly! The freedom of choise over what one does, thinks or believes is a fundamental right, but it is not a limitless right - the limit comes when one's actions do harm or cause suffering to others. Suicide is an act that not only affects the one that kills himself but also people and the society around him. Suicide can be devastating to people close to the one commintting it, it can tear families apart, and cause permanent psychological scars.
I can't really see any plausible argument for *not* allowing people to die if they really want to. Is there one that is non-religious?
Also, I don't know how closely you've been following the two threads around the subject, but what is beeing discussed is not merely allowing suicide, but allowing assistance in suicide on request. Considering the potential harm in each suicide, legalizing assisting the deaths of healthy people would be quite unreasonable.
Should such a thing be allowed, what is to stop a manic-depressive to go to the doctor in his depressive stage and getting a shot of poison? What is there to prevent people in difficult life-situations to go and take the easy way out, regardless of the havoc their unexpected passing would cause around them? People depressed enough to consider suicide need treatment, not a poison shot - allowing easy assisted death for someone who's condition is treatable may make depression a lethal condition, instead of a treatable one. Someone considering suicide at some point in their lives, may regret it soon after - should the society then lure them in their weak moment with the prospect of a socially condoned easy death? A Society often cannot prevent suicides, but surely it shouldn't encourage them.
-Jarno
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe,
Pyrrho,
I will cut and paste one of my sentences of one of my previous posts:
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 imagine ...[text shortened]... reethought as far as I know. They do not have any fixed ideas, they do not have any dogma's .
I did read your previous posts, among them the statement you quoted, but did not consider them actual arguments - I thought they were just brief caricatures of the actual arguments used, so self-evidently flawed they were.
To take the example of the quote you provided. "Pro choise" isn't "pro choise to do whatever comes to your head" - this should be self evident. I cannot rightfully choose to rob a bank if I want to, nor can I choose to beat up the guy next to me in a taxi line, no matter how irritating he's being. Similarly, I cannot rightfully kill myself, because that would be an act of violence not only against myself, but also against my family and friends. The right to choose what we do ends where our potential choises do harm to others or the society around us.
If that is their actual argument, then I'm REALLY not worried - they are making fools of themselves. That "argument" is so poor that an actual refutation is almost redundant.
If there is an actual movement that is beeing taken seriously, and actually has even a tiny a chance of having an effect on legislation, then I'm quite sure their arguments must be better than this!
As to these ideas not beeing contradicting to freethought, that is true - no single idea can be fundamentally contradicting to freethought (aside from the idea of accepting some idea as being true just because some authority says so), because freethought trusts reason to weed out bad ideas. As such I am not afraid of the "slippery slope" in the least - if what you have presented are the arguments used by those proposing this "freedom of death", then I'm looking forward to laughing them out of the arena.
-Jarno
Mr.X: "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, Mr.X answered," that would be ridiculous in the context of my view."
I agreed with Mr X, that this is quite ridiculous ...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The method behind the reasoning of Mr.X is as follows:
Mr.X invites his opponent to locate an incident or happening, that took place within(!) the context of Mr.X's own views, that means the incident met the demands of the criteria, definitions and limitations he himself (Mr.X) formulated and introduced. Of course these incidents are "just" according to Mr.X. After that his opponent has to prove that the incident that he has found within these limitations does not meet the demands of Mr.X's criteria, definitions and limitations. The incident must be proven "unjust" by Mr.X's opponent.
In other words Mr.X invites his opponent to find an incident that meets the demands and limitations of Mr.X's position. Then he invites his opponent to prove that they do not meet the demands and limitations of Mr.X's position.
bbarr:
"Yes, 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... " bbarr
The opponent has to find a "just" example [within the context of Mr.X's views, otherwise it would be "ridiculous"] and then the burdon of proof is being laid on the shoulders of his opponent to prove that this is an "unjust" example, according to Mr.X's views and limitations.
A mission impossible ...
Originally posted by ivanhoeThere is a flaw in that logic - if I understood correctly, you are saying that Mr.X here puts his opposition in an artificially impossible situation in which they cannot conceivably win playing by Mr.X's rules because of how Mr.X presents his case.
"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" o ...[text shortened]... and is outside Mr.X's limitations.
A mission impossible ...
However, you present Mr.X's case wrong - there's nothing logically contradicting or problematic in there. Mr.X makes a claim that his position does not logically lead to unjust deaths. Then he points out that in order to argue against his case, you have to show that that claim is false by counter-example - by showing how his position logically leads to an unjust death.
You go wrong here:
"He (let's call him Mr.X) invites his opponent to locate an incident or happening, that took place within(!) the context of Mr.X's own views, that means the incident met the demands of the criteria, definitions and limitations he himself (Mr.X) formulated and introduced. Of course these incidents are "just" according to Mr.X...."
This is how it goes:
Mr X does invite his opponent to locate an incident othat took place as a logical consequence of Mr.X's own views. Mr.X's position (=claim) then is that whatever incident you find that logically follows from his possition will meat Mr.X's criteria of justness.
How do you argue against such an argument? You provide a case that results from the aplication of his views, that leads to an unjust situation. Of course you can't be guaranteed that Mr.X's concept of justice is identical to yours, but when you present such a case that you think leads to an injust situation, you are passing the puck to Mr.X - now Mr.X has to either concede the argument, or explain to you why the situation you came up with either does not logically result from his position, or is not unjust.
Nothing problematic or underhanded about Mr.X's position.
You reached the apparent dillemma by assuming that Mr.X's views be taken as an unquestionable statement of truth, instead of a claim potentially subject to refutation.
***EDIT***
To drive home my point I'll reply to something you added in an edit:
"The opponent has to find a "just" example [within the context of Mr.X's views, otherwise it would be "ridiculous"] and then the burdon of proof is being laid on the shoulders of his opponent to prove that this is an "unjust" example, according to Mr.X's views and limitations. "
This is a false conclusion - the opponent does not have to find an example that is just in Mr.X's views, but rather an example that would be injust in the opponent's view - the opponent cannot presume to know what Mr.X views as just. The opponent then presents the case that he considers injust, and passes to puck to Mr.X, as explained above.
-Jarno
Pyrrho,
I was not claiming that the logic of Mr.X's reasoning in his thinking about the Euthanasia subject was wrong. On the contrary. I understand his reasoning. I understand that if you assume that the human subject is autonomous [a Freethinker "dogma", (pardon my" French"😉 ] you reach the position bbarr is defending. The position that teaches us: The human subject has a right to choose his destiny and thus has a right to choose whether to live or to die. That's his fundament of the cases being "just". Moreover these cases have to meet certain demands, criteria. Criteria which are not dogma's, they can change.[They can change more rapidly than you would want them to change, Pyrrho.] When the cases do nót meet these demands they are called "unjust". I agree on that., meaning I understand the reasoning, the used logic.
I also believe that the human being has a right to choose his destination. The problems begin at the point where somebody claims, that a human being has the right to choose death if he chooses to do so. I understand the reasoning behind this but I do not agree.
Back to Mr.X and his reasoning in this particular incident:
He is inviting his opponent to accept (!) his reasoning and his limitations being the cristallization of his views and then within the context of his (!) ideas and limitations to show him were he has gone wrong in logic. He has not gone wrong in logic as such. I do not accept his views. Witin these limitations it will be impossible to find "unjust" cases because they are "just".
Let me refrase the problem.
If I would ask MrX to see things my way, meaning the acceptance of God and the acceptance of God as my master in moral questions, thus that I'm free to choose my destination within certain limitations, being the ten Commandments God gave us. Mr.X also can agree on the fact that I'm using logic as a tool in the correct way. So, God forbids me to take my life and God forbids me to take someone elses life. He says these lives are Mine not yours to take. When I dó take a life I'm in fact taking something that does not belong to me. In fact I'm stealing ... this will have consequenses !!
... is my reasoning logical ? Yes, you can accept my logic, my reasoning, but you certainly will not be prepared to accept God as your master in these things.
However, if I understand correctly, you do accept human love as your master. You are against the "right" to commit suicide because this causes great pain and sorrow for those who are left behind. Is your logic correct. Absolutely ! But there are people who do not agree with you that human love should be the decisive factor. The decisive factor should be the Autonomous Human Subject, who has a right, not only to put aside God's Will , but also to put aside the demands of human love if he or she so pleases. That's why it is called a right of the human subject. Pro Choice. "We" have to accept that. "We" have no choice. "I" have the choice. Same thing goes for abortion "rights'. The woman chooses, nobody else. Pro choice. She is autonomous in her decisions. She is the boss in this matter. She can rule over life and death. She has the right to take the life of her child. Thats her right according to the "Pro choice" movement and I'm sure that not all Freethinkers will agree on that, but the majority of Freethinkers are advocates of the "Pro Choice" movement, even some who think it is morally wrong to perform abortion. These folks think it's all about just a procedure !
Pyrrho: "How do you argue against such an argument? You provide a case that results from the aplication of his views, that leads to an unjust situation. Of course you can't be guaranteed that Mr.X's concept of justice is identical to yours, but when you present such a case that you think leads to an injust situation, you are passing the puck to Mr.X - now Mr.X has to either concede the argument, or explain to you why the situation you came up with either does not logically result from his position, or is not unjust.
Nothing problematic or underhanded about Mr.X's position."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"How do you argue with such an argument ?"
Pyrrho
I don't. His logic is all right.
I'm trying to explain that something else is the matter, but apparently I'm not doing a good job.Let me try again ...
In fact Mr.X is asking:
Is there something wrong with my method.
Opponent:
No, there is nothing wrong with your method. Logically perfect. Nothing wrong. I cannot find any unjust cases in the "bag" of just cases you gave me.
Now what would Mr. X say ?
I know for sure that bbarr as an answer.
The answer that I expect would be:
Mr.X: All right, when there is nothing wrong with my method, the way I use logic ,then you have to agree with me on the "fact" that Euthanasia is acceptable under these conditions and limitations.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't study Freethought in university, I study philosophy. Specifically, I study ethics, epistemology, and philosophy of mind. And I have drawn a line in the "Right to Die" discussion. This line is constituted by the constraints I mentioned way back on the first page of this thread. These constraints you have conveniently ignored during your cariactures of my position. I do not think that all humans have a right to die. You would be aware of this if you paid attention.
Maybe bbarr knows something about this. After all these are the things he is studing at University. He can come forward and explain what his personal views are, maybe he draws a line somewhere the way you do in regard to the "Right to Die" discussion and maybe he knows something about the latest developements in the realm of Freethought in this respect and ...[text shortened]... ybe he even knows something about the developements in Freethought in countries outside the US.
Originally posted by PyrrhoNOTE: None of the counter-examples to the unconditional right to die you present here would be allowed on my view. In each of these cases the person would fail to meet a criterion necessary for actual consent.
Should such a thing be allowed, what is to stop a manic-depressive to go to the doctor in his depressive stage and getting a shot of poison? What is there to prevent people in difficult life-situations to go and take the easy way out, regardless of the havoc their unexpected passing would cause around them? People depressed enough to consider suicide need tre ...[text shortened]... th? A Society often cannot prevent suicides, but surely it shouldn't encourage them.
-Jarno
Originally posted by bbarrYou're saying:
I don't study Freethought in university, I study philosophy. Specifically, I study ethics, epistemology, and philosophy of mind. And I have drawn a line in the "Right to Die" discussion. This line is constituted by the constraints I men ...[text shortened]... a right to die. You would be aware of this if you paid attention.
I do not think all humans have a right to die ?
Why not ? The human subject is autonomous and perfectly able to make his own decisions.
Iamatiger asked a question about this.
Are you going to give him an answer ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is not the answer I would give. If you agree that the method does not give rise to counter-examples, yet still find fault with the position, then we must have a more fundamental disagreement concerning the origin of the value of life. I do not think that life is intrinsically valuable. For instance, a living person completely without mentality might as well be a table or chair, as far as I'm concerned. I do think that being a creature with the capacity to suffer makes one a locus of value. That is, if a creature has the capacity to suffer, then I think everyone else is thereby morally obligated to take that creature's interests into account in their deliberations (if it's plausible that their actions may impact that creature. Specifically, if it's plausible that their actions will cause that creature to suffer). But having the capacity to suffer is not the same as being a person. I think it is constitutive of being a person that (minimally) one has the capacity to reflect upon their mental states.
Now what would Mr. X say ?
I know for sure that bbarr as an answer.
The answer that I expect would be:
Mr.X: All right, when there is nothing wrong with my method, the way I use logic ,then you have to agree with me on the "fact" ...[text shortened]... Euthanasia is acceptable under these conditions and limitations.
I also think only persons have rights (though I'm still thinking about this, and the issue is hard). Note that this doesn't commit me to the claim that only humans are persons. I want to find a justifiable way to claim that all mammals are persons and thus can be the bearers of rights. What's hard about this is that it seems that in order to be a person it has to make sense to claim that one can have moral obligations (because rights and obligations come in pairs). I just don't see how to justifiably claim that all mammals can have moral obligations. Perhaps the rights could inhere in the mammal, but the corresponding obligations would only inhere in humans. But this seems arbitrary and ad hoc. But this is a digression...
Additionally, I think it is this capacity to reflect on one's own state, to have interests and goals and projects and commitments that makes a life a locus of value. I think that it is essential to the value of a life that it is valued by the person whose life it is. In a very real way, I think that value arises from the act of valuing. Perhaps you feel similarly, but think that our lives are all valuable, regardless of what we think, because they are valued by God. If that is the case, then all discussion halts, because I think that when people talk about God they cease to say anything at all (this is more like group grunting in my opinion). Note that this doesn't mean I'm an atheist, not even an agnostic, as Kirk well knows. What it does mean is that I think the divine is ineffable, and not a something that can take the form of an object of knowledge. And that is all I will say about that particular subject.
Originally posted by ivanhoeSimply because in order to have a right to die one must have the capacity to consent to death. Not all human subjects have the capacity to consent to death. Therefore, not all human subjects have the right to die. Specifically, those who have insufficient evidence concerning their future prospects (e.g., there just isn't the evidence, or they are deceived) cannot consent. Neither can those who cannot reason effectively due to handicap or mental illness. Nor can children, or the drugged, the drunk, etc. To the extent that you are rational and well informed you can consent to death. I urge caution and paternalism when dealing with the others.
You're saying:
I do not think all humans have a right to die ?
Why not ? The human subject is autonomous and perfectly able to make his own decisions.
Iamatiger asked a question about this.
Are you going to give him an answer ?
Originally posted by bbarrSorry, but I've been following this discussion with a bit of interest. I don't wish to dive into it, but Bennett, would you like to send me a PM describing a bit more of your feelings about God? It sounds like a hint of an interesting viewpoint.
This is not the answer I would give. If you agree that the method does not give rise to counter-examples, yet still find fault with the position, then we must have a more fundamental disagreement concerning the origin of the value of life. I do not think that life is intrinsically valuable. For instance, a living person completely without mentality might as ...[text shortened]... e the form of an object of knowledge. And that is all I will say about that particular subject.