The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

[2ndRateMind]

... seems to hinge on this question:

Is a life filled with unbearable suffering better than no life at all?

If it is, then we may need to use the law to limit the freedom of individuals (and with the assistance of their doctors, if necessary) to end their lives as they see fit.

If it isn't, then there is no place for the law in this dreadful decision, beyond safeguarding the vulnerable.

So, what does the forum advise?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

It's really quite simple.

I do not deny that we all have subjective opinions.

I just contend that some of these opinions are more accurate than others, in respect of an objective reality.

That much is obvious, both subjectivists and objectivist would say the same

Ah, but no, they wouldn't. An objectivist can perfectly consistently and coherently posit an objective reality, that X is good, even if not everyone agrees that X is good.

A subjectivist can't; for him or her, whether or not X is good is just a matter of opinion, and the reason opinions differ is that there is no objective reality in respect of ethics or aesthetics. So the accuracy of a moral or aesthetic opinion is not a meaningful concept.

Best wishes, 2RM.

No, 2RM, I don't agree. The objective reality is there for sure, with objective ethics (or morality) and aesthetics (please, see evaluation of arts). The reason why opinions differ is that one party has the intelligence while the other party does NOT.

I think we are largely in agreement, though I wouldn't put it quite like that. One can be very intelligent, and still completely wrong. Conversely, one can be naive to the point of foolishness, and still fundamentally right.

And we should never underestimate the opposition.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Not at all. It seems that my brother carries a gene that makes it seem, to him, that olives taste horribly metallic. I do not. He is not incorrect to dislike this horrible taste; I am not incorrect because olives seem to me to have a dry, subtle flavour I very much enjoy.

So correctness does not apply, that is what I expect a subjectivist to say.

You could say that olives have the property of being liked by me, and disliked by my brother, due to their chemical composition and our differing genetic makeup, as expressed by the sensitivity of our taste receptors.

So a property of an olive depends on the taste receptors of an individual, this too is what I expect a subjectivist to say. So far so good

Whatever, this property is quite objective, even if he will say, as shorthand: 'I hate olives' and I will say, as shorthand: 'I love olives'...

Now it gets strange, a property that depends on the taste receptors of an individual, is somehow "quite objective" you say? What does subjective mean, if not depends on an individual, what does objective mean, if not independent from an individual?

Ah, but no, they wouldn't. An objectivist can perfectly consistently and coherently posit an objective reality, that X is good...

I was talking about the shape of the Earth. A subjectivist can also perfectly consistently and coherently posit an objective reality, that the Earth is a ball...

A subjectivist can't; for him or her, whether or not X is good is just a matter of opinion, and the reason opinions differ is that there is no objective reality in respect of ethics or aesthetics. So the accuracy of a moral or aesthetic opinion is not a meaningful concept.

Right, and yet somehow you think "I love olives" is objective?! What is going on here?

[morefish]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Do YOU have the 'right' to make such choices for ME? I don't think you do.

Personally, I cannot give life to the inanimate. I am NOT GOD. What does GOD have to say about it?

HE allowed HIS SON to be tortured and killed to save our souls. Do you think THAT was wrong?

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

Is a life filled with unbearable suffering better than no life at all?

IMO, that isn’t the question to ask. It doesn’t matter if a life filled with unbearable suffering is better than no life at all. Like many have already posted better is subjective AND suffering is subjective – heck, some people, due to psychological suffering, find life unbearable, should we then say it is ok if they kill themselves?

The way to approach euthanasia is to acknowledge the value of life. By allowing euthanasia you are saying life only has value if a person or other people give it value, but the value of life is intrinsic in life itself – or at least it should be! Is there only value to the life of the strong and healthy? Do we want to be a part of a world where the small, the voiceless, the unborn, or the old have less value? Neither you nor others get to determine the value of life. All human beings have value in simply being human beings.

When we start allowing things like abortion and euthanasia it influences how we see human beings. It shows we see them as something to be discarded, as burdens, as problems, as mistakes. This spills over into all aspects of society and why children with Downs Syndrome are aborted before they even get a chance to live (because what kind of life would they have anyway, right? We are being merciful.) We begin to value others for what they can do for me, for what they can do/accomplish, etc. And as soon as they begin to no longer be able to do as much we render them useless and turn around and spin it as we are doing them a favor by giving them permission to end their life.

“A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.�
― Andrew Coyne

[Bust Nak]

The way to approach euthanasia is to acknowledge the value of life. By allowing euthanasia you are saying life only has value if a person or other people give it value, but the value of life is intrinsic in life itself – or at least it should be!

That's self defeating, you are saying life has value because you as a person give it value, in an argument against saying life only has value if people give it value.

Is there only value to the life of the strong and healthy? Do we want to be a part of a world where the small, the voiceless, the unborn, or the old have less value? Neither you nor others get to determine the value of life. All human beings have value in simply being human beings.

Something can be less valuable then something else and still have value. Proposing that all human beings have value doesn't in any way counter the claim that the small, the voiceless, the unborn, or the old have less value.

When we start allowing things like abortion and euthanasia it influences how we see human beings. It shows we see them as something to be discarded, as burdens, as problems, as mistakes. This spills over into all aspects of society and why children with Downs Syndrome are aborted before they even get a chance to live (because what kind of life would they have anyway, right? We are being merciful.) We begin to value others for what they can do for me, for what they can do/accomplish, etc.

Why would we begin to do that?

And as soon as they begin to no longer be able to do as much we render them useless and turn around and spin it as we are doing them a favor by giving them permission to end their life.

They never needed permission to end their life though, what some of them do need, is our help and compassion.

“A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.�
― Andrew Coyne

Has he considered that mabye his attitude is stopping him from comprehending why life should not be endured?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

The way to approach euthanasia is to acknowledge the value of life. By allowing euthanasia you are saying life only has value if a person or other people give it value, but the value of life is intrinsic in life itself – or at least it should be!

That's self defeating, you are saying life has value because you as a person give it value, in an argument against saying life only has value if people give it value.

I knew someone would say that, but if you carefully consider the statement it isn’t self defeating. Life has intrinsic value and this is something all men via logic and reason can know. It is something we all agree upon as well and an assumption we make (and rightly so). Because you can’t have it both ways. Either life has intrinsic value or it doesn’t. Either a sick person’s life has as much value as a healthy person’s life, either an Hispanic person’s life has as much value as an American’s, either a prostitute’s life has as much value as a non prostitute, either a child’s life has as much value as an adult’s, either a slave's life has as much value as a free man's life, etc OR you are claiming the value of human life is dependent on what one person gives another. This type of thinking has been wrong throughout history.

Quote:
Is there only value to the life of the strong and healthy? Do we want to be a part of a world where the small, the voiceless, the unborn, or the old have less value? Neither you nor others get to determine the value of life. All human beings have value in simply being human beings.

Something can be less valuable then something else and still have value.

Who gets to determine this? So, you don’t think all human life has equal value?

Quote:
When we start allowing things like abortion and euthanasia it influences how we see human beings. It shows we see them as something to be discarded, as burdens, as problems, as mistakes. This spills over into all aspects of society and why children with Downs Syndrome are aborted before they even get a chance to live (because what kind of life would they have anyway, right? We are being merciful.) We begin to value others for what they can do for me, for what they can do/accomplish, etc.

Why would we begin to do that?

Are you serious? We already do – precisely because of mentalities that don’t value life or think one person should have the right to determine the value. We have former President Obama trying to push his abortion agenda refer to an unplanned pregnancy as a mistake and he wouldn’t want his own daughters saddled with a future burden. We no longer see that many Downs Syndrome children anymore. Why? Because they are all being aborted.

Quote:
And as soon as they begin to no longer be able to do as much we render them useless and turn around and spin it as we are doing them a favor by giving them permission to end their life.

They never needed permission to end their life though, what some of them do need, is our help and compassion.

Perhaps authentic help and compassion would not be making them feel that when they get old and aren’t able to do as much as they use to they still have value. They aren’t burdens.

Quote:
“A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.�
― Andrew Coyne

Has he considered that mabye his attitude is stopping him from comprehending why life should not be endured?

Yes, his attitude acknowledges and value life. The only reason a person would think life should no longer be endured is because he doesn’t value life. And it’s a real shame when someone might not value life because those around them keep telling them at certain points/times/circumstances their lives do not have value.

[Overcomer]

Bust Nak wrote:

Is it subjectively better that a life of subjectively unbearable suffering be forced to persist, or is it subjectively better that those subjectively unbearably suffering be allowed to end their subjective unbearable suffering in oblivion?

But how do you know that someone goes into "oblivion" when she dies? What if there really is a hell and that's where that person goes? What if, given more time on this earth, that person comes to recognize that God is real, that Jesus Christ died for her sins, and she can spend eternity in heaven? What if, by allowing people to end their own lives prematurely, we are condemning them to hell?

Bust Nak wrote:

It is an objective truth that all morality is subjective,

So you're saying that it was okay for Hitler to murder six millions Jews because morality is subjective and, from his point of view, the world would be better off without them? Put another way, because he didn't see their extermination as immoral, that makes it okay.

Bust Nak wrote:

Morality is either objectively subjective, or objectively objective

Could you please explain what you mean by these terms? "Objectively subjective" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I agree with RightReason. Life has intrinsic value -- at least, it does for someone made in the image of God. If, however, we're talking about just being the product of mindless random chance, then it's true that the life of a human being has no more value than that of a housefly and can be extinguished with the same casual disinterest.

[Bust Nak]

I knew someone would say that, but if you carefully consider the statement it isn’t self defeating. Life has intrinsic value and this is something all men via logic and reason can know.

No, you can't know that via logic or reason at all. You could merely propose that it ought to be able to be known that way. You say logic and reason, so go ahead and prove it so.

It is something we all agree upon as well and an assumption we make (and rightly so).

Agreement and assumptions are irrelevant if you are to go down the road of intrinsic value. If something is intrinsically valuable, then it is still valuable even if no one agrees that it has value; it is still valuable even when everyone assumes that it has no value. You say logic and reason, so stick to logic and reason without appealing to agreement or assumptions.

Because you can’t have it both ways. Either life has intrinsic value or it doesn’t.

No need to have it both ways, simply affirm that life does not have intrinsic value.

Either a sick person’s life has as much value as a healthy person’s life, either an Hispanic person’s life has as much value as an American’s, either a prostitute’s life has as much value as a non prostitute, either a child’s life has as much value as an adult’s, either a slave's life has as much value as a free man's life, etc OR you are claiming the value of human life is dependent on what one person gives another.

I am claiming the value of human life is dependent on what one person gives said life (another as well as one's own life.)

A side note, intrinsic value does not imply intrinsic equal value, a sick person's life could be intrinsically less valuable than a healthy person's life. I think your strong feeling about equal value is leading you jump to the defense of intrinsic value, when the two concept don't go hand in hand. It's one thing to claim that life have equal value, it's quite another to claim that life have intrinsic value. To claim both makes your stance all the more difficult to defend.

This type of thinking has been wrong throughout history.

How so?

Who gets to determine this? So, you don’t think all human life has equal value?

No, human life while valuable, do not all have equal value.

Are you serious? We already do – precisely because of mentalities that don’t value life or think one person should have the right to determine the value. We have former President Obama trying to push his abortion agenda refer to an unplanned pregnancy as a mistake and he wouldn’t want his own daughters saddled with a future burden. We no longer see that many Downs Syndrome children anymore. Why? Because they are all being aborted.

None of that indicates that we value others for what they can do for us, for what they can do/accomplish and so on.

Perhaps authentic help and compassion would not be making them feel that when they get old and aren’t able to do as much as they use to they still have value. They aren’t burdens.

Has it occurred to you that people who don't want to endured life, don't necessarily feel that they are a burden to others?

Yes, his attitude acknowledges and value life. The only reason a person would think life should no longer be endured is because he doesn’t value life.

Simple example: I have a $10 bill, I am willing to exchange it for a fancy burger. That does not imply I don't value the bill, it just mean I value it less than said burger. You've got to stop saying people don't value life just because that person thinks death is preferable, he merely value it less.

And it’s a real shame when someone might not value life because those around them keep telling them at certain points/times/circumstances their lives do not have value.

That would be a shame if it were to happen but it's not worth worrying about. We don't keep telling people their lives do not have value.

[Bust Nak]

Bust Nak wrote...

I didn't write that, the quote came from 2ndRateMind not from me. But I'd gladly answer your questions.

But how do you know that someone goes into "oblivion" when she dies?

I don't know that someone would go to oblivion when she dies.

What if there really is a hell and that's where that person goes?

Then she will suffer even more than the pain that drove her to kill herself, I suppose. Shouldn't you be the one telling me what would happen, I don't believe in hell after all.

What if, given more time on this earth, that person comes to recognize that God is real, that Jesus Christ died for her sins, and she can spend eternity in heaven? What if, by allowing people to end their own lives prematurely, we are condemning them to hell?

Then so be it, that person made her own choice to end her own life prematurely.

So you're saying that it was okay for Hitler to murder six millions Jews because morality is subjective and, from his point of view, the world would be better off without them? Put another way, because he didn't see their extermination as immoral, that makes it okay.

No. I would instead say that it was not okay for Hitler to murder six millions Jews because morality is subjective, even though from his point of view, the world would be better off without them. Put another way, because I see their extermination as immoral, that makes it not okay.

Could you please explain what you mean by these terms? "Objectively subjective" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Objective means something does not depend on the mind, in contrast to subjective, dependend on the mind. By "objectively subjective," I am saying the statement S is an objective truth, where its truth value does not depend on the mind, i.e. S is true even if no one thinks that S is true, S is true even if everyone believe that S is false; where statement S is "morality is subjective."

I agree with RightReason. Life has intrinsic value -- at least, it does for someone made in the image of God. If, however, we're talking about just being the product of mindless random chance, then it's true that the life of a human being has no more value than that of a housefly and can be extinguished with the same casual disinterest.

That's quite the claim! You would kill us as you would a fly, if you were ever convinced that God doesn't exist. Are you sure that's the kind of person you want us to think you are? I see your Christian tag, is the casual disinterest of the value of human life outside of the context of special creation, the kind of attitude God would approve of?

[bluethread]

A side note, intrinsic value does not imply intrinsic equal value, a sick person's life could be intrinsically less valuable than a healthy person's life. I think your strong feeling about equal value is leading you jump to the defense of intrinsic value, when the two concept don't go hand in hand. It's one thing to claim that life have equal value, it's quite another to claim that life have intrinsic value. To claim both makes your stance all the more difficult to defend.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value requires an evaluator. If we are a free people, then ones value is determined by oneself and oneself alone. When the Declaration of Independence speaks of the right to life, it means the right to not have my life taken from me by another. As far as I know, none of our founding documents regulate the taking of one's own life. I do not know of a Scripture that does that either, in basic principle. However, their are two moral considerations. First, is the case of mental capacity.

If one is not capable of properly evaluating ones current state, should others intervene. The general answer is yes. However, personal sovereignty has primacy. Therefore, any such intervention should be the minimum necessary, and at the smallest social institution possible.

The second consideration is social resposibility. If one has social obligations, it is irresponsible cowardice to end one's life. Life is full of suffering and it is easy to use such suffering as an excuse to avoid being held accountable for one's obligations. A basic example is that of the parent. It is immoral for the suffering parent to end that parents life and abandon one's children.