DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Classical Theism
HTML https://classicaltheism.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Philosophy
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10--------------------------------------------------
Mercy killing
By: RomanJoe Date: October 28, 2019, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When is mercy killing permissible if at all? I heard an account
of a WWI soldier lying outside of a trench wheezing with his
lungs hanging out of his chest. His comrade shot him to put him
out of his misery. Of course similar scenarios could be
multiplied--a chronically ill patient in horrible pain, a
hopeless ER case, etc.
#Post#: 11--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mercy killing
By: ClassicalLiberal.Theist Date: October 28, 2019, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
James Rachels book, The Right Thing to Do, covers this subject.
He presents two essays which argue for and against it. The
argument for it, was roughly that it was consensual and it had
no negative external effects. The argument against it, was
essentially that God has complete control over human life and we
have no right to end it, even to "grant mercy". Personally, I
would favor the former argument, but the second one has
something to it I suppose.
#Post#: 12--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mercy killing
By: Ouros Date: October 28, 2019, 3:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't know myself but I think one very important thing to keep
in mind is that the one who's suffering isn't necessarily in the
perfect position to know it himself. Pain can severely difform
our own perception of ourself and condition. Moreover, if the
questions is asked on a juridical ground, we should be aware of
the potential abuses. It's too easy for a society to pretend
that it's mercy to kill the weaks. My country is a victim of
this.
#Post#: 15--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mercy killing
By: Brian Date: November 1, 2019, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think a lot would have to do with the circumstances. The
potential for abuse is massive when you start bringing in other
people to decide who is to be killed.
If it is at the request of a sick person, my thought would be
that it is identical to suicide in every way except you are
asking another human being to fulfill your will for you. At
that point, why not just do it yourself? Perhaps there are some
fringe cases where you can't physically do it, but by and large,
mercy killing just seems to be a roundabout type of suicide.
#Post#: 18--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mercy killing
By: RomanJoe Date: November 2, 2019, 2:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is suicide. But is there ever an ethically sound
circumstance in which suicide is to be permitted?
#Post#: 19--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mercy killing
By: Dominik Date: November 2, 2019, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that the unqualified application of being=goodness
would make, if I ran over a rabbit and its suffering at the side
of the road, me going away and let nature take its course
instead of making it quick and breaking its neck, the morally
superior action?
Of course when we are talking about a human being we talk about
a more important creature with ethical standards. But I think
that in situations where the person is only alive due to
machines or so wounded like in the example above, the patients
wish is more important than the unqualified natural law. Now, as
Brian said, the potential to abuse is massive, and Netherlands
and Belgium are perfect examples of how not to do it.
#Post#: 20--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mercy killing
By: Brian Date: November 2, 2019, 2:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=RomanJoe link=topic=5.msg18#msg18 date=1572680121]
Yes it is suicide. But is there ever an ethically sound
circumstance in which suicide is to be permitted?
[/quote]
I think there is, yes, but I'm not a practicing Christian. If
you are, I think the church has articulated some good reasons
why one ought not commit suicide.
I find the Stoic ideas on the matter to be pretty reasonable.
In general, suicide is bad, especially if it chosen because of
strong emotion. But if you are terminally ill, will experience
immense suffering, large monetary cost to your family, and in
the end are going to die anyway, it seems extremely courageous
to accept your fate, and willingly walk out the door you are
being guided to by your physical situation. Similarly, if I
were to lose all of my mental faculties so that I couldn't
reason, think, or remember, I wouldn't feel particularly
compelled to hold on to the scraps of a life that wouldn't even
be recognizable to the people I knew and loved. Especially if I
am already in old age.
I also don't mean those considerations to be arguments
persuading people to take any particular course in their own
lives. I think that in my own life, even if I didn't want to
kill myself, I would experience a large degree of indignance at
being told by a medical professional, or even a family member,
that I was not permitted to end my own life. This feeling would
be greater to the degree that my life was already ending from an
illness, I think.
The myth that we are radically atomic individuals with no duties
to others should be overcome when thinking about things like
this. A man with little children for instance, who has time to
spend with them, even while terminally ill would be hard pressed
to say he has nothing but pain left in his life. But the
inherent dignity of each individual should allow them some
leeway in the termination of their own life if fate has assigned
them imminent death, or abhorrent conditions as a life-long
sex-slave or some other tragically undignified situation.
#Post#: 21--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mercy killing
By: RomanJoe Date: November 3, 2019, 3:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Catholic Church typically follows a strict interpretation of
natural law theory. The metaphysical realities of the rational
creature, on this view, spill over into the ethical realm.
Earthly life is considered the fundamental creaturely telos, an
inherently good end. Thus to act contrary to it deliberately is
wrong. It would involve us working against our metaphysical
perfection as rational living beings. That said, the Church also
is okay with the use of sedatives and anesthesia to lessen the
pain of those who are close to dying. In doing so this may have
the side effect of shortening life but this would be considered
an unintentional result, because the anesthetic is solely
administered to nullify the pain, not kill the patient.
The Stoics, like you said Brian, have a very attractive
understanding of suicide--one ought to ensure that their life is
in order, that their debts are paid, that their family would be
well-off, before they undergo their demise. Often suicide in
modern times is the radical opposite of this. It's typically the
tragic and unjustified end of a life prompted by a mental
illness or a rampant resentment of reality. And families,
friends, and colleagues feel this pain.
#Post#: 22--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mercy killing
By: Dominik Date: November 3, 2019, 7:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Though I think this interpretation of the natural law is that
way due to man being made in Gods image. Since that prevents any
exclusions from the strict prohibition of abortion, it only
follows that a similarily high view of life is applied when
dealing with suicidal people. This is not so problematic when
the person is able to do it himself, after all no human being
will or can judge you afterward, and if youīre not religious,
you also donīt fear judgment from God. The question becomes way
more complicated if you need assistance. And here the Church
condemnation is consistent with the position on the beginning of
life.
The way I read Brian, the Stoics donīt have the resource on
their own to forbid abortion based on their philosophy, since
based on solely that reasonably the question could be asked if
an abortion due to disease or genetic disorders wouldnīt be the
more mercyful action. Iīm not open to that discussion, period.
#Post#: 23--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mercy killing
By: Brian Date: November 3, 2019, 10:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Dominik link=topic=5.msg22#msg22 date=1572829763]
The way I read Brian, the Stoics donīt have the resource on
their own to forbid abortion based on their philosophy, since
based on solely that reasonably the question could be asked if
an abortion due to disease or genetic disorders wouldnīt be the
more mercyful action. Iīm not open to that discussion, period.
[/quote]
Historically, that is correct. Seneca openly celebrates the
father who leaves the disabled newborn to die, and he does so,
at least seemingly, based on the Stoic conception of natural
law. I'm not well-versed enough in natural law to say anything
about how Stoic natural law differs from something like
Thomist/Catholic natural law, although it would be interesting
to flesh out the differences. I would think it comes down to
what the natural activity and telos of the human being is
conceived to be. For the Stoic it is merely reason (which
includes all of the virtues as species of reason), while I think
the Catholic would ascribe broader essential activity to the
human being. For example, love would seem to be something a
human being naturally and essentially does, that is not merely a
species of reason/reasoning.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page