An Amoralist's Philosophical Standpoint

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329185338' post='2386664']
If we allow individuals to elect death, does that mean we still prohibit parents from terminating their disabled child's life? Or should the parent have the right over their child's life (i.e. abortion)...or even death at 2 weeks when the parents realize their child will be a bit slow at school? What if a person is insane? Can they decide? What if the person is elderly and starting to forget things, but their still "fairly" with it?

We already have a problem with teen suicide....and actually suicide in general.....should we applaud these people for realizing their burden on society and that we don't care for them?

Or should we encourage a pro-life society where every human life is worth dignity and respect?
[/quote]

Still waiting to hear your response on these questions.



[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1329192680' post='2386742']
Have you got examples of how allowing euthanasia makes a society unstable?
or can you talk me through why this might cause instability to society.[/quote]

Ancient Rome
1930s Germany.

[quote]I see a big difference between my stance of not wanting a government to create a law (rule) which restricts people's legal ability to have euthanasia performed on themselves and your stance of wanting to have a law (rule) in place to stop people from having this legal ability.
It is you that wants the constraint, not for your own sake, because of course for yourself you would never take up the option, but for people like me, you don't want me to choose my own fate.[/quote]

I don't want to encourage suicide. When a person commits suicide because of a tough time in their life, should we applaud that person instead of implementing counseling programs?


[quote]So you are stating that lack of a law, lack of a rule equates to oppression?
Do you not think that rules are constraints?
How can removing a law be oppression?
[/quote]

In this case, the lack of a law equates to oppression because it does not guide society to respect life, but rather approves of individuals to end human life when they see fit. This creates a subjective value on human life, which is a dangerous slope to get on as evident by such societies that do so.

Not all rules are oppressive. Rules are constraints because they define what is acceptable and what is not. Government's job is to protects the common and individual good. It does this by laws and rules, and not be anarchy.

If the government tomorrow removed all laws and declared itself powerless, chaos would ensue. This would be an example of removing a law that brings an oppression to society.

[stevil]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329185338' post='2386664']
If we allow individuals to elect death, does that mean we still prohibit parents from terminating their disabled child's life? Or should the parent have the right over their child's life (i.e. abortion)...or even death at 2 weeks when the parents realize their child will be a bit slow at school? What if a person is insane? Can they decide? What if the person is elderly and starting to forget things, but their still "fairly" with it?

We already have a problem with teen suicide....and actually suicide in general.....should we applaud these people for realizing their burden on society and that we don't care for them?
[/quote]
I was focusing on euthanasia.
With regards to parents terminating a disabled child's life, I assume with this statement of yours you are not suggesting that it is the child who has made the decision but the parent's making the decision instead.
This is an entirely different matter to a situation where a patient is terminally ill, in constant pain and has requested euthanasia.

With regards to abortion, I can see the pro's and con's both ways. I understand when Catholics make a stand against abortion. I do not personally value a fetus or an impregnated egg, or sperm as much as what Catholics value these things. I am not aghast when a pregnant woman decides to have an abortion, I recognise that allowing abortions does not cause violent conflict or impact the stability of society.

"at 2 weeks when the parents realize their child will be a bit slow", this is a good point, when do we draw the line? Governments tend to draw the line at a certain amount of weeks into pregnancy. There is a difference between terminating a life that is dependent on the mother's womb as life support and terminating a life that is self sufficient. I understand that Catholics won't agree with this distinction.

"What if a person is insane", with regards to euthanasia, if the person is not of free will and sound mind then they are unable to request euthanasia, in this circumstance euthanasia should not be offered.

"What if the person is elderly and starting to forget things" - I am making a distinction between euthanasia and suicide. Euthanasia is with regards to a terminally ill patient in constant pain. An elderly person requesting assisted suicide is another matter.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1329252189' post='2387055']
I was focusing on euthanasia.
With regards to parents terminating a disabled child's life, I assume with this statement of yours you are not suggesting that it is the child who has made the decision but the parent's making the decision instead.
This is an entirely different matter to a situation where a patient is terminally ill, in constant pain and has requested euthanasia.[/quote]

Correct. I am assuming parent.

I disagree. In both situations, the subject is in an undesirable situation. In both, the solution is to extinguish the life. The only difference is the individual makes the decision as opposed to the parent. However, in both situations, the person in charge of the subject's life makes the decision. After 18, I am in charge of myself legally. Before, I am not. How is an adult's responsibility for a child's life different from an adult's own responsibility?

[quote]With regards to abortion, I can see the pro's and con's both ways. I understand when Catholics make a stand against abortion. I do not personally value a fetus or an impregnated egg, or sperm as much as what Catholics value these things. I am not aghast when a pregnant woman decides to have an abortion, I recognise that allowing abortions does not cause violent conflict or impact the stability of society.[/quote]

China.

United States. Each year the U.S. ends the lives of 1 million human beings. Each year 1 million women are left with the trauma that she has ended a natural life. Some claim there is no depression. But that wall eventually implodes. See [url="http://www.abbyjohnson.org/"]http://www.abbyjohnson.org/[/url] . This woman ran an abortion clinic. When one day she had to help with an abortion... the truth became too much...

[quote]"at 2 weeks when the parents realize their child will be a bit slow", this is a good point, when do we draw the line? Governments tend to draw the line at a certain amount of weeks into pregnancy. There is a difference between terminating a life that is dependent on the mother's womb as life support and terminating a life that is self sufficient. I understand that Catholics won't agree with this distinction.[/quote]

Your right. We won't. Partly because a life is not really self-sufficient until they reach adulthood. It's a long process before your really on your own. What changes from conception to adulthood is not very obvious. Not sure how a 2 week old baby is going to feed itself. I mean....before bottles, a young baby relied on it's mother to nurse. Mommy still needs to make bottles actually if you go that route. When you try to differentiate where a human is in development.....it gets very subjective, and not at all objective. Making life and death decisions on very subjective standards is moral relativism.....and moral relativism gets you prime example of 1930s Germany.

[quote]"What if a person is insane", with regards to euthanasia, if the person is not of free will and sound mind then they are unable to request euthanasia, in this circumstance euthanasia should not be offered.[/quote]

Why not? What is sound mind and free will? Actually from your perspective, it seems appropriate that you argue for anyone to do what they want no matter their sanity since their actions don't affect others. I think your position is inconsistent if you have a "test" for whether you can end your life or not.

[quote]"What if the person is elderly and starting to forget things" - I am making a distinction between euthanasia and suicide. Euthanasia is with regards to a terminally ill patient in constant pain. An elderly person requesting assisted suicide is another matter.
[/quote]

I disagree. A person commits suicide because they feel their life is worthless and very painful. An elderly person commits suicide because they feel their life is worthless.........painful. In both cases, there is a goal of ending the pain. In both cases there is a hopelessness of remedying the situation. If you read suicide notes, these people either didn't, or could not take life anymore.

[stevil]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329290330' post='2387378']
I disagree. In both situations, the subject is in an undesirable situation. In both, the solution is to extinguish the life. The only difference is the individual makes the decision as opposed to the parent. However, in both situations, the person in charge of the subject's life makes the decision. After 18, I am in charge of myself legally. Before, I am not. How is an adult's responsibility for a child's life different from an adult's own responsibility?
[/quote]
Interesting concept, that the parent can decide life and death on the child against the child's wishes, without any medical prerequisites. This is certainly not euthanasia and is off topic to what I am discussing here.
I think parents killing their own children against their children's will would cause much conflict in society, with grandparents, uncles and aunties, cousins etc, much conflict. Especially when people have meet the children and grown attached to the children.



[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329290330' post='2387378']
United States. Each year the U.S. ends the lives of 1 million human beings. Each year 1 million women are left with the trauma that she has ended a natural life. Some claim there is no depression. But that wall eventually implodes. See [url="http://www.abbyjohnson.org/"]http://www.abbyjohnson.org/[/url] .
[/quote]
People need to live with their decisions.


[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329290330' post='2387378']
Your right. We won't. Partly because a life is not really self-sufficient until they reach adulthood. It's a long process before your really on your own. What changes from conception to adulthood is not very obvious. Not sure how a 2 week old baby is going to feed itself. I mean....before bottles, a young baby relied on it's mother to nurse. Mommy still needs to make bottles actually if you go that route. When you try to differentiate where a human is in development.....it gets very subjective, and not at all objective. Making life and death decisions on very subjective standards is moral relativism.....and moral relativism gets you prime example of 1930s Germany.
[/quote]
This is off topic, the discussion is about euthanasia, of terminally ill, and in pain people.
I do think abortion is a harder topic to argue for.


[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329290330' post='2387378']
I think your position is inconsistent if you have a "test" for whether you can end your life or not.
[/quote]
Without the tests and measures in place, euthanasia can be abused. There are valid arguements that next of kin maybe desiring inheritance or such. We do need objective medical advise as to whether the person is infact termanil or if they are likely to recover.


[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329290330' post='2387378']
I disagree. A person commits suicide because they feel their life is worthless and very painful. An elderly person commits suicide because they feel their life is worthless.........painful. In both cases, there is a goal of ending the pain. In both cases there is a hopelessness of remedying the situation. If you read suicide notes, these people either didn't, or could not take life anymore.
[/quote]
The criteria of euthanasia should be that the person must have a terminal illness, with no hope of recovery.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1329517134' post='2388678']
Interesting concept, that the parent can decide life and death on the child against the child's wishes, without any medical prerequisites. This is certainly not euthanasia and is off topic to what I am discussing here.
I think parents killing their own children against their children's will would cause much conflict in society, with grandparents, uncles and aunties, cousins etc, much conflict. Especially when people have meet the children and grown attached to the children.




People need to live with their decisions.



This is off topic, the discussion is about euthanasia, of terminally ill, and in pain people.
I do think abortion is a harder topic to argue for.



Without the tests and measures in place, euthanasia can be abused. There are valid arguements that next of kin maybe desiring inheritance or such. We do need objective medical advise as to whether the person is infact termanil or if they are likely to recover.



The criteria of euthanasia should be that the person must have a terminal illness, with no hope of recovery.
[/quote]


What I am understanding you to say, is that euthanasia is okay if certain objective standards are met.

1. Terminal illness (this assumes no hope of recovery)
2. Individual makes "sane" decision.


The question that remains is why does a terminal illness justify the intentional ending of a human life and other reasons do not?

I recognize terminal illness as an objective measurement, and solely allowing the individual to decide, but are we not being subjective in using these two objective standards and not other objective standards such as disability, age, and such?

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329771009' post='2390234']

The question that remains is why does a terminal illness justify the intentional ending of a human life and other reasons do not?

I recognize terminal illness as an objective measurement, and solely allowing the individual to decide, but are we not being subjective in using these two objective standards and not other objective standards such as disability, age, and such?
[/quote]

That's a very good question. If the person's consent makes all the difference, it is arbitrary to ignore their consent outside of terminal illness.

....The only reason society puts any value on human life is because individuals looked at their own life and deemed it valuable. If human individuals did not value their own life, then society would not value human life. Obviously. Now, imagine a world where we encourage people to put lesser value on their life...

Edited February 21, 2012 by Tally Marx

[stevil]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329771009' post='2390234']


What I am understanding you to say, is that euthanasia is okay if certain objective standards are met.

1. Terminal illness (this assumes no hope of recovery)
2. Individual makes "sane" decision.


The question that remains is why does a terminal illness justify the intentional ending of a human life and other reasons do not?

I recognize terminal illness as an objective measurement, and solely allowing the individual to decide, but are we not being subjective in using these two objective standards and not other objective standards such as disability, age, and such?
[/quote]
The terminal illness part is very important in order to avoid conflict.
People can have moments of dispair and depression. However a person can be cured of this.
If a person got depressed after being dumped by their partner and went to a suicide clinic and got put down then it is likely that the person's friends and family are going to be violent towards the clinic.
Friends and family are much less likely to be violent towards euthanasia, where their loved one is termanilly ill and in agony and pleading for peace.

[eagle_eye222001]

I don't see violence as an objective standard argument for euthanasia but rather a subjective argument for it which leads us back to the problem of why we accept these 2 objective standards for legal termination, but not others.

I recognize that family, friends, relatives, and even the person themselves may feel hopeless and just want to end it. However, mere feelings do not make a good argument for why we allow an intentional death here, but not in other situations.

Ironically, intentionally killing someone for whatever reason is violence in of itself as termination is a destructive force to the body (for whatever reason or justification).

I am not sure how to objectively distinguish the objective standards for euthanasia from other situations where we could come up with objective standards for other life-ending measures.

[stevil]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329944196' post='2391370']
I don't see violence as an objective standard argument for euthanasia but rather a subjective argument for it which leads us back to the problem of why we accept these 2 objective standards for legal termination, but not others.

I recognize that family, friends, relatives, and even the person themselves may feel hopeless and just want to end it. However, mere feelings do not make a good argument for why we allow an intentional death here, but not in other situations.

Ironically, intentionally killing someone for whatever reason is violence in of itself as termination is a destructive force to the body (for whatever reason or justification).

I am not sure how to objectively distinguish the objective standards for euthanasia from other situations where we could come up with objective standards for other life-ending measures.
[/quote]
It's about having a goal towards a stable and functional society. An unstable society creates much violence and conflict, which makes it unsafe for ourselves and our loved ones. Allowing first degree murder would result in a dangerously unstable society. Allowing general suicide would result in a dangerously unstable society. Allowing euthanasia would not make society dangerously unstable.
Allowing prostitution does not make society dangerously unstable, allowing gay marriage does not make society dangerously unstable.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1329980829' post='2391654']
It's about having a goal towards a stable and functional society. An unstable society creates much violence and conflict, which makes it unsafe for ourselves and our loved ones. Allowing first degree murder would result in a dangerously unstable society. Allowing general suicide would result in a dangerously unstable society. Allowing euthanasia would not make society dangerously unstable.
Allowing prostitution does not make society dangerously unstable, allowing gay marriage does not make society dangerously unstable.
[/quote]

A stable and functional society objectively values all human life and does not subjectively decide on objective standards to end it. Some other people have thought that a stable and functional society meant getting rid of all the "undesirables."

How much violence do we have because terminally ill are not allowed to commit suicide? What human lives are dealt huge injury and violence because we do not allow legal suicide?

As I have pointed out previously that has not been addressed, it is impossible to allow euthanasia, but not allow other forms of suicide logically. It we subjectively let a certain group of people under objective conditions kill themselves, then we inevitably slide to other forms of violence due to our inability to objectively value human life as we have just subjectified it with whatever objective standards we want or think of the current time.

Merely having objective standards for who is eligible for "euthanasia" does not work as 1930s German gives us a great example of.

I disagree with you on gay marriage and prostitution, but I understand this thread to be solely about euthanasia. If you wish to branch out to these other topics, it would be most fitting to start another thread.


The bottom line is if we follow your guidelines, I can use your same argument to argue for an extension of those guidelines. We fall into moral relativism as it is merely a person's opinion of where human life is valued and where it is not.

______________

Final Statement:

Unless there is an objective case to be made on only selecting certain objective conditions for limited suicide, then this discussion has reached its crest as I find myself not having anything new to say.


I thank you for taking the time to respond to this discussion as it has made me re-think of where I stand on the issue and why; I hope we are able to discuss another topic another day, but I believe we have reached the end for now.

Pax,

Eagle_eye

[stevil]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1330035510' post='2391882']
A stable and functional society objectively values all human life and does not subjectively decide on objective standards to end it. Some other people have thought that a stable and functional society meant getting rid of all the "undesirables."
[/quote]
In order to maintain a stable and functional society we do not need to impose law to prevent people from choosing euthanasia. Society will not rebel or become unstable if the law is removed therefore our government does not need to infringe on our ability to perform euthanasia. We don't need a granny state, unnecessarily taking away our decision making is an act of oppression. Because of this law many compassionate relatives and Doctors will go to jail.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1330112154' post='2392355']
In order to maintain a stable and functional society we do not need to impose law to prevent people from choosing euthanasia. Society will not rebel or become unstable if the law is removed therefore our government does not need to infringe on our ability to perform euthanasia. We don't need a granny state, unnecessarily taking away our decision making is an act of oppression. Because of this law many compassionate relatives and Doctors will go to jail.
[/quote]
Once its voluntary, it will end up mandatory.