Can someone give me a secular argument against euthanasia?

[Betterave]

I do not suppose you are naive at all. Frankly when I’m not having periods of suicidal ideation I don’t think about it much but honestly I don’t know that I could come up with a good way to properly kill myself. I am hesitant to give the full list for fear of giving people ideas but yes, I am by no means confident in my ability to complete a suicide.

Here’s how I look at it: I know enough stories of suicide to know that it is an act that *can *be completed by all sorts of not-especially-competent people. If I thought that suicide was (or, in the right circumstances, could be) an option for me, I would be sure to have a plan formulated in my lucid moments that I could easily recall and enact in my not-so-lucid moments (kind of like knowing where the fire escape is or how to perform the Heimlich manoeuvre). I don’t actually bother thinking much about the technical question, but only because it is rendered moot for me by the way I have resolved the moral question. How does this work for you?

Please see below.

I’m sorry for the confusion, I was not trying to say there legislators have an a priori claim to have a better claim on this issue. I was just saying that I do not know ‘what… are the criteria that one must fulfill’ to make a claim for physician assisted suicide and I think the laws that exist now would be a good jumping off point to answer your question. I think my very rough answer would be that an individuals desire to end his or her life should not be the result of a diagnosable psychological disorder (especially depressive and anxiety disorders) and that the individual ought to be able to understand the impact of his or her decision. To be frank, I do have the training to answer the questions I’ve emphatically answered regarding the right to die but am less qualified to answer the psychological and legal ones–and hence less confident in doing so.

I am not seeing what the qualification “a priori” adds to your claim. How is the a posteriori case (= what, exactly?) different? Could you tell me what your training is that allows you to answer the question you have emphatically answered (namely(?), suicide is a morally legitimate choice and suicide-assistance should be legally sanctioned) - and, if it isn’t obvious, how it is that this training has qualified you to answer these questions?

What makes the situation interesting? If we can’t know what they’re thinking because they’ve been brain damaged into severe retardation by the attempt then we probably oughtn’t to–at least barring an advanced directive; I for one know I would never want to live like that (via suicide attempt or accident). If we know and they’re not saying they don’t want to die then we oughtn’t to for the obvious reason that they’re saying they don’t want to die. Frankly, I’m not sure what conditions would make this an interesting question. Can you? (Not asked sarcastically or argumentatively; sometimes I hate that tone doesn’t carry via text).

I was just curious about this one, I don’t know that it really matters. I was thinking if you found someone with a suicide note, unconscious, and part of their jaw blown off, would it be okay to pick up the gun and unload a few where it counts? Or if someone jumped off a short cliff, again, with a suicide note, and you found them on the rocks still breathing, would it be right to affirm their choice by bashing their head in with a boulder?

I thought you were saying that part of the reason one shouldn’t have a right to die is because it damages other peoples’ lives. I don’t at all; it’s probably not the best action morally speaking but divorce exists for a reason. **[Obviously. But laws *against **divorce have also existed for “a reason.”]

People can have good reasons for not wanting other people to know they are alive (e.g. abusive and stalking exes) but these cases are rather rare but frankly assuming one is not violating any other laws I don’t see a reason for walking out of one’s life to be illegal. Then again I also think personal use of drugs and prostitution should also be legal. The list is longer but I think those two illustrate a libertarian philosophy regarding social issues.

Wow, okay… I guess you *would *advocate the legality of physician-assisted heroine use.

So what constitutes a good reason for something being illegal in your view? (Presumably some ‘libertarian’ reason - but I’ll let you tell me how it goes before critiquing it.)

 

[ThomasToo]

Here’s how I look at it: I know enough stories of suicide to know that it is an act that *can *be completed by all sorts of not-especially-competent people. If I thought that suicide was (or, in the right circumstances, could be) an option for me, I would be sure to have a plan formulated in my lucid moments that I could easily recall and enact in my not-so-lucid moments (kind of like knowing where the fire escape is or how to perform the Heimlich manoeuvre). I don’t actually bother thinking much about the technical question, but only because it is rendered moot for me by the way I have resolved the moral question. How does this work for you?

I lack access to the traditional means of suicide and am dubious that I would hang myself properly or simply break both my legs and experience non-lethal brain damage after a jump from my roof. Frankly these three facts are probably major contributors to my ability to have this conversation.

I am not seeing what the qualification “a priori” adds to your claim. How is the a posteriori case (= what, exactly?) different? Could you tell me what your training is that allows you to answer the question you have emphatically answered (namely(?), suicide is a morally legitimate choice and suicide-assistance should be legally sanctioned) - and, if it isn’t obvious, how it is that this training has qualified you to answer these questions?

I meant that it’s not as though a legislator, upon his or her election, is magically imparted with the knowledge to answer these questions but I hope/think/assume legislators have read the relevant research though this may be naive of me.

My qualifications are substantive philosophy and bioethics work as an undergraduate, a MA in ‘Moral Theology/Ethics,’ and a certification as an online suicide prevention specialist (i.e. online crisis line worker).

I was just curious about this one, I don’t know that it really matters. I was thinking if you found someone with a suicide note, unconscious, and part of their jaw blown off, would it be okay to pick up the gun and unload a few where it counts? Or if someone jumped off a short cliff, again, with a suicide note, and you found them on the rocks still breathing, would it be right to affirm their choice by bashing their head in with a boulder?

I don’t think a suicide note would fill the niche of an advanced directive so no.

Wow, okay… I guess you *would *advocate the legality of physician-assisted heroine use.

I’d actually go so far as to say unassisted heroin use–I think heroine use is best left to princes after they slay the dragon =P–assuming it is accompanied by existing laws involving operation of heavy machinery (including automobiles) and the like while under the influence.

So what constitutes a good reason for something being illegal in your view? (Presumably some ‘libertarian’ reason - but I’ll let you tell me how it goes before critiquing it.)

It is indeed the libertarian one; government exists to protect us from one another so illegal acts ought only to be those where we damage another or his or her property. I do not think the case we created–again assuming existing laws about child support payments, alimony and fraud are respected–represents a demonstrable harm to another. Government ought to protect as much freedom as possible and this is one of those cases.

 

[Betterave]

I lack access to the traditional means of suicide and am dubious that I would hang myself properly or simply break both my legs and experience non-lethal brain damage after a jump from my roof. Frankly these three facts are probably major contributors to my ability to have this conversation.

Well you continue to surprise me. What do you mean by “traditional means”?

I meant that it’s not as though a legislator, upon his or her election, is magically imparted with the knowledge to answer these questions but I hope/think/assume legislators have read the relevant research though this may be naive of me.

I think it is naive of you (and obviously so).

This seems to be your position: IF (research), THEN (knowledge to answer suicide question). Would you make this assumption about any other issue? If (research), then (knowledge to answer question whether God exists). If (reasearch), then (knowledge to assess the claims of libertarianism).

The obvious question here: what is the “relevant research” and how are the relevant conclusions derived from that research?

My qualifications are substantive philosophy and bioethics work as an undergraduate, a MA in ‘Moral Theology/Ethics,’ and a certification as an online suicide prevention specialist (i.e. online crisis line worker).

Okay and I’ll repeat my second question: how it is that this training has qualified you to answer these questions?

I’d actually go so far as to say unassisted heroin use–I think heroine use is best left to princes after they slay the dragon =P–assuming it is accompanied by existing laws involving operation of heavy machinery (including automobiles) and the like while under the influence.

Princes? Dragon? Sorry, you lost me.

It is indeed the libertarian one; government exists to protect us from one another so illegal acts ought only to be those where we damage another or his or her property. I do not think the case we created–again assuming existing laws about child support payments, alimony and fraud are respected–represents a demonstrable harm to another. Government ought to protect as much freedom as possible and this is one of those cases.

Well that is obviously a very questionable claim about “demonstrable harm.”

 

[ThomasToo]

Well you continue to surprise me. What do you mean by “traditional means”?

I hope that’s a good thing… I mean we don’t keep guns in the house and I wouldn’t have the first idea where to procure drugs of any sort (especially hard drugs).

This seems to be your position: IF (research), THEN (knowledge to answer suicide question). Would you make this assumption about any other issue? If (research), then (knowledge to answer question whether God exists). If (reasearch), then (knowledge to assess the claims of libertarianism).

The obvious question here: what is the “relevant research” and how are the relevant conclusions derived from that research?

I think ‘relevant research’ means as much research as possible on the issue at question. With what could be termed the ‘gods question’ it would be metaphysics, epistemology, physics, biology and cosmology (amongst other subjects perhaps, this list is off the cuff) while for the question of libertarianism it would be political philosophy, psychology, sociology and political history.

I think the conclusions are based also on a solid grounding in formal logic and a coherent ability to reason but I think having done studying on the issues is important and frankly necessary to have a well-informed stance on any issue.

Okay and I’ll repeat my second question: how it is that this training has qualified you to answer these questions?

I think I answered this above, if you don’t think I did please tell me.

Princes? Dragon? Sorry, you lost me.

Sorry, I was having a little fun at your expense. You said ‘heroine’ (as opposed to ‘heroin’).

Well that is obviously a very questionable claim about “demonstrable harm.”

I probably ought to have said ‘demonstrable physical harm.’

 

[Betterave]

I hope that’s a good thing… I mean we don’t keep guns in the house and I wouldn’t have the first idea where to procure drugs of any sort (especially hard drugs).

Sometimes I feel like I don’t even know you any more! Anyway, I guess you probably know more of the facts than I do, but sometimes knowing facts can stunt your creativity. This line of conversation is unpleasantly macabre and I can only come back to the same point with the same incredulity so many times, but still: if you were (are) really resolved, don’t you think you could get around the impediments you mention?

I think ‘relevant research’ means as much research as possible on the issue at question. With what could be termed the ‘gods question’ it would be metaphysics, epistemology, physics, biology and cosmology (amongst other subjects perhaps, this list is off the cuff) while for the question of libertarianism it would be political philosophy, psychology, sociology and political history.

I think the conclusions are based also on a solid grounding in formal logic and a coherent ability to reason but I think having done studying on the issues is important and frankly necessary to have a well-informed stance on any issue.

I think I answered this above, if you don’t think I did please tell me.

Well the strange consequence of what you have claimed seems to be that conscientious elected legislators are in a position to pronounce legislatively upon the God-question. You seem to require a philosopher-king a la Plato. Is that your position?

I think you inevitably rely on an invalid appeal to authority here. Can you see why that might be the case?

Sorry, I was having a little fun at your expense. You said ‘heroine’ (as opposed to ‘heroin’).

Ah, I see, very good!

I probably ought to have said ‘demonstrable physical harm.’

Still very questionable, both as to the fact (unless you want to add the further precision: ‘immediately demonstrable (i.e., easily observable) physical (as in bodily) harm’), and as to the defensibility (and consistency) of your restriction of the function of laws.

 

[ThomasToo]

Sometimes I feel like I don’t even know you any more! Anyway, I guess you probably know more of the facts than I do, but sometimes knowing facts can stunt your creativity. This line of conversation is unpleasantly macabre and I can only come back to the same point with the same incredulity so many times, but still: if you were (are) really resolved, don’t you think you could get around the impediments you mention?

I don’t feel confident that I could complete a suicide, no. Then again, I’m still alive.

Well the strange consequence of what you have claimed seems to be that conscientious elected legislators are in a position to pronounce legislatively upon the God-question. You seem to require a philosopher-king a la Plato. Is that your position?

Oh, I’m sorry for the confusion. On questions of laws I trust legislators have done relevant research. On the god question I hope philosophers, theologians, ahem certain biologists and others trying to speak authoritatively on them have done the relevant research. I don’t think questions of metaphysics are really in the legal realm.

I think you inevitably rely on an invalid appeal to authority here. Can you see why that might be the case?

I can see how you could get there but I suppose I’m not being clear–either in writing or to myself. I think my main point is people ought to have relevant data (and a grounding in logic) to be able to make right (in the sense of being informed and flowing from the data) statements of opinion. In this sense, we could both be right if we’re both basing our arguments in statements of fact and extracting principles from them without fallacy. Did that make any sense?

Still very questionable, both as to the fact (unless you want to add the further precision: ‘immediately demonstrable (i.e., easily observable) physical (as in bodily) harm’), and as to the defensibility (and consistency) of your restriction of the function of laws.

I don’t know that immediacy is necessarily relevant. A slow acting poison or the careful application of mercury to an individual to decrease mental capacity over the course of months ought still to be illegal even though it is hardly immediate. I would probably grant ‘observable’ but not ‘easily.’ I’m not sure I followed the last part of what you said ‘and as to the defensibility (and consistency) of your restriction of the function of laws.’ Care to elaborate?

 

[ZDHayden]

The Canadian House of Commons defeated a euthanasia bill the other day and many people are shouting “NOOOOOOOOOO!!!” Some people have said “my life, my choice”. I have to admit, that’s a compelling argument. I often say unnatural deaths are against human nature, but can any of you give me secular reasons to oppose euthanasia?

Recent studies have shown that people who are in a coma or in a vegetative state can hear and understand human interaction. This indicates that there is always a chance of recovery. You cannot recover from death.

 

[ThomasToo]

Recent studies have shown that people who are in a coma or in a vegetative state can hear and understand human interaction. This indicates that there is always a chance of recovery. You cannot recover from death.

Actually… that indicates they may hear and understand human interaction. It does not imply there is always a chance of recovery. Aside from which that’s not really the point; I know I wouldn’t want to live with a sever mental handicap so why shouldn’t I have the right to write an advanced directive that includes that?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Search information on the Netherlands. Euthanasia has been legal there for quite some time. As time goes on it gets easier and easier to kill people. WITHOUT their permission. OSV has done some excellant articles on it. One story was about a Catholic nun who was euthanized by a doctor who said he did it because he felt she didn’t ask because of her faith. duh! As far as I know he was not charged with any crime. Some research says that 1000’s are killed every year without their permission. Life gets cheaper and cheaper. One doctor killed his newborn son because he was had Downs. No punishment because the court said he felt he was doing what was best for the child.
Euthanasia targets the sick , the elderly, the disabled. Eventually making it a duty to die In the end people don’t need a law to kill themselves. The means are all around them.
Sorry this was a little disjointed. I have distractions around me but this is a subject that I am very passionate about and wanted to(hopefully) give you some help.

I trust you can provide documentation to support these allegations?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Recent studies have shown that people who are in a coma or in a vegetative state can hear and understand human interaction. This indicates that there is always a chance of recovery. You cannot recover from death.

Death is nothing to be afraid of. Being experimented on by palsied butchers in the run up to your death as they prolong the agony for as long as possible at all costs is something to be very afraid of.

I’ve seen two of my relatives spend years under a doctors knife. It was absolutely horrendous. My grandmother had complications with diabetes type II… They hacked her body to pieces over eighteen months or so. My uncle lived for three years with terminal cancer with absolutely no hope of recovery.

Both of them could have been spared appalling suffering much worse than death were it not for the meddling of those who falsely believe they have the wisdom to take other people’s moral inventory for them.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Actually… that indicates they may hear and understand human interaction. It does not imply there is always a chance of recovery. Aside from which that’s not really the point; I know I wouldn’t want to live with a sever mental handicap so why shouldn’t I have the right to write an advanced directive that includes that?

Amen to that brother!

 

[Betterave]

I don’t feel confident that I could complete a suicide, no. Then again, I’m still alive.

“Then again…”? I’m confused.

Oh, I’m sorry for the confusion. On questions of laws I trust legislators have done relevant research. On the god question I hope philosophers, theologians, ahem certain biologists and others trying to speak authoritatively on them have done the relevant research. I don’t think questions of metaphysics are really in the legal realm.

The problem as I see it is that the very question as to what constitutes the relevant research seems to be a matter of dispute. So if we can’t tackle that more fundamental question directly, it makes no sense to appeal to some “higher-order” line of inquiry/deliberation to help us with this, when that higher-order (positive law) question absolutely depends on having the fundamental principles in place in terms of which the legal deliberations will operate.

I can see how you could get there but I suppose I’m not being clear–either in writing or to myself. I think my main point is people ought to have relevant data (and a grounding in logic) to be able to make right (in the sense of being informed and flowing from the data) statements of opinion. In this sense, we could both be right if we’re both basing our arguments in statements of fact and extracting principles from them without fallacy. Did that make any sense?

I think so, but my point is that both of us being ‘right’ doesn’t help us in answering the question. And the same applies to legislators with opposing informed opinions. So I don’t know what good it is to appeal to this kind of consideration.

I don’t know that immediacy is necessarily relevant. A slow acting poison or the careful application of mercury to an individual to decrease mental capacity over the course of months ought still to be illegal even though it is hardly immediate. I would probably grant ‘observable’ but not ‘easily.’ I’m not sure I followed the last part of what you said ‘and as to the defensibility (and consistency) of your restriction of the function of laws.’ Care to elaborate?

Quite right, but I didn’t mean temporally immediate or easily observable in a crudely sensory sense of the term. I meant ‘logically’ immediate, as in uncontroversial, unmistakable, ‘easily observable’ and obvious to all of us without our needing to make any logical connections that would require a more than superficial reflection on the notion of ‘harm.’

You wrote:
“It is indeed the libertarian one; government exists to protect us from one another so illegal acts ought only to be those where we [physically] damage another or his or her property. I do not think the case we created–again assuming existing laws about child support payments, alimony and fraud are respected–represents a demonstrable [physical] harm to another. Government ought to protect as much freedom as possible and this is one of those cases.”

I questioned “the defensibility (and consistency) of your restriction of the function of laws.” The main problem that comes to mind is that the terms you use are very abstract and they are consistent with any number of contradictory concrete particular results on questions such as divorce, contraception, or euthanasia. You want to declare (without justification) that legally prohibited harms must be physical harms, but this includes harm to property and long-term, not-immediately-obvious harms, which opens up a huge can of casuistical worms. In any case, I question the apparent arbitrariness of this declaration and I question whether it is something you are consistent in supporting (or if that is even possible, given its vagueness).

 

[Betterave]

Actually… that indicates they may hear and understand human interaction. It does not imply there is always a chance of recovery. Aside from which that’s not really the point; I know I wouldn’t want to live with a sever mental handicap so why shouldn’t I have the right to write an advanced directive that includes that?

I know I too wouldn’t want to live without many things - books, donuts, my health, my wife and sons, my faculties, etc. Not controversial. But what you mean to say is that you think you would rather die than live severely mentally handicapped. (Not so obvious - presumably you’ve never tried it.) So you think you have the right to an advance directive, granting another human being the *right *to kill you and creating a situation where another person will inevitably feel a moral pressure *to *kill you. (Very controversial indeed!)

The questions arise: Do you have great contempt for/horror of/aversion to the severely mentally handicapped? Or do you think they are deserving of respect, even love? Do you think the world is better off without them, or just better off without you being one of them?

 

[ThomasToo]

I know I too wouldn’t want to live without many things - books, donuts, my health, my wife and sons, my faculties, etc. Not controversial.

That’s very controversial. You would rather die than never eat another doughnut?

But what you mean to say is that you think you would rather die than live severely mentally handicapped. (Not so obvious - presumably you’ve never tried it.) So you think you have the right to an advance directive, granting another human being the *right *to kill you and creating a situation where another person will inevitably feel a moral pressure *to *kill you. (Very controversial indeed!)

I think I have the right to an advanced directive maintaining my right to kill myself.

The questions arise: Do you have great contempt for/horror of/aversion to the severely mentally handicapped? Or do you think they are deserving of respect, even love? Do you think the world is better off without them, or just better off without you being one of them?

None whatsoever. I think people with disabilities deserve the same respect–and rights–as the rest of us. Frankly I do, however, think the world could be better if everyone were smarter but that does not mean it would be better if a given class of people were simply killed off–that would surely make the world worse. I know I do not want to live like that; I define my self in very substantive terms by my–and I hope I do not sound pompous saying this but I want to be honest–considerable intellect and I would rather not be alive than to be without it.

 

[ThomasToo]

“Then again…”? I’m confused.

I said I didn’t think I could complete a suicide but I’ve never tried so I can’t speak with certainty.

The problem as I see it is that the very question as to what constitutes the relevant research seems to be a matter of dispute. So if we can’t tackle that more fundamental question directly, it makes no sense to appeal to some “higher-order” line of inquiry/deliberation to help us with this, when that higher-order (positive law) question absolutely depends on having the fundamental principles in place in terms of which the legal deliberations will operate.

I think so, but my point is that both of us being ‘right’ doesn’t help us in answering the question. And the same applies to legislators with opposing informed opinions. So I don’t know what good it is to appeal to this kind of consideration.

I think it’s good insofar as we’re both relying to rely on data and not just gut instinct.

Quite right, but I didn’t mean temporally immediate or easily observable in a crudely sensory sense of the term. I meant ‘logically’ immediate, as in uncontroversial, unmistakable, ‘easily observable’ and obvious to all of us without our needing to make any logical connections that would require a more than superficial reflection on the notion of ‘harm.’

You wrote:
“It is indeed the libertarian one; government exists to protect us from one another so illegal acts ought only to be those where we [physically] damage another or his or her property. I do not think the case we created–again assuming existing laws about child support payments, alimony and fraud are respected–represents a demonstrable [physical] harm to another. Government ought to protect as much freedom as possible and this is one of those cases.”

I questioned “the defensibility (and consistency) of your restriction of the function of laws.” The main problem that comes to mind is that the terms you use are very abstract and they are consistent with any number of contradictory concrete particular results on questions such as divorce, contraception, or euthanasia. You want to declare (without justification) that legally prohibited harms must be physical harms, but this includes harm to property and long-term, not-immediately-obvious harms, which opens up a huge can of casuistical worms. In any case, I question the apparent arbitrariness of this declaration and I question whether it is something you are consistent in supporting (or if that is even possible, given its vagueness).

What justification can I offer? We can discuss the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism but I was just trying to say this is what I think not why I think it.

I think I’m consistent but as libertarianism goes I grant I am more libertarian on social issues than economic ones but that’s a different issue entirely. That said there aren’t many people who’d grant their systems aren’t consistent.

 

[Betterave]

That’s very controversial. You would rather die than never eat another doughnut?

No no! I said “I’d rather not live without…,” mirroring your “I’d rather not live with…” - point being that the two claims (“rather die than” vs. “rather not live with/without”) are importantly distinct.

I think I have the right to an advanced directive maintaining my right to kill myself.

…and I think you don’t. I think that since you have the ability to deal with your own suicide (attempt), society has the right and very good reasons to deny you the legal right to involve others.

None whatsoever. I think people with disabilities deserve the same respect–and rights–as the rest of us. Frankly I do, however, think the world could be better if everyone were smarter but that does not mean it would be better if a given class of people were simply killed off–that would surely make the world worse. I know I do not want to live like that; I define my self in very substantive terms by my–and I hope I do not sound pompous saying this but I want to be honest–considerable intellect and I would rather not be alive than to be without it.

Well my prior comment still applies: you’ve never tried it, so I’m not sure how you know it’s true. The truth is that your intellect may in certain ways be the cause of your misery and you may be proud of that and very attached to both - but I think that is irrelevant to your rights claim.

 

[Betterave]

I think it’s good insofar as we’re both relying to rely on data and not just gut instinct.

Are we? You seem to have missed my point: we are apparently not helped in resolving our conflict by this kind of “appealing to data” - so what good is such an appeal? And what grounds do you have to offer for your claim that at the end of the day we are in fact “relying on data” and not just “gut instinct” - however it is that you suppose such a distinction to be grounded and worked out?

What justification can I offer?

…yes, that was my question!

We can discuss the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism but I was just trying to say this is what I think not why I think it.

Let’s try to move beyond just airing our opinions.

 

[ThomasToo]

No no! I said “I’d rather not live without…,” mirroring your “I’d rather not live with…” - point being that the two claims (“rather die than” vs. “rather not live with/without”) are importantly distinct.

I don’t see that as a meaningful distinction. In the very strict reading ‘I don’t want to live without X’ intends ‘I would rather die than not have X’ and that was–as you know given my follow-up comments–my intention.

…and I think you don’t. I think that since you have the ability to deal with your own suicide (attempt), society has the right and very good reasons to deny you the legal right to involve others.

Since when are societies the bearers of rights? Individuals certainly, but societies… What of those who don’t have that ability?

Well my prior comment still applies: you’ve never tried it, so I’m not sure how you know it’s true. The truth is that your intellect may in certain ways be the cause of your misery and you may be proud of that and very attached to both - but I think that is irrelevant to your rights claim.

I have never tried all sorts of things but can confidently say I would rather not and there are some I know I would prefer to die (to use your terminology) rather than experience them even without going through them. Would you disagree with that? I didn’t say my intellect was tied to my rights claim only that there are some conditions which, not having been experienced, we can say we would never want to experience.

Are we? You seem to have missed my point: we are apparently not helped in resolving our conflict by this kind of “appealing to data” - so what good is such an appeal? And what grounds do you have to offer for your claim that at the end of the day we are in fact “relying on data” and not just “gut instinct” - however it is that you suppose such a distinction to be grounded and worked out?

I think I did miss your point. I think we’re both trying to say this is what rights are and this is where they come from and that’s why things should be such and such a way. I think that’s closer to data than gut instinct.

…yes, that was my question! Let’s try to move beyond just airing our opinions.

I just wasn’t sure what sort of justifications you want. I don’t know how well I will do defending the philosophy behind libertarianism since I’m not a political philosopher nor a politician but I will do the best I can if that’s what you’re looking for. Frankly, however, I don’t think we can come to agree on this because of our differing anthropologies.

 

[latin_rite]

The Canadian House of Commons defeated a euthanasia bill the other day and many people are shouting “NOOOOOOOOOO!!!” Some people have said “my life, my choice”. I have to admit, that’s a compelling argument. I often say unnatural deaths are against human nature, but can any of you give me secular reasons to oppose euthanasia?

Because it sets a precedent. If we legalize it, then what? I think it will open the flood gates.

 

[j1akey]

latin_rite:

Because it sets a precedent. If we legalize it, then what? I think it will open the flood gates.

The only precedent it sets is that people have the right to take their lives and their deaths into their own hands if they so choose to do so. The floodgates agrument has been nothing but a scare tactic for everything. Gay Marriage leads to people getting the right to marry animals or inanimate objects, smoking cigarettes leads to cocaine, comdoms make people get more std’s. There’s always a scare tactic to tell people why they shouldn’t do something.

I can guarantee that if I was a vegitable for the rest of my life I’d want someone to pull the plug even if I did know what was going on. I can’t even sit around doing nothing for a couple hours, there’s no way I’d be tortured with doing nothing for the rest of my life.