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.

[Divine Insight]

I totally support a person's right to voluntarily choose euthanasia.

I personally support that the person should not only have this right, but they should be respected for it as well. We should be able to attend someone's euthanasia event and offer them our sincere love and respect as they pass away before our eyes.

Having said the above, I do agree that there should be rules and criteria associated with allowing the event to proceed legally. The person who voluntarily chooses euthanasia should be of sound mind to be certain that they fully understand the nature of their choice. A waiting period that includes counseling and alternative possibilities can also be included in this. However, after these things have been done if the person still chooses euthanasia, I vote that they should be given the right to do it respectfully.

So I totally support a person's right to choose euthanasia. I also support that they should be able to request assistance by anyone who is willing to assist them.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Whether something is bearable or not depends on the person. Whether something is better than some other thing, is also subjective. No one can answer your question for anyone else.

As such I think a better question is, where should the law stand, given these two very subjective positions, where neither can be supported with empirical facts. Err on the conept of the santity of life; or err on compassion and freedom?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Whether something is bearable or not depends on the person.

Of course.

Whether something is better than some other thing, is also subjective. No one can answer your question for anyone else.

Not necessarily. Many of us think that 'good, better, best', though a qualitative, is also an objective scale. And it always amuses me when people who claim every moral consideration to be subjective take an objective moral stance like 'No one can answer your question for anyone else'.

As such I think a better question is, where should the law stand, given these two very subjective positions, where neither can be supported with empirical facts. Err on the con[c]ept of the san[c]tity of life; or err on compassion and freedom?

OK, let me rephrase my opening question. 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?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Not necessarily. Many of us think that 'good, better, best', though a qualitative, is also an objective scale.

But there are multiple objective scales you can choose from. It is the choosing of scales that makes it subjective.

And it always amuses me when people who claim every moral consideration to be subjective take an objective moral stance like 'No one can answer your question for anyone else'.

Logic is not subjective. No one can answer your question for anyone else is the logical necessity that follows from the premise that morality is subjective.

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?

It's better to end unbearable suffering in oblivion.

[2ndRateMind]

Logic is not subjective. No one can answer your question for anyone else is the logical necessity that follows from the premise that morality is subjective.

Uh huh. But that meme implies an objective moral truth; that objectively no one else can/should/has the right to/should have the authority to, decide on someone else's determination to end their lives for reasons of unbearable suffering. You seem (like many subjectivists) to want both to have your cake and eat it. You want to say it is the objective nature of morality that all morality is subjective. But if morality has an objective nature, then why should the (accurate) moral determinations proceeding not be similarly objective? Alternatively, if it is simply your subjective opinion that morality is subjective, what use is your morality to you, or to anyone else? Someone who thinks morality objective would have just as valid an opinion, and deciding between different moral stances would simply be a matter of individual psychological congeniality, without any wider significance.

It's better to end unbearable suffering in oblivion.

I agree. But do you think it is objectively better, or just subjectively better, in the world according to Bust Nak, in which case we could all happily and justifiably ignore your opinion, and just agree to differ because there is no such thing as a moral truth, only moral opinion?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Uh huh. But that meme implies an objective moral truth; that objectively no one else can/should/has the right to/should have the authority to, decide on someone else's determination to end their lives for reasons of unbearable suffering.

How is that an objective moral truth though? It is my opinion that no one should generally decide on someone else's decision on whether to end their own life. First of all, it is my opinion and hence subjective. Secondly there are lots of conditions, for example someone who is mentally unstable or under age should have their decision overridden.

You seem (like many subjectivists) to want both to have your cake and eat it. You want to say it is the objective nature of morality that all morality is subjective.

That's not having my cake and eat it. It is an objective truth that all morality is subjective, but that much is not an objective moral truth. It's no more problematic than claiming that it is the objective nature of food taste that all food taste is subjective.

But if morality has an objective nature, then why should the (accurate) moral determinations proceeding not be similarly objective?

There is no should here. Morality is objectively subjective.

Alternatively, if it is simply your subjective opinion that morality is subjective, what use is your morality to you, or to anyone else?

Morality is either objectively subjective, or objectively objective. Opinion has no relevance to objective truths.

I agree. But do you think it is objectively better, or just subjectively better, in the world according to Bust Nak, in which case we could all happily and justifiably ignore your opinion, and just agree to differ because there is no such thing as a moral truth, only moral opinion?

It is subjectively better, in the world according to Bust Nak, where you could all justifiably ignore, and agree to differ because there is no such thing as a objective moral truth, only moral opinion; other than the unspecified consequences of disagreeing with me, which you might not be so happy with.

[2ndRateMind]

It's no more problematic than claiming that it is the objective nature of food taste that all food taste is subjective.

You can claim that, but you would be confusing quality with subjectivity. The fact that not everyone is sufficiently educated to appreciate quality - in music, art, wine, fashion, literature, morals, food taste, whatever - does not mean quality is subjective. It just means that some are inadequately prepared to make the necessary discrimination.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

You can claim that, but you would be confusing quality with subjectivity. The fact that not everyone is sufficiently educated to appreciate quality - in music, art, wine, fashion, literature, morals, food taste, whatever - does not mean quality is subjective. It just means that some are inadequately prepared to make the necessary discrimination.

You are actually proposing that food taste is objective, that a person can be factually incorrect for liking the taste of something. I've never meet a taste objectivist before. Is anything subjective at all?

[2ndRateMind]

You can claim that, but you would be confusing quality with subjectivity. The fact that not everyone is sufficiently educated to appreciate quality - in music, art, wine, fashion, literature, morals, food taste, whatever - does not mean quality is subjective. It just means that some are inadequately prepared to make the necessary discrimination.

You are actually proposing that food taste is objective, that a person can be factually incorrect for liking the taste of something. I've never meet a taste objectivist before. Is anything subjective at all?

I like olives. My brother hates olives. I discover there is actually a gene for disliking olives. His distaste for them is therefore objective and understandable, and not mere whim, and our disagreement has well-grounded justification.

On the other hand, liking for many foods and drinks seems to be a matter of educated taste; warm English bitter beer, pate de foie gras, caviar, chilli-hot curry, whisky, and so on. And epicurean gourmets with the means to savour such foods will tend to a consensus that overcoming any initial dislike is well worth the effort, and opens up whole vistas of qualitative taste sensation that are no less real for being unappreciated by the rest of us with more mundane needs to spend our money on. Some champagnes just are better than others.

Best wishes, 2RM.