The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 27 times
Contact:

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #11

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

While I agree largely with Divine Insight on this issue, there's a wider perspective that's interesting and it concerns the mental faculties of the one with unbearable pains.

Should we allow the person with unbearable pains to become utterly insane/crazy? I think not. People should be allowed the peaceful death, straight, without anybody having a possibility to object against such as long as this person is found mentally competent (and charitably so too) and circumstances seem reasonable. So the public wins extra humanity in allowing people to die with dignity and in peace as they should! (Not seeking to destroy the minds of these people as they die or any other perverted view!) 8-)
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #12

Post by Bust Nak »

2ndRateMind wrote: 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.
So which one of you is factually incorrect on olives?
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.
So which ones are factually incorrect on caviar?
Some champagnes just are better than others.
So which champagne is factually and objectively the best champagne? The one brand
that one would then be factually incorrect for not liking the taste?

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #13

Post by 2ndRateMind »

[Replying to post 12 by Bust Nak]

Correct/incorrect, true/false, applies to propositions. It does not apply to quantity or quality. Quantities get measured. One does not say; this brick weighs false, or that cable is correct metres long. Similarly with quality, where the appropriate distinction is a matter of appreciation. One does not say of a fine claret that it is true, or that it is 10 seconds of duration. One says, maybe, that it is complex, balanced, and rich.

Of course, to appreciate that complexity, balance, and richness takes experience. But if you do not have the experience, it does not mean that those qualities are not integral to the wine, it just means that you can't appreciate them. The qualities are still there, still objective, and someone else, maybe a connoisseur master of wine, might appreciate them, but you are inadequate to the experience. The fault is not in the wine, but in your lack of ability to be aware of it's quality.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #14

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Bust Nak wrote: Is anything subjective at all?
Sure.

What I think is good is subjective.
What you think is good is subjective.

None of this precludes a moral and/or aesthetic reality, what actually is good, from existing and being objective.

Indeed, humanity's mission, should we choose to accept it, is to disentangle our subjective ideas of the good from what isn't good, and so arrive at what actually is good. Further, the entire history of the world can be construed in this way, and we label the distance we have travelled 'progress'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

imhereforyou
Scholar
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:02 pm

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #15

Post by imhereforyou »

2ndRateMind wrote: ... 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.
With all the talk about free will, freedom and accountability, the life of the individual should be theirs and their decision to make if they want to continue living or not.

None of us know what is beyond death (even though many think they do - you don't). What we BELIEVE (using the word KNOW here is dishonest) is a guess on the best day. So why should someone be so arrogant to think their opinion of what another should do with the other's life is so far past laughable it borders on insanity.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #16

Post by Bust Nak »

2ndRateMind wrote: Correct/incorrect, true/false, applies to propositions. It does not apply to quantity or quality. Quantities get measured. One does not say; this brick weighs false, or that cable is correct metres long. Similarly with quality, where the appropriate distinction is a matter of appreciation. One does not say of a fine claret that it is true, or that it is 10 seconds of duration. One says, maybe, that it is complex, balanced, and rich.
You seems to be accusing me of making a categorical mistake. I have not implied anything along the lines of "this brick weighs false," I am talking about propositions:

Who is factually incorrect re: quantity when one says "this brick weighs 5 kg" and another one says "this brick does not weighs 5 kg?"

Or who is factually incorrect re: quality when one says "this claret is delicious" and another one says "this claret is not delicious?"

Or back to my original question, which out of you and your brother is factually incorrect on the topic of olive taste.
Of course, to appreciate that complexity, balance, and richness takes experience. But if you do not have the experience, it does not mean that those qualities are not integral to the wine, it just means that you can't appreciate them. The qualities are still there, still objective, and someone else, maybe a connoisseur master of wine, might appreciate them, but you are inadequate to the experience. The fault is not in the wine, but in your lack of ability to be aware of it's quality.
So what exactly is happening when a connoisseur master of wine, who is aware of, and acknowledges the complexity, balance, and richness of a particular wine, but still doesn't like it?
What I think is good is subjective.
What you think is good is subjective.

None of this precludes a moral and/or aesthetic reality, what actually is good, from existing and being objective.
That's not saying much. Can I conclude then that you don't think anything is subjective in full sense of the word, along the lines of in my opinion X, therefore X in reality?

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #17

Post by 2ndRateMind »

[Replying to post 16 by Bust Nak]

That's my point. What we like is not necessarily synonymous with its quality. But they do tend to converge with education and experience. It is not wrong to say: I do not like X. What is wrong is to say: Because I do not like X, its quality is just a matter of subjective opinion.
Bust Nak wrote: That's not saying much. Can I conclude then that you ... think ... in my opinion X, therefore X in reality?
I am not so arrogant. But I do think that reconciling our opinions O with R in reality a worthwhile project for anyone and everyone to pursue.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #18

Post by Bust Nak »

2ndRateMind wrote: That's my point. What we like is not necessarily synonymous with its quality. But they do tend to converge with education and experience. It is not wrong to say: I do not like X. What is wrong is to say: Because I do not like X, its quality is just a matter of subjective opinion.
Is the taste of olives, not a quality of olives? If so then surely "I do not like olives" implies "the quality taste is just a matter of subjective opinion." Is that then, not taste subjectivism?
I am not so arrogant. But I do think that reconciling our opinions O with R in reality a worthwhile project for anyone and everyone to pursue.
I am having some doubt as to what your actual stances with given what you said above. You seems to be affirming that taste is subjective.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #19

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Bust Nak wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote: That's my point. What we like is not necessarily synonymous with its quality. But they do tend to converge with education and experience. It is not wrong to say: I do not like X. What is wrong is to say: Because I do not like X, its quality is just a matter of subjective opinion.
Is the taste of olives, not a quality of olives? If so then surely "I do not like olives" implies "the quality taste is just a matter of subjective opinion." Is that then, not taste subjectivism?
You are being equivocal. 'A quality' is an attribute or property. 'The quality' is a degree of merit or value. Whether or not we like an object's properties is not the same as an object's merit. We should not confuse the two.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

Post #20

Post by Bust Nak »

2ndRateMind wrote: You are being equivocal. 'A quality' is an attribute or property. 'The quality' is a degree of merit or value. Whether or not we like an object's properties is not the same as an object's merit. We should not confuse the two.
So what exactly does the statement "I like the taste of this pizza" mean? Is it not a comment on the merit of a pizza?

Post Reply