Assisted Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia
-
Pete,
I'd imagine the Khoi and San people are in harmony with Nature! As I've said. I believe in a supreme being but I also believe at no time has this supreme being made his / her / its wishes known to mankind other than possibly directing in some way the evolution of Nature.
The various collection of 'God' head religions look to me to be inventions of mankind throughout the ages for the betterment of the few in control of these religions. One does not have to delve deeply to see this being the case.
I have no problem with these religions until then start to influence how I should live my life and more so how I should choose to end my life.
So lets get back to the original question.
Mike
-
Marian,
You put an elegant argument which relies on simple logic, always the best weapon in a debate.
Mike
-
@idahoj said:
And from whence do people learn their morality?
Cheers.
-
Thanks, Mike.
@starling75 said:
@idahoj said:
And from whence do people learn their morality?
Cheers.
Good one Bohdan.
-
@dale said:
@unknownuser said:
I think most people have the strength in them to know what is truly moral without the need or support of religion.
And from whence do people learn their morality?
Cheers.
So, I'm trying to understand, am I correct in assuming that you think choosing to end your own life rather than face grave suffering is immoral? (AS the lawyers would say my thoughts are intended "Without Prejudice" )
No, not at all. I'm saying that "morality" is not something that is innate. It is something that is learned.
However, Marian and Starling75 provide an interesting insight. Very well, so if we accept that "morality" in Man is a by-product of his "evolution" (which only opens yet another can of worms) then can we say his moral code is constant and immutable? Is it infallible? I don't think so, even after tens of thousands of years of evolution ... All one needs to do is study some recent history to bear this out. WWI and WWII were not wars over "religious" principals. Please check the wikipedia citations for either of them. You'll find Militarism, Imperialism and Nationalism to be among the leading causes. These are socio-economic systems created BY men to control and influence men. So much for innate morality.
I find this line to be of particular interest from the Starling75's wikipedia citation:
"The emerging fields of evolutionary biology and in particular sociobiology have demonstrated that, though human social behaviors are complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Sociobiological explanations of human behavior are still controversial."
You note the use of words such as "emerging fields" and "controversial" being used to describe the work being done. Sorry, but this explanation of human morality is certainly not "the final word". In fact, I would consider less so as it places humans at the level of "other social animals" to explain the roots of our behavior. Why not? One can look at a family of apes or monkey and draw all the "conclusions" they want. Science, while it proposes to search for truth, runs on speculation, theories and hypothesis.
I think "K" in Men in Black summed it up nicely:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."Well gents, if that's the level of "moral superiority" you find comfortable, then what can I say? For myself, I'll set my sights a little higher ...
To answer Marian's questions:
@unknownuser said:
Do you sincerely believe it is moral to continue living when the price of your life is the lives or well being of others?
The "price" of my life is neither the lives nor the well being of others. They will feel as they will and they make their own choices. No one forces them, and neither would I judge them for what they do, or don't do. To be involved in the life of one terminally ill is a personal choice. That being said, I find it infinitely more comfortable to know that I can go to my Lord and find solace in times of anguish and pain instead of some pub to drink myself blind.
@unknownuser said:
Is it moral to continue living at all costs, knowing that you will soon die anyway at the price of increasing the pain of your loved ones?
See above.
Cheers.
-
@idahoj said:
BTW, one other thought: What happens if a doctor tells a person that they have a terminal disease with a protracted and painful degenerative stage. The person cannot stand the thought of going through the suffering as described by the physician and has an assisted suicide because he or she cannot do the deed themselves.
Then, they find out the doctor was wrong in his diagnosis and the person could have either been cured or there may have been treatments outside of the physicians knowledge. Ok, I know, there should be second opinions, etc. But the point is, people can, and do, survive "terminal" illnesses against all the odds given to them by physicians.
How does your law hold up in these cases?
Cheers
I do not find this a valid argument in the way that I view the implementation of assisted suicide. It is not meant for relatively healthy individuals. This is meant for end stage illnesses where death is an obvious and near outcome, and the immediate future only holds rapid decline in quality of life, little awareness due to drugs, and increasing expenses in medical care. The law should not, and would not IMO apply to your hypothetical situation, as assisted suicide should never have been considered.
+1 for the Wiki explanation of the evolution of morality.
-
@unknownuser said:
The law should not, and would not IMO apply to your hypothetical situation, as assisted suicide should never have been considered.
Considered by who? The individual or the court? The argument has been made that the decision should be up to the individual. If they see their future as hopeless and they know the full disclosure of what they can expect while the disease progresses, then it could be their choice to end their life early and escape from the later stages of the disease. If they wish to enlist the aid of someone for assistance that's their decision.
If I read your comment correctly, then you're advocating that the courts should make the decision?
Cheers.
-
@idahoj said:
Well gents, if that's the level of "moral superiority" you find comfortable, then what can I say? For myself, I'll set my sights a little higher ...
meh, another argument about religion..
at least you're willing to admit (or was that a slip-up?) that you use religion to find comfort in your life.. like a blankey for adults..[edit] i admit, a bit of a cheap stab there.. oh well.
i'm not coming back to the thread because, well, because these religious threads never conclude..as for my thoughts on the original post, +1 kevorkian
-
@idahoj said:
All one needs to do is study some recent history to bear this out. WWI and WWII were not wars over "religious" principals. Please check the wikipedia citations for either of them. You'll find Militarism, Imperialism and Nationalism to be among the leading causes. These are socio-economic systems created BY men to control and influence men. So much for innate morality.
Innate or learned morality did not stop wars, religious or not,it's a fact.
Your example can go both ways in disproving morality. But we know morality to exist so if we consider it as a feeling in us, like love, anger, etc then it makes sense. Love can override hate and hate can override love, so it seems logical if morality is more like a feeling, in some individuals at some times it can be overridden by other feelings or it can override other feelings.@idahoj said:
You note the use of words such as "emerging fields" and "controversial" being used to describe the work being done. Sorry, but this explanation of human morality is certainly not "the final word".
I can only imagine it's controversial because it contradicts religious belief. OF course it's not the final word, there is no "final word" in science, everything can be improved and understood better.
@idahoj said:
Science, while it proposes to search for truth, runs on speculation, theories and hypothesis.
And religion runs on facts I suppose?
Most everything in science is a theory, but a scientific theory is not the same as a theory used in layman terms. A scientific theory is based on observable phenomenon and reproducible experiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory@idahoj said:
Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
And this continuing understanding of the Universe we live in is owed to Science, you make it sound like Science just makes stuff up. By the way people knew the earth was round much earlier than 500 years ago, as further back as ancient Greece, but this information wasn't used until sailors needed to cross the oceans, without having land in sight.
I don't know what you mean by "you knew that we were alone on this planet", no body ever thought that, we're always surrounded by plants and animals. -
Well Marian, I think you're views are mostly anthropocentric, Man at the center of his own universe. That's cool. A lot of people seem to think that way these days and as long as it works for them, that's cool for them too.
On a few points from your post:
I think you're confusing emotion with morality. Emotional responses are more related to an individuals state of mind. Ie; killing someone in the heat of passion when they know it's immoral to do so would be more of an emotional response.
The controversy in the socio-biological study of morality I believe comes not so much from going against religion, but that there hasn't been enough data studied to give the studies any acceptable credibility.
Science is not the "be all, end all" for answers in the world. It can help us prove the physical, but it doesn't disprove the supernatural.
I assumed you saw 'Men in Black" and the quote would be read in the proper context. It was meant to point out that what we may accept as fact today, may be not be fact tomorrow.
Anyway, as has been pointed out, and rightly so, these threads tend to continue on, covering the same ground over and over. So, it's been fun, but this will be my last post on the matter. It's back to work for me.
Live long and prosper.
-
@idahoj said:
@unknownuser said:
The law should not, and would not IMO apply to your hypothetical situation, as assisted suicide should never have been considered.
Considered by who? The individual or the court? The argument has been made that the decision should be up to the individual. If they see their future as hopeless and they know the full disclosure of what they can expect while the disease progresses, then it could be their choice to end their life early and escape from the later stages of the disease. If they wish to enlist the aid of someone for assistance that's their decision.
If I read your comment correctly, then you're advocating that the courts should make the decision?
Cheers.
Your position indicates that the law is made, decided or reiterated at the time of implementation. Again, in this hypothetical discussion and IMO the law would have the most conservative application - as stated near death, decline and QOL. I would be against the law implementing assisted suicide otherwise, it is not intended for complete avoidance of the disease symptoms. Also I made it very clear in a previous post that the courts should have nothing to do with the decision once the law is made, this is strictly an individual choice and decision.
Regarding the religious facet of this argument I must say it should have no bearing. This is about individual choice; those with religious convictions that prevent them from choosing assisted suicide would not have it forced on them, nor would those with no such convictions have the ability removed from them because of someone else's convictions. Otherwise, what happened to tolerance and acceptance of others beliefs? You cannot claim one without accepting the other.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-lgadWNGMY&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicideI haven't strong opinion on this subject ... important to think about it ...
Advertisement