- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
31 Oct 03
Originally posted by PyrrhoAre you saying that someone with no close friends or relatives should be allowed to commit suicide?
Certainly! 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 ...[text shortened]... th? A Society often cannot prevent suicides, but surely it shouldn't encourage them.
-Jarno
31 Oct 03
Originally posted by iamatigerGood question!
Are you saying that someone with no close friends or relatives should be allowed to commit suicide?
I would tend to answer no, but my reasoning in this case would not be quite as compelling - I think that it comes down to the question "If I were to end up in that situation, without friends or family, and so disillusioned with life that I'd want to kill myself, would I want someone to intervene and try to stop me?". I personally would answer yes, and for that reason say that even someone with no close friends or relatives should be dissuaded from such drastic action. I could understand however if some people disagree, and say that society or the people around them should not interfere in any decision whatsoever that affects only themselves.
I also think that anyone considering suicide is very unlikely indeed to be in a mental state in which he could make rational decisions, and doubt that if I were driven to that situation I would either. For this reason (as well as many practical difficulties), considering the main subject of the thread here, I would oppose the idea of legalizing the offering of assistance in suicide to even isolated loners.
-Jarno
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
31 Oct 03
1 edit
Originally posted by PyrrhoI think to refuse someone with no close friends or relatives the option to commit suicide, one would have to be sure that they would have more happiness in the rest of their life than sadness. Are you saying that you (a stranger to the person involved in the scenario presented here) can have better knowledge of how much happiness might occur in the rest of a persons life than the person in question has?
Good question!
I would tend to answer no, but my reasoning in this case would not be quite as compelling - I think that it comes down to the question "If I were to end up in that situation, without friends or family, and so disillusione ...[text shortened]... ering of assistance in suicide to even isolated loners.
-Jarno
Even if you insist that you would be the best evaluator of someone's net happiness, how about if you could plainly see that the rest of their life would be full of pain and misery?
31 Oct 03
Originally posted by iamatigerBut this assumes that the only relevant moral consideration is the balance of pain vs. pleasure in the suicidal subject's life. It almost seems that you are assuming that the value of a life is a function of the happiness in it? Is that correct?
I think to refuse someone with no close friends or relatives the option to commit suicide, one would have to be sure that they would have more happiness in the rest of their life than sadness. Are you saying that you (a stranger to the person involved in the scenario presented here) can have better knowledge of how much happiness might occur in the rest of ...[text shortened]... how about if you could plainly see that the rest of their life would be full of pain and misery?
But it is clearly not the case that the future pain or pleasure in a subject's life is the only relevant moral consideration in determining whether intervention in a suicide is obligatory. For instance, if the suicidal person is clinically depressed, or schizoid, or drunk, then the person doesn't have the rational faculties necessary to evaluate either his situation or the ramifications of hisdecision. They cannot consent to the decision they are making because they are misinformed and/or irrational. Such subjects need to be handled paternalistically, at least until they come back under their own control; that is, until they are again rational. Failing to intervene is such cases would be similar to allowing a person to be hit by a car, or fall off a cliff.
31 Oct 03
2 edits
Originally posted by iamatigerI certainly wouldn't presume to know whether a stranger's life is going to improve in the future, but my opposition to condoning suicide could be said to be purely selfish - for myself, I would want the "safety net" of someone intefering if I were to end up pointing a gun to my head - even if I had become a complete hermit. For my own part, I believe that I could never make such a decision were I not highly depressed, and thus in need of treatment. And I do believe that, at least I if not the rest of humanity, in a healthy mentality, would always find a way to gain some pleasure out of life. If society were to condone suicide, or even agree to grant assistance in suicide, then the safetynet would not be there, in case I needed it. So there is a purely self-serving aspect to this issue as well.
I think to refuse someone with no close friends or relatives the option to commit suicide, one would have to be sure that they would have more happiness in the rest of their life than sadness. Are you saying that you (a stranger to the pe ...[text shortened]... see that the rest of their life would be full of pain and misery?
Probing the issue further, there's no denying (at least for myself) the intrisic negative bias that I have (and I suspect many, if not most people have) against the thought of someone taking his own life with the concent of society - somehow the thought seems distasteful. If one could think of a reason for such an aversion, perhaps it is our evolutionary history speaking; living in a society where suicide is condoned or even assisted is a greatly more dangerous environment for your genes than a society where such an act is considered wrong. Even hermits carry genes, and have parents, in who's "gene's eye-view" interest it would be to live among people that didn't condone suicide.
Be as it may, if I were inately predisposed to abhor suicide, the same way I'm inately predisposed to be discusted by rotting meat, then there is just another "selfish" reason to oppose the condoning of suicide - simply because I don't like the idea! 🙂
Now are there cases where I would condone suicide of healthy people? I'm sure one could find hypothetical cases in which I might even see the act as noble - for example, a hypothetical Mr.X who sees no real reason or purpose in his life, and gets no joy out of it, happens to somehow gain the knowledge that he's got a heart that would be a perfect match for someone with a great will to live, in desperate need of a heart transplant. If Mr.X then decided to take his own life ensuring that the hear patient would get his heart, then any intrisic distaste wouldn't weigh much - I would consider this a noble act.
My reasons for opposing the idea of assisted suicide, not beeing religious or dogmatic are never absolute, or without conceivable exceptions.
-Jarno
31 Oct 03
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrFor the record: When I'm using the term "Slippery Slope" in my posts I'm referring to an existing political proces, not a method or argument or something that is a part of logic or logical reasoning.
No, 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-exampl ...[text shortened]... s gave to this form of argument when they figured out it was bunk.
I understand that the term "Slippery slope Argument" is being used by others who deny that such a political proces can take place. Now my question: How is it possible that in a country a political developement can take place that starts with the discussion whether it is ok to "pull the plug" , meaning to stop the life-prolonging treatment and as a result of that the patient will die, if a patient is
1) Terminally ill.
2) In the proces of dying
3) Suffering unbearably
4) Has made a written statement in which he declares that he wants to die
5) Is undergoing treatment that is life prolonging and neither this or another treatment offers any prospects of recovery or improving the patients situation (also see criteria 1 and 2). [This used to be called performing Passive Euthanasia]
...... meanwhile the discussion developed and developed and developed ... crireria and definitions changed ... the station of Passive Euthanasia was passed ... criteria changed or disappeared ... the station of Active Euthanasia was passed ... criteria changed or disappeared ... the right to take your own life was discussed ... the question of assisted suicide was dicussed .... criteria changed ... the possibilities of performing euthanasia on severely handicapped new borns was discussed ... criteria changed ..... the station of the "Right to Die for All" was in sight .....
....... and after a number of years, this whole process took about thirty years, it reached the following point: That there should be a possibility for everybody to take his or her own life. No criteria necessary about being ill or dying, unbearable suffering or whatever. No criteria at all. Meaning everybody has a "Right to Die".
In this country this "Right to Die for All" discussion is called "Drion's pill" [In Dutch: "De Pil van Drion"], named after the doctor who proposed and introduced this "medicine".
A D'66 (Dutch liberal political party) politician, who was a member of the last "purple" government (the colour purple refers to a certain combination of political parties forming a coalition government) has stated in public that she was in favour of "Drion's Pill". She was the Minister of Public Health, Mrs. Els Borst. She was the first (ex) Minister of Public Health that stated openly to support such "Right to Die". Immediately the discussion restarted about the advantages or disadvantages of this "right", How about children? Should they also be able to get that right? Would they need permission of their parents, yes or no. What about if their parents hold different views on this subject, etc,etc ......
This discussion has not yet resulted in an adjustment of the Euthanasia law ..... not yet.
To continue and to finish my question: How is it possible that in a country this political developement can take place that starts with the discussion whether it is ok to "pull the plug", Passive Euthanasia, and ends up in a situation of wanting to implement the "Right to Die for All" without there existing such a proces called "The Slippery Slope" ?
This proces is impossible in the eyes of those who do not believe in a Slippery Slope ..... but it has taken place in my country, the Netherlands.
06 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe slippery slope argument suggests that accepting something that is in itself reasonable and good will inevitably lead into something objectionable. Looking at your description of the process in the Netherlands there, first, it seems to start from a position that is non-controversial; very few would object to passive euthanasia. It seems to me that the real starting point therefore shoud be the question of active euthanasia.
...... meanwhile the discussion developed and developed and developed ... crireria and definitions changed ... the station of Passive Euthanasia was passed ... criteria changed or disappeared ... the station of Active Euthanasia was passed ... criteria changed or disappeared ... the right to take your own life was discussed ... the question of assisted sui ...[text shortened]... . criteria changed ..... the station of the "Right to Die for All" was in sight .....
Secondly, after the "active euthanasia" point, no actual changes in legislation towards the bitter end of the "slippery slope" are mentioned; at each point after that you take a progressively more objectionable view and say that it was discussed. Discussed! Anything can be discussed, and even objectionable things are sure to have their proponents.
So the slippery slope here really, so far, has only one actual step in it, the legalization of active euthanasia. The "slope" is formed entirely of ideas of what might happen, and nothing as of yet in your arguments suggests that this slope is very slippery at all, that is, that the things beeing discussed have any realistic chances of actually getting from minority views to majority views, and of actually getting implemented.
If discussion of objectionable things is the prise for easing unnecessary suffering, then I see no problem with it. As I explained in the other thread, one serious problem with any slippery slope argument is that it is used to try to stop change before we've adopted the optimal policy - but as such, where do we draw the line? How much good do we have to sacrifice just to avoid opening up discussion of harmful things?
Why don't we just stop at the point where going further would bring no further improvement? The slippery slope argument is wrong simply because it tries to convince us that going to that point would leave us no choise in the matter - the "slipperiness" of the slope would somehow automatically lead us into adoption of policies we don't want to adopt. The argument plays of public fears on fallacious basis.
Also, the user of the slippery slope argument can place the point beoynd which we should not go at any arbitrary point along the spectrum, so it can be used as a scare tactic to further just about any resistance to any idea.
-Jarno
07 Nov 03
Originally posted by PyrrhoPyrrho,
The slippery slope argument suggests that accepting something that is in itself reasonable and good will inevitably lead into something objectionable. Looking at your description of the process in the Netherlands there, first, it seems to start from a position that is non-controversial; very few would object to passive euthanasia. It seems to me that the real ...[text shortened]... so it can be used as a scare tactic to further just about any resistance to any idea.
-Jarno
In the political proces you have to distingish between the discussion, the reasoning, the logical reasoning, the manipulation and even flat lies of the advocates of euthanasia ( for instance the BBC incident) on one side and the proces of developments in reality on the other side. Often the proces in reality is ahead of the "intellectual" debate. This is also used as an argument to accept these developments because we have to be modern or that we cannot stop progress or whatever excuses they are using to force, yes to force, people in accepting these developments.You write: "Secondly, after the "active euthanasia" point, no actual changes in legislation towards the bitter end of the "slippery slope" are mentioned;" I did not mention the specific changes but the factual and actual changes in criteria have taken place. One of my objections towards these developements in Holland is, that we, the people and even the parliament is being forced to accept it, because we cannot dismiss the developments in the euthanasia practice because this is what the people wants, you cannot stop progress, etc. etc. etc. A lot of manipulation is going on by politicians and their friends in the media. Please, don't think people in Holland are smarter or more advanced in a moral way. They are not !
People often do not know how to argue with these highly skilled philosophers, politicians, doctors and journalists.They buy or get free time on television ( Het Humanistisch Verbond among others) These "liberal" ideas are even promoted in popular soap-opera's ( commercial broadcasting organisations), without people knowing that in fact what they are watching is Freethinker propaganda. There has been an investigation into this by a scientist, but he did not get much attention in the liberal media, of course not.
Your words Pyrrho, are witnesses to me that you look at these very complicated processes from a very theoretical point of view and I'm not sure that you will be able to resist their "arguments". I've seen al lot of my friends "crack". Partly because if they oppose these thoughts, they are no longer considered to be progressive or liberal. They will be labelled conservative, old fashioned, square or even fundamentalist or even worse. The image of progressive liberal people is worth a lot to them.
The process I'm describing as "criteria changed, definitions changed,etc" is of course referring to a discussion, but I'm primarily referring to the factual real proces of change in criteria and definitions used in hospitals. The judicial and political situation changed accordingly. What the actual, factual and precise state of affairs is in reference to the Euthanasia practice will be investigated during the period the present cabinet will be in office. The advocates of "The Right to Die for All" are afraid that that might be a set back in realising their political agenda, because the findings of what really is going on in hospitals, nursing houses and hospices might even astonish the Dutch public. And believe me they are quite used to hearing shocking things in this field.
We shall see whether this actual state of affaires will be investigated. In my opinion it will be another political circus, where the real important things will not be discussed. Maybe the cabinet will fall before the investigations even have started and as a result of that it will not be investigated at all.
07 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeI never denied that political change exists. I think that people have been led down the garden path (or down the slippery slope) in both the political and legal arena. See, for instance, the U.S. policy of granting corporations the rights of citizens. What I do deny, however, is that your handwavings about the slippery slope show my position untenable. That idiots could, through faulty reasoning, move from a justified position to an unjustified position is no argument against the original justified position.
The proces I described in my previous post is not possible in the eyes of those who say that the Slippery Slope Argument is not valid.
Now bbarr, you claimed exactly that .......
Hence my question: Is your reasoning wrong or is reality wrong ?
07 Nov 03
Originally posted by PyrrhoPyrrho,
The slippery slope argument suggests that accepting something that is in itself reasonable and good will inevitably lead into something objectionable. Looking at your description of the process in the Netherlands there, first, it seems to start from a position that is non-controversial; very few would object to passive euthanasia. It seems to me that the real ...[text shortened]... so it can be used as a scare tactic to further just about any resistance to any idea.
-Jarno
you write: " the "slipperiness" of the slope would somehow automatically lead us into adoption of policies we don't want to adopt. The argument plays of public fears on fallacious basis."
In my opinion you look at these things from a very theoretical and therefore formal point of view. From a theoretical, "reasonable" and logical point of view the second Worl War could never have happened, let alone the tragic events that lead to and form the historical entity of what we now know as the Shoah.
In your theoretical reasoning there cannot be a place for manipulation or lies. How do you incorparate lies in your logical reasoning ?
"The argument (Slippery Slope Argument. IvanH) plays of public fears on fallacious basis."
This whole discussion on the part of the advocates of active euthanasia is based on the underlying fear of death and especially the fear of suffering and the inability to accept suffering as a meaningful and necessary part of life. People are not willing and able
to accept suffering anymore. Since God is being proclaimed non-existant there cannot be any meaning at all in suffering, especially in the suffering of a dying person, who hasn't got a future in the eyes of an agnost or atheist. We can see the traces of these cultural entities and changes therein in the dicussions on this General Forum on Euthanasia and assisted suicide
You write: The argument plays of public fears on fallacious basis.
You somehow turn things upside down. It is an absolutely theoretical and intellectually based accusation at the address of the opponents.
Therefore it is a trick to silence the opponents.They are not permitted to warn the people on the basis of a theoretical, intellectual, formal and logical ideological "dogma". Please do not upset people and if you do you are not being "logical" ... Get off !!
We have experienced the same thing with the legalisation of abortion. A lot of criteria were introduced and every abortion should meet the demands of the "carefully" selected criteria. If people objected to these developements and mentioned the possibility that these criteria would eventually dissappear and abortion would be an autonomous decision (A Right to Kill) of the woman and therefore this could be used as an alternative way for the condom and the pill, again a slippery slope, they would become very angry. "How can you say such a thing, we would never do such a thing. Do you think we are that kind of people. "
In the Netherlands abortion is now in practice considered to be "a right" for the woman, without any criteria at all. "Pro Choice". The woman decides, the father, the family or the community has no saying at all. When I confronted these people with their words they had spoken 25 years ago, they remained silent and left the room .......
.
07 Nov 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr,
I never denied that political change exists. I think that people have been led down the garden path (or down the slippery slope) in both the political and legal arena. See, for instance, the U.S. policy of granting corporations the rights o ...[text shortened]... position is no argument against the original justified position.
What I was trying to show you was, that logical reasoning does not command reality to be reasonable or logical. You as well as the Dutch Freethinkers have a very formal and theoretical way of reasoning. I wrote that in one of my previous posts. I insisted time and time again that the things I was talking about formed an in essence political debate disguised as a philosophical, judicial and medical scientific debate.
I'm glad you finally accepted this view of mine, although I had to perform some handwaving on my part to reach our agreement on this.
07 Nov 03
2 edits
The question of the "bag of just cases":
You asked me in one of your previous posts to select unjust cases out of a "bag" of just cases. I stated that was impossible without changing the criteria under which these cases were defined as just. As a result of that , you could tell me that this case I maybe would select was not a just case. Therefore this selected case did not come out of your bag of defined just cases. You would be right either way. I called this a mission impossible.
In other words you asked me to select a blue ball out of a bag filled with red balls. A mission impossible.
My question: What is the name of this faulty way of reasoning ?
a "boobytrap", a "loaded gun" or simply a "cheap trick"
07 Nov 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell that seems to be the difference here then. You were engaged in an explanatory project, confronting the mistakes in reasoning that had brought about what, in your opinion, is an unjust state of affairs. I'm more interested in the normative or justificatory project of trying to determine the conditions under which assisted suicide is reasonable. My project here is theoretical, as philosophical projects tend to be.
Bbarr,
What I was trying to show you was, that logical reasoning does not command reality to be reasonable or logical. You as well as the Dutch Freethinkers have a very formal and theoretical way of reasoning. I wrote that in one of my previous posts. I insisted time and time again that the things I was talking about formed an in essence political deb ...[text shortened]... to perform some handwaving on my part to reach our agreement on this.
09 Nov 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThe "Hemlock Society" program is far from theoretical.
Well that seems to be the difference here then. You were engaged in an explanatory project, confronting the mistakes in reasoning that had brought about what, in your opinion, is an unjust state of affairs. I'm more interested in the norma ...[text shortened]... roject here is theoretical, as philosophical projects tend to be.