Saturday, December 11, 2021

Death with Dignity???

 Why is assisted suicide a death with dignity? What does dignity mean here, and does using it in this context fit with the ordinary use of the term? (Or is it just a piece of propaganda?)

47 comments:

unkleE said...

I don't see any in-principle reason why the state should outlaw assisted dying. Of course there have to be safeguards, but why shouldn't a person be allowed to take their own life if they wish? And why shouldn't they seek help if they need it? It is giving them the dignity of choice.

Of course a christian may think that God doesn't wish them to end their life, but that is a different question.

Two factors seem to me to be important.

(1) I wonder how many lives are lost each year to guns, to preventable disease, to war, to motor vehicle accidents and how many would be lost to assisted dying? And of course the question of whether abortion is taking human life, and how those numbers compare. I wonder whether assisted dying is as important an issue as some of the others. (I don't know, so I ask the question.)

(2) Voluntary dying and assisted dying already occur. Anyone who has had an aged relative in a nursing home or in hospital knows that many deaths are "assisted" by withholding treatment apart from palliative care, because that was the person's request. And you could argue that promoting anti-vax views is also a frm of assisted dying, as the unvaccinated are many times (16 times was the latest figure in Sydney where I live) more likely to die of Covid that the vaccinated.

So for all these reasons, I think opposition to assisted dying might be better directed to other issues.

Kevin said...

My issue with assisted dying would be the social forces and industries that would inevitably be brought to bear whose sole purpose would be encouraging people to take that option even when they might otherwise recover from their situation.

bmiller said...

Of course a christian may think that God doesn't wish them to end their life, but that is a different question.

If Christians think that suicide is wrong then it follows that assisting in a suicide is wrong. It is a Christian's duty to prevent what is harmful to people and to society and so it actually is not a different question. Western society has been debasing human dignity for quite some time now starting with most vulnerable on both ends of life.

1) If suicide is an evil, it does not follow that since there is a higher body count from other evils that suicide should be allowed.
2) There is a difference between letting someone die and killing someone.

unkleE said...

I guess my question is, in some circumstances, why is suicide wrong? What is the ethical principle that should be applied here?

And as I have said, we allow it in some circumstances:

* Spies (in the stories anyway) have the ability to suicide if caught.
* Some military actions are little more than "suicide missions".
* Aged care and hospital patients can refuse treatment, effectively committing suicide. (You say "There is a difference between letting someone die and killing someone." but it is a very fine and undefinable line. If intent is more important than the mechanics, then the two are often the same.
* In WW2 a polish priest offered himself in place of a married man that the Nazis were going to kill. (He went on the be sainted, the released man emigrated to Australia after the war, where I read his story.) That is pretty close to suicide in a good cause.
* "Greater love can no person have than give up their life for a friend." Most christians teach that Jesus voluntarily gave up his life.

Now of course we can njustify most or all of these actions, but my point is, thejustification surely shows that blanket disapproval of taking or offering one's own life isn't consistent. And once we allow these cases, surely a terminally ill and suffering person has justification for taking theor own life also?

bmiller said...

What is the ethical principle that should be applied here?

The principle is that we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being, even ourselves. God made us for a purpose beginning to end.

None of the cases (other than the spy) did anyone intentionally kill themselves.
The enemy killed the soldiers.
Terminal patients decided not to use extreme measures to stay alive. The patients committed no act to kill themselves.
The priest did not kill himself. The Nazi's did.
Jesus did not kill himself, the Roman soldiers did.

Do you see the distinction?

unkleE said...

I see the distinction you are making, of course. But I'm suggesting that distinction isn't as important as we might all think. In christian morality as I understand it, intention is more important than action, or at least equally important. So Jesus says hatred is as bad as murder, not of course in its effects in the world, but in its sinfulness to us.

Now if that is the case, it is the INTENTION that is important in each of my examples. And the intention in every case is to die, or to probably die. So I am questioning that the distinction you make is ethically valid.

I also question your statement "we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being". As a general rule, I accept it. I am very close to a christian pacifist. But I also recognise that there will be exceptions, like the classic trolley problem and other hypotheticals where killing someone can prevent many other deaths. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the plot to kill Hitler for example.

So surely the principle is "we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being UNLESS there is a good reason to do so". Which could allow suicide, in the case of painful terminal illness.

Further, I question WHY that principle is true. Taking someone else's life is of course denying them the gift of life God has given them, making decisions that affect THEM. But I'm not sure that ethical principle applies to taking my own life because I am making the decision on my own behalf.

So I see three different arguments that lead me to seriously question the conventional ethic that you are expressing and which for many years I too believed.

Just to be clear, I don't take these matters lightly, I think your principle is MOSTLY correct, but I'm suggesting it may occasionally be inapplicable.

bmiller said...

Now if that is the case, it is the INTENTION that is important in each of my examples. And the intention in every case is to die, or to probably die.

I disagree. The intention in each case is to do the right thing or in some cases the heroic thing. If death comes from doing the right thing, then you have died honorably. If death comes from doing cowardly/immoral things then you have died dishonorably. Even pagans without Christ showing us this understood this much. It's probably why the virtuous pagans of Greece and Rome were attacted to Christianity.

unkleE said...

That still presumes that helping a terminally and seriously suffering patient to end their pain isn't "the right thing". That is what I am contesting. If it can be right to die in other cases, why not here?

bmiller said...

The "trolley problem" is a situation where one or more people will be killed regardless of the action of the subject. So it is not the subject's intent to kill anyone. The only decision is whether the subject is wise enough to decide if he can prevent a certain number of deaths or not. Really though, under duress, time constraints and different human capabilities to react, no one could be blamed for reacting anyway or no way.

However, as a hypothetical situation, one should attempt to prevent the deaths of the most innocent people one can if one has that within one's power.

bmiller said...

That still presumes that helping a terminally and seriously suffering patient to end their pain isn't "the right thing". That is what I am contesting. If it can be right to die in other cases, why not here?

What you are calling "helping a terminally and seriously suffering patient to end their pain" is what everyone else has until recently called killing them. Not somethings Christians throught history have been known to promote.

unkleE said...

Yes, I'm not doubting that it has not been accepted by christians down through the centuries. My question is, with people living longer and more often into advanced age and an existence which can be significantly and painfully prolonged, has the situation changed?

I have been through similar thoughts to the ones you have shared here, and I cannot see a consistent principle that makes choosing to die in such circumstances always wrong.

bmiller said...

unkleE,

We have superior pain management today than ever before in history so if anything people are in less physical pain than ever before.

Besides, I think it would be inconsistent to claim that in the past it was wrong for people to kill themselves but today it is right.

One Brow said...

bmiller,
Do you see the distinction?

It's not sinful to jump off the bridge, because gravity kills you.
It's not sinful to stand on train tracks, because the train kills you.

Yes, the difference is as clear as any point you make.

One Brow said...

Kevin,

I agree that's a serious problem, one I don't have ay solutions for.

oozzielionel said...

The only suggestion that I have is that murder/suicide should at least switch the order.

bmiller said...

unkleE,

Let me take another pass at this:

I have been through similar thoughts to the ones you have shared here, and I cannot see a consistent principle that makes choosing to die in such circumstances always wrong.

Here is the consistent Christian principle from the 10 Commandments:

We should not intentionally kill an innocent human being If we do, then we are guilty of murder.

If you are a Christian, you should realize that you don't "own" your own life. You've been redeemed at a price. That price involved the suffering and death of your Redeemer. Will you suffer in this life? Certainly. But we can follow the lead of the Person we claim to follow and accept our sufferings.

unkleE said...

Hi bmiller, thanks for continuing, I think the discussion is worthwhile.

I think I agree with everything you say here. Everything. But I still don't agree with your conclusions.

First the agreement. (1) Yes, taking life is generally wrong (not always, but almost always). (2) Yes as a christian my life belongs to God. (3) Yes, I will often have to accept suffering of one form or another.

But there are caveats on each of these statements. (1) Taking a life isn't the same as giving up one's life. (2) The fact that my life belongs to God doesn't mean I don't have to make decisions about it. As a parent I have the right and responsibility to make the choice to begin a new life. I make choices that make me healthier and live longer, or not. I can make choices about accepting medication and treatment, or not. I can't see any in-principle reason why those choices cannot ever include voluntary dying. (3) I may have to accept suffering but I am not always required to accept it. Sometimes I take a headache tablet or see my doctor to avoid pain.

So I think it remains your choice and mine.

bmiller said...

unkleE,

From your response, I think our disagreement really stems from your disagreement or misunderstanding about the distinction I'm drawing.

For instance:

(1) If you kill yourself, you are taking a life by not allowing death to naturally come about.
(2) Medication is intended to preserve or prolong life, not end it. Not taking a medication is different from intending to ingest poison to kill a life. Yes, we can make a series of bad health decisions that eventually lead to death, but the people making those bad decisions are seeking some lesser good rather than willing their own death.
(3) Getting a prescription from a doctor to alleviate pain is different from getting a poison to kill yourself.

I know you said that you understood the distinction between actively taking a life and allowing someone to die naturally, but it doesn't look that way from the examples you provide. This distinction is important morally as well as legally.

unkleE said...

Hi, I'm not sure I have much more to say without repeating myself. I will say that I do understand the distinction, but I think it isn't as clear as you say. Take a hypothetical. Someone is drowning in the ocean. I am on a boat that could rescue them but I sail on by. I leave them to drown but I didn't actively take their life. Your distinction appears not to apply here, for I think I would be morally (if not legally) responsible.

In the end you have proposed a number of principles in this discussion. I think I have shown examples in every case where the principle doesn't seem to apply. That means the principles, which I generally agree with, are conditional. And that is all I am claiming. That there are in every case you have proposed situations where the principle appears not to apply, so we can't make hard and fast rules, but take each case on its merits. If we are christians, weighing those merits will include serious prayer and listening to God.

bmiller said...

I really don't understand how you think the boat example proves your point or disproves mine.

Did the drowning person intend to kill himself? If not, then the example is irrelevant to the question of whether it is moral for a person to kill himself.

I'm convinced by your last paragraph that I was indeed correct that you either don't understand the distinction or don't care to understand it. The boat example makes it seem that there is a deeper confusion at play.

Peace.

unkleE said...

You have applied my boat example to the person in the water. But I was illustrating the behaviour of the person who didn't actively kill the drowning man (and hence satisfied your criterion) but IS (IMO) morally responsible if he lets him drown.

bmiller said...

"we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being"

How do you construe your story as an illustration of this principle?

unkleE said...

You have emphasised through this discussion "the distinction between actively taking a life and allowing someone to die naturally". The former is, you have assertyed, wrong, while the latter is not. For example you aid: " Not taking a medication is different from intending to ingest poison to kill a life."

I am saying that distinction isn't clear. I have given quite a few examples that illustrate this. The hypothetical of the man drowning is an example of not taking an action, which therefore doesn't make it wrong (like withholding food to a terminal patient). But I am saying it would be morally wrong for me not to rescue the drowning person if I could, which would make this case contrary to your scheme.

I have given other examples where it works the other way, where actively taking a life may not be wrong.

Conclusion: your scheme of active killing = wrong and passive allowing to die = not wrong breaks down with several examples. It is a good rule of thumb, but not always true.

bmiller said...

The hypothetical of the man drowning is an example of not taking an action, which therefore doesn't make it wrong (like withholding food to a terminal patient)

I assume the drowning man wants and needs help from the person in the boat. I agree with you that the person in the boat should try to help the drowning person live, not die. You misunderstand the context of the distinction I was making if you think this is a counter example to anything I was arguing. BTW, if the patient can process food it is morally wrong to withhold food to kill him. Normally pallative care is administered to patients near the end of life to ease their suffering and that involves administering pain medication. The concern about addiction is less than the good accomplished by pain relief.

Conclusion: your scheme of active killing = wrong and passive allowing to die = not wrong breaks down with several examples. It is a good rule of thumb, but not always true.

Actually my stance is:
The intentional killing of an innocent person is always wrong.
Even in the context of the taking of one's own life.

I did not claim "passive allowing to die = not wrong ". That wouldn't make sense in an unqualified sense due to the fact everyone dies. In the case of a terminally ill patient who can't breath on his own, there is no moral duty to keep him artificially breathing. In the case of not rendering aid to someone about to die in normal circumstances one does have a duty.

"Not taking a medication is different from intending to ingest poison to kill a life".
I'll qualify this since it is possible that one can kill himself intentionally by deciding to do something that maintains his life. So the word unintentional instead of passive is more apt. And by unintentional I don't mean unforeseeable. For instance giving a pain med to a terminal patient is intended to relieve pain, but the side effect may be to hasten death.

unkleE said...

OK, I think that is about as far as we can go. I think there are counter examples to every example you gave, you don't.

bmiller said...

Part of examing different positions is to suss out the underlying principles at stake. That allows us to further refine and qualify our positions.

For instance the statement "Thou shalt not kill" if not further qualified would disallow self-defense which is a human right. I don't think the principle in question is nullified merely by pointing out that we allow self-defense.

There are various acts of evil with various degrees of moral gravity. Examing those various balances allow us to more precisely describe the underlying principle. For instance, I qualified a statement I had made in response to one of your challanges.

I hope you don't think that since you can provide some examples against the unqualified statement "Thou shalt not kill" that there is simply no underlying principle at all.

unkleE said...

"Part of examing different positions is to suss out the underlying principles at stake."

Yes I agree. And I thought we had done that, and found a significant disagreement. But your comments here suggest we may be closer than I thought.

"For instance the statement "Thou shalt not kill" if not further qualified would disallow self-defense which is a human right. I don't think the principle in question is nullified merely by pointing out that we allow self-defense."

I agree. So I understand you to be saying here that "Thou shalt not kill" is a principle, to be considered along with other principles, but not an absolute rule to be applied rigorously in every situation.

"I hope you don't think that since you can provide some examples against the unqualified statement "Thou shalt not kill" that there is simply no underlying principle at all."

You can rest easy. I have said all along that I accept that as a principle. I have said:

"As a general rule, I accept it."
"we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being UNLESS there is a good reason to do so"
"I think your principle is MOSTLY correct, but I'm suggesting it may occasionally be inapplicable."
"I cannot see a consistent principle that makes choosing to die in such circumstances always wrong."
"Yes, taking life is generally wrong (not always, but almost always). "
"the principles, which I generally agree with, are conditional"

So it seems we agree that not taking a life is a principle that may occasionally be over-ridden by other principles. You have suggested one such case: "self-defense which is a human right". So the question becomes, could assisted dying be such a case too?

The principles I think may apply here are (in no particular order):

1. Giving up or taking my own life is not as bad (if it is bad at all) as taking someone else's life.
2. I am responsible to God for my life.
3. Avoiding or ameliorating pain is a good thing.
4. Human life is a precious thing.
5. We should use our life in serving the kingdom of God, and sometimes even lose our life in that cause.
6. God is merciful.

I think the balance of all those principles leads to the general view that life should be preserved and not taken. But I also think it may sometimes allow us to choose to die via medication rather than terminally suffer despite medication. I'm not sure I would ever make that choice, but I'm also not sure I would deny it to others.

It seems to me that these conclusions are consistent with your statements above. You of course you may apply the principles differently, but I hope you can see that what I am wondering is just balancing the principles slightly differently.

bmiller said...

So I understand you to be saying here that "Thou shalt not kill" is a principle, to be considered along with other principles, but not an absolute rule to be applied rigorously in every situation.

That's not how I would phrase it. When it is phrased that way it appears to endorse moral relativism by making murder morally equivalent to every other sin. You can wrong a person in many ways and they can still live their lives. Not so with murder.

The principle phrased that way is probably good enough for the majority of the population as guidance for 99% of the situations they encounter and their ability to understand subtleties.

"You should not intentionally kill an innocent human being" qualifications account for most if not all of those subtleties related to just application of the principle.

So accidentally killing someone is not murder. Killing someone who is not innocent is not murder. Killing a cow is not murder. The examples you provided fall under those categories so that is why I disagreed that they were not exceptions.

There are also various degrees of guilt. In your boat story the guy in the boat may have been guilty of failing to render aid depending on other details. People guilty of pre-meditated murder are more responsible than involuntary manslaughter and so on.

Regarding your list. 1 and 5 don't seem to be basic principles. 1 especially has a lot of content that needs definitions and argumentation on several different topics. I think 1 is your conclusion rather than a principle.

I think discussing 1 would get to the bottom of how we see things differently.

unkleE said...

"That's not how I would phrase it. When it is phrased that way it appears to endorse moral relativism by making murder morally equivalent to every other sin."

I know it isn't how you would phrase it, but what is actually wrong with it? You use the scare words (for christians) of "moral relativism", but the fact is you have already said there are principles that modify "Don't kill", so we are talking about the same thing. It's just that some words and some formulations are a little worrying to you.

"1 and 5 don't seem to be basic principles."

I don't know about "basic" (I didn't claim that), but they are principles to me.

"I think discussing 1 would get to the bottom of how we see things differently."

I think we have been doing that, but have you more to say on it? Don't forget it's only opne of a number of principles I have suggested.

bmiller said...

I know it isn't how you would phrase it, but what is actually wrong with it?

I told you what I thought was wrong with it. Killing someone is worse than stealing from someone. If you actually think that killing and stealing are morally different you should see my point.

It's just that some words and some formulations are a little worrying to you.

Yes, because words and how they are formulated express ideas of the mind that are expressing them. The words you use communicate to me the ideas in your mind. Do you want me to misunderstand you? Then use imprecise language.

I don't know about "basic" (I didn't claim that), but they are principles to me.

A principle is a basic premise. This is statement 1.

1. Giving up or taking my own life is not as bad (if it is bad at all) as taking someone else's life.

What does giving up your own life mean?
What criteria is used to determine if that is good or bad?
Is it permissible to take someone else's life?
If so, when is that permissible?
If that is permissible what criteria is used to compare the taking of one's own life as opposed to someone else's life?

So I see #4 as a series of related premises and not just a single premise.

It's true we have been discussing the individual premises and that is why I suggested we stick to these.

What does giving up your own life mean to you? Why is that good or bad and under what circumstances?

unkleE said...

"I told you what I thought was wrong with it. Killing someone is worse than stealing from someone. If you actually think that killing and stealing are morally different you should see my point."

Let's agree that killing is worse than stealing. I said " "Thou shalt not kill" is a principle, to be considered along with other principles, but not an absolute rule to be applied rigorously in every situation." How does that have anything to do with stealing?

Let's go over it again.

We agree "Don't kill" is a strong principle.
You said it might be "qualified" by the principle of self defense.
Therefore it isn't an absolute rule to be applied in every case.

What is wrong with that logic?

"The words you use communicate to me the ideas in your mind"

I don't want to be rude, but I suspect this isn't always the case. I think the words I use suggest fears and viewpoints you already hold which divert you from what I am actually saying ("moral relativity" is an example, so is your mention of stealing). I am happy for you to choose your own formulation. But in the end, you have said that the don't kill principle can be qualified, and that is all I am saying. I wonder if you don't like me drawing attention to the qualification you have made.

I really doubt answering your questions would help much. In the end, the fact is that you are willing to qualify "Don't kill" for self defence, and (maybe for other cases - I don't know). Our disagreement isn't there, it is simply that I think it may be legitimate to allow it to be qualified in cases of painful terminal illness and you do not.

It might be more helpful to discuss any other qualifications you may allow, and why you don't allow the terminal illness one. For example, do you believe there may be just war and therefore just killing? Do you believe the death sentence can ever be moral? Do you believe police and homeowners should be allowed to use "lethal force"?

Also, why you distinguish between actively promoting the end of life for ageing terminally ill patients and promoting it by neglect (e.g. not feeding) when the intention is the same?

bmiller said...

How does that have anything to do with stealing?

The point I was trying to make was that your formulation allowed for a moral relativistic interpretation. To a moral relativist, there is no hiearchy of moral goods so stealing and murder are basically neutral wrt each other morally. A moral relativist may then argue that it's OK to kill someone who is trying to steal bread.

I don't understand what you mean by "strong principle" in your syllogism. That premise doesn't seem to be the same as what is contained in the conclusion.

Would this be satisfactory?

An absolute rule can be applied in every case.
"Don't kill" cannot be applied in every case.
"Don't kill is not an absolute rule.

I wonder if you don't like me drawing attention to the qualification you have made.

Not at all. Haven't I responded to all of them? Which one did I miss and I'll respond.

In the end, the fact is that you are willing to qualify "Don't kill" for self defence, and (maybe for other cases - I don't know).

I'm surprised that you are unaware of the ethical arguments around when it is morally permissible for 1 person to end another's life. The formulation I gave has historically been intended to cover all possible cases with the qualifications contained in it.

Just War Theory allows for self defense which iscovered by the innocense clause. Death penaly the same. Lethal force is justified as self-defense whether it is a homeowner or anyone else.

Also, why you distinguish between actively promoting the end of life for ageing terminally ill patients and promoting it by neglect (e.g. not feeding) when the intention is the same?

I mentioned that starving a person to death was morally unacceptable. I think you missed that.
I didn't invent the position I am putting forward. It has a long history. Please read THIS to get a detailed understanding of it. This was just the first article that came up in my search engine when I searched for double effect, so I don't necessarily endorse everything in it since I only skimmed it.

bmiller said...

THIS is a more detailed explanation of the principle we've been discussing related specifically to terminally ill patients.

unkleE said...

"your formulation allowed for a moral relativistic interpretation"
OK, let's be clear about the scare words "moral relativism". It si defined as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint". I don't think that, I don't think I have ever said that, I think you have read that into what I say. If I have given any hint of that, I am sorry.

"I'm surprised that you are unaware of the ethical arguments around when it is morally permissible for 1 person to end another's life."
Well I am surprised you think that because I disagree with you I am unaware of the arguments.

"An absolute rule can be applied in every case.
"Don't kill" cannot be applied in every case.
"Don't kill is not an absolute rule."


OK, let's use that. So we are only arguing about which cases the principle "Don't Kill" may not apply. It's a matter of comparing and justifying two slightly different assessments of what might justify killing.

You say self defence, lethal force by police defending themselves or someone else, killing in a just war. That's actually quite a lot of killing - police in the US kill 1000 annually, not sure how many are justified by self defence, but very few are convicted. The Iraq war saw Iaqiu deaths variously estimated from about 50,000 to 500,000 - not sure if you'd consider that a just war.

I am, I think, more opposed to war (I don't believe in just war doctrine for a christian though I can accept it for a secular state, I am generally opposed to lethal force for police, and I don't believe in a christian killing in self defence - though who knows how I'd react under threat?) But I accept the possibility of choosing to end one's life in come circulastances as we've discussed. I would guess, but it's only a guess, that my view would lead to less deaths than yours.

So there seems to be little difference in principle, and some practical reasons to maybe favour my view. I just don't see how and why you might argue differently.

So that seems to be the guts of our disagreement, and all other questions are secondary.

bmiller said...

unkleE,

I didn't mean to imply that you were supporting moral relativism, just that the formulation was ambiguous enough to allow that interpretation. I accept you don't support it.

I think police should be convicted if they killed someone unjustly. You may have a good point that justice is not being served. But the misapplication of a principle does not invalidate the principle. Likewise you have a good point regarding the Iraq War as well as most, if not all the recent wars the US has been involved in. Those may be a good illustration of violation of the Just War principle.

I don't understand how you think those cases assist you in your argument for suicide. If you oppose killing anyone for any reason it follows that you should oppose killing yourself.

See the second link regarding assisted suicide, which after all is what the OP is about. It would be interesting to see which arguments you support and which you oppose.

unkleE said...

"the formulation was ambiguous enough to allow that interpretation"

I didn't think so, and I do t5hink that fear and "thin edge of the wedge" arguments are generally not helpful, but since I am happy to accept your summary, there's no problem.

"I don't understand how you think those cases assist you in your argument for suicide. If you oppose killing anyone for any reason it follows that you should oppose killing yourself."

Again, this mis-states the issue. We both oppose kiliing for MOST cases, but we allow it for some. I am just continually drawing your attention to thet fact that your opposition to killing isn't absolute, just as mine isn't. And I'm suggesting that your opposition may actually be slightly weaker than mine overall.

That means there is no ABSOLUTE difference between us on killing, there is just a difference in the cases in which we are willing to let go of the "Don't kill" principle. And that I am MORE opposed to taking someone else's life than you are, but LESS opposed to taking one's own life. You seem to be really struggling with those thoughts.

I won't answer your last paragraph yet because I believe the above is the key.

bmiller said...

That means there is no ABSOLUTE difference between us on killing, there is just a difference in the cases in which we are willing to let go of the "Don't kill" principle. And that I am MORE opposed to taking someone else's life than you are, but LESS opposed to taking one's own life. You seem to be really struggling with those thoughts.

I don't find discussing ideas a struggle with reasonable people, but rather a chance to clarify where we agree and disagree. If we end up disagreeing, so be it.

Regarding your more or less argument. I don't think it should be a contest. I think it we should both defend what we think is right. It's unclear to me if you think self-defense is morally acceptable and under what conditions. You claim you are MORE opposed to killing other people than I am but I don't know if that is true categorically.

It's true that I'm arguing against people taking their own lives. I think it is immoral. But really neither I or the law cannot prevent someone from doing that. Assisted suicide is what the OP is about and that involves second parties and their moral responsibilities. It is my moral responsibility as a Christian to refuse to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The question seems to me that you are arguing that it is the Christian duty to kill people who request it rather than the opposite.

unkleE said...

Hello again,

I am going to try to work through this one step at a time. Here's my first step.

You have said:

* "The principle is that we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being, even ourselves. God made us for a purpose beginning to end."
* "We should not intentionally kill an innocent human being If we do, then we are guilty of murder."
* "The intentional killing of an innocent person is always wrong. Even in the context of the taking of one's own life."
* my view on assisted dying is "ambiguous enough" to suggest moral relativity.

These are strong sounding statements. Yet in discussion, you have agreed that "Don't kill is not an absolute rule" and "the statement "Thou shalt not kill" if not further qualified would disallow self-defense which is a human right."

So I think you have agreed with this proposition: "there is no ABSOLUTE difference between us on killing, there is just a difference in the cases in which we are willing to let go of the "Don't kill" principle".

Do you agree?

bmiller said...

unkleE,

I wonder if you missed that the statements of mine that you quoted included the qualifications of "innocence" and "intentionality". So of course I agree "Don't kill is not an absolute rule" otherwise I would not have included those qualifications.

I think you have a better case to convince me that it is wrong to ever kill anyone than it is to kill anyone other than one's self.

unkleE said...

"I think you have a better case to convince me that it is wrong to ever kill anyone than it is to kill anyone other than one's self."

I think you misunderstand. I have no aprticular wish to convince you of that. I responded to Vic's post, and you have been questioning me and I have been answering and explaining.

All I was trying to get to is that we BOTH agree that "Don't kill" is NOT an absolute, but can be qualified. That is an important step to agree on. because then it takes away any high moral ground either of us might occupy. It takes away any sense of one person being in principle unfaithful to God or to the scripture. We are both in the same boat.

So yuo cannot fairly criticise me for suggesting taking human life is OK when we are both suggesting the same thing, it's just the cases that differ.

Now if we can REALLY agree that is the case, then we can discuss which cases are more or less legitimate. Do you agree?

bmiller said...

All I was trying to get to is that we BOTH agree that "Don't kill" is NOT an absolute, but can be qualified.

We are in violent agreement and have been from the start.

Now if we can REALLY agree that is the case, then we can discuss which cases are more or less legitimate. Do you agree?

I think we have been discussing that haven't we? I'm just trying to understand your position and see if I consider it coherent.

Here is a statement of your's:
And that I am MORE opposed to taking someone else's life than you are,

I don't understand how "MORE opposed" can be measured in this discussion. You've told me that you make exceptions for taking another's life but it's unclear to me what those cases are. Self defense? You haven't given me a direct answer, only that police are rarely convicted of murder and there are unjust wars. Are you arguing therefore that self-defense is immoral? I honestly can't tell.

However you arrive at your reason either for or against self-defense, I think we can use that reasoning and compare it to the morality of assisted suicide. If not, why not?

unkleE said...

"We are in violent agreement and have been from the start."

I'm glad you see it that way, but it wasn't how it appeared to me. It appeared to me that you were making a qualitative difference between us, that I was condoning murder, while you weren't. I felt it was important to establish we were in similar positions, and the difference were matters of detail. If we have put that behind us, then I am happy to discuss further.

"I don't understand how "MORE opposed" can be measured in this discussion."

Yes, this is a bit of a vague statement. My thinking was this.

(1) Jesus said to love enemies and pray for them, to turn the other cheek and not to resist an evil person. Whatever those statements mean and however we may think they should be applied, it is hard to see how killing an enemy can be loving them, and hard to justify lethal force self defence as a christian. So I am generally a pacifist and hope I would never be drawn into war, lethal self defence or even owning a gun. While I would also be reluctant to participate in assisted dying, I am reluctant to deny it to others, and I have actually given permission for an aged relative to voluntarily receive no further treatment when they refused to eat (based on their own permission given to me) - and I see that as very little different to assisted dying.

(2) There is (I believe) a qualitative difference in the number of people who we would allow or cause to die if everyone followed our ethical feelings. I have done a quick check, and it seems the number of deaths in or caused by the US annuallyfrom the various causes are (order of magnitude only):

assisted dying (based on states which already allow it) - maybe 10,000
police using lethal force - 1,000
people shooting in self defence - 200-300 - but other gun deaths were (approx) accidents 500, criminal 8000, 20,000 suicides
killed in or by army in wars - hard to get average, but this century it is about 15,000-20,000 per year on average (mostly Iraq and Afghanistan)

Thus on a quanittative basis the deaths you "allow" add up to more than the deaths I'd allow, though this is a very roung estimation.

(3) Assisted dying doesn't take anyone's life against their will, but allows people to make a choice. Whatever the ethics of taking or allowing death, forcing death on someone else is surely much worse that assisting them according to their will. I can't see how this principle can be disputed. It is the basis of laws against forcing people to do all sorts of things against their will - e.g. rape, kidnapping, coercion, blackmail, etc as well as murder.

So those are the bases for my comment.

bmiller said...

It appeared to me that you were making a qualitative difference between us, that I was condoning murder, while you weren't.

I think there is an underlying principle at stake and I'm trying to see why we disagree. Certainly I don't think either of us want to condone murder.

Regarding your (1). It seems to me that you haven't reached a firm conclusion on self defense. Is that true? That would explain why I'm having trouble understanding your stance.

Regarding (2). I don't see how I "allow" those deaths and you don't unless you oppose lethal self-defense full stop. See my response to (1) above.
There are a couple other considerations regarding (2). First, why would you think I support unjust wars? I don't. Were each of the occasions of police using lethal force justified? If not, then I oppose it. Same with citizens defending themselves.

(3) In your (1) above, you mentioned how killing anyone could ever be considered loving them. Why not apply that same logic here?

Can you find scriptural support for assisted suicide?
Elijah prayed that God take his life: I Kings 19:1-14
So did Jonah : Jonah 4:3

Neither killed himself because they knew that only God could rightfully take their life. And God didn't do it at that time even though they wanted to die.

unkleE said...

Hi, I think you may be thinking in too binary terms, and seeking certainty from me when I haven't expressed certainty.

"I think there is an underlying principle at stake and I'm trying to see why we disagree."

At the start, you seemed willing to criticise my view without recognising that your view was actually similar. Now we understand that both of us believe "Don't kill" is a good principle, but there may be occasions when othe rprinciples apply. We just disagree on what those principles might be.

"It seems to me that you haven't reached a firm conclusion on self defense"

I haven't reached a firm conclusion on any of this. I keep saying I am uncertain but I am tending to think in a perticular way. As a christian, I think I should kill or even be violent in self defence, though I can't say if I would obey that in the heat of the moment. Less violent forms of self defence are OK and sensible, I think.

"why would you think I support unjust wars? I don't. Were each of the occasions of police using lethal force justified? If not, then I oppose it. Same with citizens defending themselves."

I don't think any of those things about you. I am just trying to scope the magnitude of the different ways one or the other of us might allow killing. And thus explain one reason why I think my view may be more opposed to killing than yours is. But I only say "may".

"how killing anyone could ever be considered loving them. Why not apply that same logic here?"

I'm so glad you said this, because it makes it clear I haven't sufficiently stressed one important factor. A doctor assisting in assisted dying isn't killing anyone, they are assisting someone who chooses to tend their own life because it is painful and terminal. So it isn't in the same class as taking someone's life against their will. I have said this before, but I need to stress it. If I ever helped a person to die in that way, it would be out of love for them.

There's an example in the Australian book (and Russell Crowe movie) "The Water Diviner" where two brothers are in WW1 and one is injured suffering and can't be rescued. He pleads with his brother to shoot him to get it over with quickly, and his brother does so because he loves him.

"Can you find scriptural support for assisted suicide?"

No. It is a complex question. But as I've said, Jesus chose to die, and we are called to always act out of love, even towards enemies. That principle can be applied to assisted dying, but can rarely be applied to war or lethal force.

bmiller said...

I re-read what I wrote to start with. These were my first 2 points:

1) If suicide is wrong then assisting suicide is wrong.
2) The principle is that we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being, even ourselves. God made us for a purpose beginning to end.

You can see the formulation I've used from the beginning. It was never a simple "Don't kill", so I wonder why you keep bringing that up. You've provided some examples where you think it was OK to kill someone (I think) or that someone chose and action and they died as a result of that action. I've attempted to tell you how they fit in or not with the formulation I have been using. I don't remember that you've engaged with any of those specific responses.

I'll go over the general idea again. Jesus did not want to die (he prayed for that), he wanted to free people from sin. Maximillian Kolbe did not want to die, he wanted his fellow prisoner to provide for his family. In both cases the intent was not to kill themselves but for another good although they could forsee they would die. If they wanted to kill themselves they could have just hung themselves like Judas. Soldiers shooting at you or someone trying to kill you are not considered innocent.

I've pointed out that I'm following the principle of double-effect. It morality hinges on the intent of agent. If the primary intent is to kill someone then it is immoral.


A doctor assisting in assisted dying isn't killing anyone, they are assisting someone who chooses to tend their own life because it is painful and terminal. So it isn't in the same class as taking someone's life against their will. I have said this before, but I need to stress it. If I ever helped a person to die in that way, it would be out of love for them.

This is where we disagree. If the doctor primarily intends to kill the patient he is acting immorally. The doctor may think he is doing good, but everyone thinks they are doing something good when they take an action. I agree that there are subleties and there is an entire industry of hospice care to address those that have been influenced by historical Christian thinking. I prefer to consider the baby before I throw out the bathwater.

BTW, I don't think Hollywood is a good source for moral decisions. They routinely create a stories that makes good look evil and evil look good.

bmiller said...

Regardless of our disagreements, I want to thank you for your thoughtful dialog on this and the other topic.

It's interesting to me to hear what people honestly believe. Maybe we actually agree and we just don't realise it? Or maybe we don't and then it may be even more interesting. There are many more questions then!

unkleE said...

"It was never a simple "Don't kill", so I wonder why you keep bringing that up."

Yes, I knew that. It was just abbreviation. We both agree "don't kill" is a good principle but not a rule. Your formulation ("we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being, even ourselves") says the same thing but not quite so briefly.

"If suicide is wrong then assisting suicide is wrong."

Yes. And if occasionally it is OK, then assisting is OK too.

"I've pointed out that I'm following the principle of double-effect. It morality hinges on the intent of agent. If the primary intent is to kill someone then it is immoral. "

Except we have agreed that sometimes the killing is justified. We only disagree on what those times are.

"This is where we disagree. If the doctor primarily intends to kill the patient he is acting immorally."

Yes, this is where we disagree.

"Regardless of our disagreements, I want to thank you for your thoughtful dialog on this and the other topic."

Thanks you too. I presume you are thinking we have exhausted this subject, and I'm happy to agree there. See you later.