tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7427642524818482105..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Death with Dignity??? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10256439776068865262021-12-20T02:44:55.815-07:002021-12-20T02:44:55.815-07:00"It was never a simple "Don't kill&q...<i>"It was never a simple "Don't kill", so I wonder why you keep bringing that up."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"If suicide is wrong then assisting suicide is wrong."</i><br /><br />Yes. And if occasionally it is OK, then assisting is OK too.<br /><br /><i>"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. "</i><br /><br />Except we have agreed that sometimes the killing is justified. We only disagree on what those times are.<br /><br /><i>"This is where we disagree. If the doctor primarily intends to kill the patient he is acting immorally."</i><br /><br />Yes, this is where we disagree.<br /><br /><i>"Regardless of our disagreements, I want to thank you for your thoughtful dialog on this and the other topic."</i><br /><br />Thanks you too. I presume you are thinking we have exhausted this subject, and I'm happy to agree there. See you later.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39858346360786909542021-12-19T22:14:56.412-07:002021-12-19T22:14:56.412-07:00Regardless of our disagreements, I want to thank y...Regardless of our disagreements, I want to thank you for your thoughtful dialog on this and the other topic.<br /><br />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! <br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55393399120151070992021-12-19T08:15:48.565-07:002021-12-19T08:15:48.565-07:00I re-read what I wrote to start with. These were ...I re-read what I wrote to start with. These were my first 2 points:<br /><br />1) If suicide is wrong then assisting suicide is wrong.<br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52011032648339756902021-12-19T02:59:02.476-07:002021-12-19T02:59:02.476-07:00Hi, I think you may be thinking in too binary term...Hi, I think you may be thinking in too binary terms, and seeking certainty from me when I haven't expressed certainty.<br /><br /><i>"I think there is an underlying principle at stake and I'm trying to see why we disagree."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"It seems to me that you haven't reached a firm conclusion on self defense"</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"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><br /><br />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".<br /><br /><i>"how killing anyone could ever be considered loving them. Why not apply that same logic here?"</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"Can you find scriptural support for assisted suicide?"</i><br /><br />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.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33528455105449898112021-12-18T18:35:36.636-07:002021-12-18T18:35:36.636-07:00It appeared to me that you were making a qualitati...<b> It appeared to me that you were making a qualitative difference between us, that I was condoning murder, while you weren't.</b><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />(3) In your (1) above, you mentioned how killing anyone could ever be considered loving them. Why not apply that same logic here?<br /><br />Can you find scriptural support for assisted suicide?<br />Elijah prayed that God take his life: I Kings 19:1-14<br />So did Jonah : Jonah 4:3<br /><br />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.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72090374103912751392021-12-18T16:35:07.511-07:002021-12-18T16:35:07.511-07:00"We are in violent agreement and have been fr...<i>"We are in violent agreement and have been from the start."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"I don't understand how "MORE opposed" can be measured in this discussion."</i><br /><br />Yes, this is a bit of a vague statement. My thinking was this.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(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):<br /><br />assisted dying (based on states which already allow it) - maybe 10,000<br />police using lethal force - 1,000<br />people shooting in self defence - 200-300 - but other gun deaths were (approx) accidents 500, criminal 8000, 20,000 suicides<br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />So those are the bases for my comment.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12013741077852236772021-12-18T12:19:33.578-07:002021-12-18T12:19:33.578-07:00All I was trying to get to is that we BOTH agree t...<b>All I was trying to get to is that we BOTH agree that "Don't kill" is NOT an absolute, but can be qualified.</b><br /><br />We are in violent agreement and have been from the start.<br /><br /><b>Now if we can REALLY agree that is the case, then we can discuss which cases are more or less legitimate. Do you agree?</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Here is a statement of your's:<br /><b>And that I am MORE opposed to taking someone else's life than you are, </b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28542153931000465352021-12-17T23:05:11.691-07:002021-12-17T23:05:11.691-07:00"I think you have a better case to convince m...<i>"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><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Now if we can REALLY agree that is the case, then we can discuss which cases are more or less legitimate. Do you agree?unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10811936727964696132021-12-17T22:35:16.176-07:002021-12-17T22:35:16.176-07:00unkleE,
I wonder if you missed that the statement...unkleE,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49231347961119472322021-12-17T21:52:58.679-07:002021-12-17T21:52:58.679-07:00Hello again,
I am going to try to work through th...Hello again,<br /><br />I am going to try to work through this one step at a time. Here's my first step.<br /><br />You have said:<br /><br />* "The principle is that we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being, even ourselves. God made us for a purpose beginning to end."<br />* "We should not intentionally kill an innocent human being If we do, then we are guilty of murder."<br />* "The intentional killing of an innocent person is always wrong. Even in the context of the taking of one's own life."<br />* my view on assisted dying is "ambiguous enough" to suggest moral relativity.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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".<br /><br />Do you agree?<br />unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44594823849299084212021-12-17T21:35:07.467-07:002021-12-17T21:35:07.467-07:00That means there is no ABSOLUTE difference between...<b>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.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77408316798204575142021-12-17T20:00:32.197-07:002021-12-17T20:00:32.197-07:00"the formulation was ambiguous enough to allo...<i>"the formulation was ambiguous enough to allow that interpretation"</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"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."</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />I won't answer your last paragraph yet because I believe the above is the key.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73985957784308100682021-12-17T08:53:52.042-07:002021-12-17T08:53:52.042-07:00unkleE,
I didn't mean to imply that you were ...unkleE,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49973451317352283402021-12-16T22:36:00.665-07:002021-12-16T22:36:00.665-07:00"your formulation allowed for a moral relativ...<i>"your formulation allowed for a moral relativistic interpretation"</i><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"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."</i><br />Well I am surprised you think that because I disagree with you I am unaware of the arguments.<br /><br /><i>"An absolute rule can be applied in every case.<br />"Don't kill" cannot be applied in every case.<br />"Don't kill is not an absolute rule."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So that seems to be the guts of our disagreement, and all other questions are secondary.<br />unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68215818644646315072021-12-16T09:01:29.873-07:002021-12-16T09:01:29.873-07:00THIS is a more detailed explanation of the princip...<a href="https://cacatholic.org/article/frequently-asked-questions-about-end-life-care" rel="nofollow"><b>THIS</b></a> is a more detailed explanation of the principle we've been discussing related specifically to terminally ill patients.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30688119787069412502021-12-16T07:49:29.410-07:002021-12-16T07:49:29.410-07:00How does that have anything to do with stealing?
...<b>How does that have anything to do with stealing?</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Would this be satisfactory? <br /><br />An absolute rule can be applied in every case.<br />"Don't kill" cannot be applied in every case.<br />"Don't kill is not an absolute rule.<br /><br /><b>I wonder if you don't like me drawing attention to the qualification you have made.</b><br /><br />Not at all. Haven't I responded to all of them? Which one did I miss and I'll respond.<br /><br /><b> 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). </b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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?</b><br /><br />I mentioned that starving a person to death was morally unacceptable. I think you missed that.<br />I didn't invent the position I am putting forward. It has a long history. Please read <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/" rel="nofollow"><b>THIS</b></a> 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.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30014838387164546052021-12-15T21:21:58.282-07:002021-12-15T21:21:58.282-07:00"I told you what I thought was wrong with it....<i>"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."</i><br /><br />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 <b>anything</b> to do with stealing?<br /><br />Let's go over it again.<br /><br />We agree "Don't kill" is a strong principle.<br />You said it might be "qualified" by the principle of self defense.<br />Therefore it isn't an absolute rule to be applied in every case.<br /><br />What is wrong with that logic?<br /><br /><i>"The words you use communicate to me the ideas in your mind"</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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"?<br /><br />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?unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2881226361577407622021-12-15T20:41:29.117-07:002021-12-15T20:41:29.117-07:00I know it isn't how you would phrase it, but w...<b>I know it isn't how you would phrase it, but what is actually wrong with it? </b><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>It's just that some words and some formulations are a little worrying to you.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>I don't know about "basic" (I didn't claim that), but they are principles to me.</b><br /><br />A principle is a basic premise. This is statement 1.<br /><br /><b>1. Giving up or taking my own life is not as bad (if it is bad at all) as taking someone else's life.</b><br /><br />What does giving up your own life mean?<br />What criteria is used to determine if that is good or bad?<br />Is it permissible to take someone else's life?<br />If so, when is that permissible?<br />If that is permissible what criteria is used to compare the taking of one's own life as opposed to someone else's life?<br /><br />So I see #4 as a series of related premises and not just a single premise.<br /><br />It's true we have been discussing the individual premises and that is why I suggested we stick to these.<br /><br />What does giving up your own life mean to you? Why is that good or bad and under what circumstances?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14239881620465724072021-12-15T19:58:05.559-07:002021-12-15T19:58:05.559-07:00"That's not how I would phrase it. When i...<i>"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><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"1 and 5 don't seem to be basic principles."</i><br /><br />I don't know about "basic" (I didn't claim that), but they are principles to me.<br /><br /><i>"I think discussing 1 would get to the bottom of how we see things differently."</i><br /><br />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.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10374550255786906922021-12-15T16:44:17.042-07:002021-12-15T16:44:17.042-07:00So I understand you to be saying here that "T...<b>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.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I think discussing 1 would get to the bottom of how we see things differently.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8824327020492600572021-12-15T15:21:53.261-07:002021-12-15T15:21:53.261-07:00"Part of examing different positions is to su...<i>"Part of examing different positions is to suss out the underlying principles at stake."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"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><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>"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."</i><br /><br />You can rest easy. I have said all along that I accept that as a principle. I have said:<br /><br />"As a general rule, I accept it."<br />"we should not intentionally kill an innocent human being UNLESS there is a good reason to do so"<br />"I think your principle is MOSTLY correct, but I'm suggesting it may occasionally be inapplicable."<br />"I cannot see a consistent principle that makes choosing to die in such circumstances always wrong."<br />"Yes, taking life is generally wrong (not always, but almost always). "<br />"the principles, which I generally agree with, are conditional"<br /><br />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?<br /><br />The principles I think may apply here are (in no particular order):<br /><br />1. Giving up or taking my own life is not as bad (if it is bad at all) as taking someone else's life.<br />2. I am responsible to God for my life.<br />3. Avoiding or ameliorating pain is a good thing.<br />4. Human life is a precious thing.<br />5. We should use our life in serving the kingdom of God, and sometimes even lose our life in that cause.<br />6. God is merciful.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70497140302067979682021-12-15T06:42:55.836-07:002021-12-15T06:42:55.836-07:00Part of examing different positions is to suss out...Part of examing different positions is to suss out the underlying principles at stake. That allows us to further refine and qualify our positions.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85679115750187380342021-12-14T22:39:09.986-07:002021-12-14T22:39:09.986-07:00OK, I think that is about as far as we can go. I t...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.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14837557547699537472021-12-14T22:01:44.216-07:002021-12-14T22:01:44.216-07:00The hypothetical of the man drowning is an example...<b>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)</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />Actually my stance is:<br />The intentional killing of an innocent person is always wrong. <br />Even in the context of the taking of one's own life.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Not taking a medication is different from intending to ingest poison to kill a life".<br />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.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8429548719433160052021-12-14T19:56:21.702-07:002021-12-14T19:56:21.702-07:00You have emphasised through this discussion "...You have emphasised through this discussion <i>"the distinction between actively taking a life and allowing someone to die naturally"</i>. The former is, you have assertyed, wrong, while the latter is not. For example you aid: <i>" Not taking a medication is different from intending to ingest poison to kill a life."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />I have given other examples where it works the other way, where actively taking a life may not be wrong.<br /><br />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.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.com