Can someone give me a secular argument against euthanasia?

[IrishCanuck]

Not sure if this point has been raised yet…

Euthanasia is very dangerous road, because people could say that if they are ever in a vegetative state like a comma they would want their life to be ended, but they may still have full brain activity and awareness of what is going on around them and are unable communicate. Here is an article about a man who was in a comma for 20+ years and was aware of everything but unable to communicate.

dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230092/Rom-Houben-Patient-trapped-23-year-coma-conscious-along.html

 

[ThomasToo]

Not sure if this point has been raised yet…

Euthanasia is very dangerous road, because people could say that if they are ever in a vegetative state like a comma they would want their life to be ended, but they may still have full brain activity and awareness of what is going on around them and are unable communicate. Here is an article about a man who was in a comma for 20+ years and was aware of everything but unable to communicate.

dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230092/Rom-Houben-Patient-trapped-23-year-coma-conscious-along.html

So you’re saying people shouldn’t have the right to determine how they themselves would want to life (or die)? Is awareness an issue? I know I wouldn’t want to be alive and in a coma (let alone a piece of punctuation) unable to speak or move in any way and yet aware for any extended period of time.

Also an interesting point about the daily mail, in video.

 

[Betterave]

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.

Yes, you don’t see it and that is part of the problem. There is no “strict reading.” “I don’t want x” does not imply “I would kill myself to avoid x” - that’s obvious. It was also obvious that that was what you meant to imply, but I was playing on the ambiguity in your phraseology in the hopes that you would think about your own position a little more carefully. You can’t always get what you want - that’s reality bro. And you don’t always have a right to what you want.

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

Since when are they not? No sane person in the world would deny this - are you claiming to??

For those who don’t have an ability, the very simple reality is: lack of ability in no way implies a right to something. Even if I lack the ability to go to the moon, I don’t have the right to have someone else send me to the moon.

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.

I wouldn’t disagree with the generalized statement (the original particular case is different since it presumably involves a radically altered state of consciousness), but in any case, it is still irrelevant to your rights claim.

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.

I don’t see it. What data (that we agree on) is being appealed to? How are conclusions derived from these data?

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.

Well please either take a shot at defending your brand of libertarianism, or explain how it is that you think our differing anthropologies are preventing us from coming to an agreement.

 

[ThomasToo]

Yes, you don’t see it and that is part of the problem. There is no “strict reading.” “I don’t want x” does not imply “I would kill myself to avoid x” - that’s obvious. It was also obvious that that was what you meant to imply, but I was playing on the ambiguity in your phraseology in the hopes that you would think about your own position a little more carefully. You can’t always get what you want - that’s reality bro. And you don’t always have a right to what you want.

I grant that we can’t always get what we want and that we don’t have a right to it necessarily but when it comes to the conditions in which we prefer not to live we ought to have that right.

Since when are they not? No sane person in the world would deny this - are you claiming to??

At the risk of sounding insane I do deny it. Please give me any citation where (mainstream) rights theorists imply that rights are born by anyone other than individuals–human or otherwise.

For those who don’t have an ability, the very simple reality is: lack of ability in no way implies a right to something. Even if I lack the ability to go to the moon, I don’t have the right to have someone else send me to the moon.

You said ‘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’ (emphasis added). The corollary to this is that one without such an ability does not have the same right–without granting societies have rights but not quibbling about it here–or the same good reason. Further a lack of ability does imply a right to something at least in contemporary liberal democracies; those who are unable to provide for themselves have a right to (at least in America) Social Security, Welfare or unemployment.

I wouldn’t disagree with the generalized statement (the original particular case is different since it presumably involves a radically altered state of consciousness), but in any case, it is still irrelevant to your rights claim.

It’s not irrelevant. The point here, however, was not about rights as such but simply to say you were incorrect when you said that we cannot say we would prefer death over a given experience.

I don’t see it. What data (that we agree on) is being appealed to? How are conclusions derived from these data?

Data is not just numbers. The nature of rights grounded in the tradition of moral and political philosophy is data, for example.

Well please either take a shot at defending your brand of libertarianism, or explain how it is that you think our differing anthropologies are preventing us from coming to an agreement.

You hold an anthropology–assuming you hold orthodox Catholic positions–that man is created in the image and likeness of God and that there is a rather all encompassing code of morals governing the universe. In such a case we are not the masters or true owners or creators–in the sense of artificer–or life (or of anything else). Am I off base here?

I, on the other hand, think that we are unintentional assemblages of matter that has given 13.7 billion years come to be self-aware. In the state of nature I think we bore all possible rights including rights against others (i.e. the right to kill, rape, torture &c anyone else at a whim) but we gave up many–perhaps most–of those rights when we entered into societies (for more on this notion see Hobbs’s Leviathan). None of the rights we gave up, however, were those over our selves which we retained absolute autonomy over. The function of abandoning some of or rights to live in a more harmonious and peaceful society–and to ensure that our lives are not nasty, poor, brutish and short–is to protect us from one another and from nature insofar as is possible. As such it seems to me unintelligible to either (a) argue that we don’t have a given right concerning our own body–including the right to rent our body for sexual purposes (i.e. prostitute oneself), ingest a long list of chemicals or have ourselves killed–or (b) attempt to give up any more rights than necessary to accomplish the very strict goal of a nightwatchmen state (and a standing military). Does that make sense?

 

[IrishCanuck]

ThomasToo

Yes, of course it would be extremely frustrating and at times seem very hopeless in a coma like that, but what if you had a change in heart and didn’t want your life to end, and you couldn’t yell out to the doctor to stop with the Euthanasia.

I have no idea what would a person who has been in a come goes through and the thoughts during years of laying in coma, but I would hope that I would never give up on life and hope for the doctors or my family/friends to realize I am fully aware and need help to communicate to them.

Once you open the flood gate of Euthanasia, we may lose control of who lives and dies, by having other people decide for us.

 

[ThomasToo]

ThomasToo

Yes, of course it would be extremely frustrating and at times seem very hopeless in a coma like that, but what if you had a change in heart and didn’t want your life to end, and you couldn’t yell out to the doctor to stop with the Euthanasia.

I have no idea what would a person who has been in a come goes through and the thoughts during years of laying in coma, but I would hope that I would never give up on life and hope for the doctors or my family/friends to realize I am fully aware and need help to communicate to them.

Once you open the flood gate of Euthanasia, we may lose control of who lives and dies, by having other people decide for us.

If I had any doubt that I would prefer to die than live in a comatose state then I oughtn’t to write up an advanced directive indicating I ought to die. I, however, is more than certain that I do not want to “live” that way and as such I don’t see how you can justify depriving me of my right to die.

The whole point of this situation is that we are choosing for ourselves.

 

[IrishCanuck]

ThomasToo

Yes you are right, we’re are choosing to have someone else to end our life.

As a Catholic I believe God created me and he only decides when my life ends.

I’m not sure what your beliefs are, but If you don’t believe in God, I guess you could make that choice of ending your life with out any consequences.

My question would be, If you don’t believe in eternal life then why wouldn’t you try and make it last as long as possible even if your suffering?

 

[Betterave]

I grant that we can’t always get what we want and that we don’t have a right to it necessarily but when it comes to the conditions in which we prefer -]not to live/-] to be killed we ought to have that right.

Unfounded stipulation. I disagree.

At the risk of sounding insane I do deny it. Please give me any citation where (mainstream) rights theorists imply that rights are born by anyone other than individuals–human or otherwise.

I think you’re probably just getting hung up on terminology here and missing the conceptual point. I can explain this if need be, but before doing so, let me ask: have you read Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty”?

You said ‘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’ (emphasis added). The corollary to this is that one without such an ability does not have the same right–without granting societies have rights but not quibbling about it here–or the same good reason. Further a lack of ability does imply a right to something at least in contemporary liberal democracies; those who are unable to provide for themselves have a right to (at least in America) Social Security, Welfare or unemployment.

Isn’t this a denying-the-antecendent fallacy you’re committing here?

To your “further…,” your very phrasing makes it obvious enough that we are not dealing with true ‘rights’ here (in a strong libertarian sense), but with positive measures put in place to promote the social good. These measures are fundamentally anti-libertarian (they require infringement upon the ‘rights’ of others) and the principle underlying them is what I have been appealing to as the reason for prohibiting assisted euthanasia.

It’s not irrelevant. The point here, however, was not about rights as such but simply to say you were incorrect when you said that we cannot say we would prefer death over a given experience.

So explain to me how it’s relevant then! And while I would have been incorrect had I claimed that “we cannot *say *we would prefer death over a given experience,” as I explained, the point is not about what we can *say *in a general fashion (we *can say *any kind of nonsense), but about particular cases where we are not justified in saying…

Data is not just numbers. The nature of rights grounded in the tradition of moral and political philosophy is data, for example.

Right… how does this respond to the problem I pointed out? What data do we agree on? How are these “data” apprehended and used such that they are “data” useful for resolving the dispute in question?

You hold an anthropology–assuming you hold orthodox Catholic positions–that man is created in the image and likeness of God and that there is a rather all encompassing code of morals governing the universe - not sure what this is supposed to mean]. In such a case we are not the masters or true owners or creators–in the sense of artificer–of life (or of anything else). [and you’re saying you deny this? ] Am I off base here?

It seems like it, though it’s rather vague.

I, on the other hand, think that we are unintentional assemblages of matter that has given 13.7 billion years come to be self-aware. In the state of nature I think we bore all possible rights including rights against others (i.e. the right to kill, rape, torture &c anyone else at a whim) but we gave up many–perhaps most–of those rights when we entered into societies (for more on this notion see Hobbs’s Leviathan). None of the rights we gave up, however, were those over our selves which we retained absolute autonomy over. The function of abandoning some of or rights to live in a more harmonious and peaceful society–and to ensure that our lives are not nasty, poor, brutish and short–is to protect us from one another and from nature insofar as is possible. As such it seems to me unintelligible to either (a) argue that we don’t have a given right concerning our own body–including the right to rent our body for sexual purposes (i.e. prostitute oneself), ingest a long list of chemicals or have ourselves killed–or (b) attempt to give up any more rights than necessary to accomplish the very strict goal of a nightwatchmen state (and a standing military). Does that make sense?

You are aware that the “state of nature” is a conceptual device, not an historical reality? If you think you can justify a position by appealing to a fictional story about the foundations of society, how is this an appeal to ‘data’? If I tell my own fictional story (say the one from Genesis), why is that not just as authoritative as yours? Anyway, if you’d seriously like to defend this little Hobbesian tale, I’d be happy to deconstruct it with you.

 

[ThomasToo]

My question would be, If you don’t believe in eternal life then why wouldn’t you try and make it last as long as possible even if your suffering?

Because there are some situations where I would prefer to stop existing than to have to live through. That said, assuming I were healthy and not in pain I would be more than happy to live (corporeally) forever. Cory Doctorow’s Down and Out In the Magic Kingdom is close to my idea of (earthly) paradise; this book is available online for free too.

 

[IrishCanuck]

Because there are some situations where I would prefer to stop existing than to have to live through. That said, assuming I were healthy and not in pain I would be more than happy to live (corporeally) forever. Cory Doctorow’s Down and Out In the Magic Kingdom is close to my idea of (earthly) paradise; this book is available online for free too.

I just did a quick search and found the book. The cover looks pretty cool, but it says it’s a science fiction book. I’m interested in checking this out and it’s neat to see it’s written by a Canadian author. I would caution you to be careful assuming these things to be true from this persons ideas, if you are being sincere to me.

I hope and wish you would seriously rethink your stance on Euthanasia. I know that the Netherlands has been doing this for awhile and I’ve heard it is causing lots of problems. I’m sure you could find stuff about it on the internet.

Since you are on Catholic Answers I would assume you are searching for Truth. I hope you are able to find it on here.

 

[ThomasToo]

I just did a quick search and found the book. The cover looks pretty cool, but it says it’s a science fiction book. I’m interested in checking this out and it’s neat to see it’s written by a Canadian author. I would caution you to be careful assuming these things to be true from this persons ideas, if you are being sincere to me.

I hope and wish you would seriously rethink your stance on Euthanasia. I know that the Netherlands has been doing this for awhile and I’ve heard it is causing lots of problems. I’m sure you could find stuff about it on the internet.

Since you are on Catholic Answers I would assume you are searching for Truth. I hope you are able to find it on here.

The book is available online for free, here. I know it’s science fiction but I hope/wish/dream.

I came here for the answer to a very specific question and stayed for a couple good debates. It’s a good time.

 

[ThomasToo]

Unfounded stipulation. I disagree.

I didn’t say ‘be killed’ for a reason. For example, prescribing a lethal dose of medication is not killing someone but would be

I think you’re probably just getting hung up on terminology here and missing the conceptual point. I can explain this if need be, but before doing so, let me ask: have you read Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty”?

I’ve read some of it in a seminar a couple years ago. My point was that you seemed to be arguing that societies–as a whole–have some rights. If this is a terminology issue that’s fine but it seems to be more than that.

Isn’t this a denying-the-antecendent fallacy you’re committing here?

I’m not saying that the lack of that ability necessarily implies that right but that your argument doesn’t apply in this case.

To your “further…,” your very phrasing makes it obvious enough that we are not dealing with true ‘rights’ here (in a strong libertarian sense), but with positive measures put in place to promote the social good. These measures are fundamentally anti-libertarian (they require infringement upon the ‘rights’ of others) and the principle underlying them is what I have been appealing to as the reason for prohibiting assisted euthanasia.

I don’t think that (to pick one of the examples I cited) Social Security exists to support the social good but rather for the good of individuals. Insofar as taxation is anti-libertarian you are correct in that criticism. I was just saying that your argument that lack of an ability can sometimes imply a right at least in modern liberal democracies.

So explain to me how it’s relevant then! And while I would have been incorrect had I claimed that “we cannot *say *we would prefer death over a given experience,” as I explained, the point is not about what we can *say *in a general fashion (we *can say *any kind of nonsense), but about particular cases where we are not justified in saying…

Fair enough regarding ‘we can say’ but I think we both knew what I meant. It was my understanding, however, that you granted my point on being justified in saying we would rather die than experience even without experiencing them. If you haven’t there are examples–rather graphic ones–which I can give to prove my point.

Right… how does this respond to the problem I pointed out? What data do we agree on? How are these “data” apprehended and used such that they are “data” useful for resolving the dispute in question?

I don’t think we have to agree on the data so much

It seems like it, though it’s rather vague.

Fair enough. I meant that in your worldview there is an omnipotent lawgiver which is a far different state of affairs than in my worldview. I do indeed deny that we are not the owners of life (namely our own lives); we can own nothing if we are not first and foremost the owners of ourselves.

You are aware that the “state of nature” is a conceptual device, not an historical reality? If you think you can justify a position by appealing to a fictional story about the foundations of society, how is this an appeal to ‘data’?

I am aware that the Hobbsean account of the coming together out of the state of nature is conceptual but do you deny the notion he describes of rights in the state of nature? I think he properly conceptualizes what is arguably continuous in society vis-a-vis rights and limitations thereon.

If I tell my own fictional story (say the one from Genesis), why is that not just as authoritative as yours? Anyway, if you’d seriously like to defend this little Hobbesian tale, I’d be happy to deconstruct it with you.

So the Genesis story is fictional? I was just saying that’s where my anthropology comes from for comparison not necessarily for dissection. Given the ban of atheism as a topic I fear dissecting mine without the ability to dissect yours seems a bit one-sided.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The temporary ban is still in effect now.

 

[Betterave]

Hi, sorry for the hiatus (again).

I didn’t say ‘be killed’ for a reason. For example, prescribing a lethal dose of medication is not killing someone but would be

…would be…?
Okay, that’s a different case - I thought your remarks included advance directives to kill, not just to prescribe. That’s what I was directing my remark toward.

I’ve read some of it in a seminar a couple years ago. My point was that you seemed to be arguing that societies–as a whole–have some rights. If this is a terminology issue that’s fine but it seems to be more than that.

It does? Okay… I’m not sure how. Basically rights are meaningless without freedom, and negative freedom is meaningless without positive freedom. Preservation of any kind of freedom requires a renunciation of individual freedom which amounts to granting society rights over individuals. (I’m sure this isn’t news to you.)

I’m not saying that the lack of that ability necessarily implies that right but that your argument doesn’t apply in this case.

True enough then. My argument was an a-fortiori type of argument, as in “one *certainly *doesn’t have the ‘right’ to x in such and such circumstances.” I think the basic good-of-society reasons take care of the exceptional cases where the more obvious argument doesn’t apply.

I don’t think that (to pick one of the examples I cited) Social Security exists to support the social good but rather for the good of individuals. Insofar as taxation is anti-libertarian you are correct in that criticism. I was just saying that your argument that lack of an ability can sometimes imply a right at least in modern liberal democracies.

*All *social goods are for the good of individuals. Society is for the good of individuals. Individuals are inherently social (deny this if you dare!) so the two can’t be separated. Anyway, yes, lack of an ability implies a ‘right’ to something, but my point is that this ‘right’ is based on principles that cannot (unambiguously at least) be used to support your position.

Fair enough regarding ‘we can say’ but I think we both knew what I meant. It was my understanding, however, that you granted my point on being justified in saying we would rather die than experience even without experiencing them. If you haven’t there are examples–rather graphic ones–which I can give to prove my point.

I granted your general point, but not its specific application.

I don’t think we have to agree on the data so much

What constitutes ‘data’ as such?? What good is there in appealing to data that we don’t agree on?

Fair enough. I meant that in your worldview there is an omnipotent lawgiver which is a far different state of affairs than in my worldview. I do indeed deny that we are not the owners of life (namely our own lives); we can own nothing if we are not first and foremost the owners of ourselves.

That is a non sequitur and an abuse of language. We own things. We own *ourselves *at best in a metaphorical sense.

I am aware that the Hobbsean account of the coming together out of the state of nature is conceptual but do you deny the notion he describes of rights in the state of nature? I think he properly conceptualizes what is arguably continuous in society vis-a-vis rights and limitations thereon.

I haven’t read much Hobbes first-hand, but I think I do deny it. Could you say more clearly what it is that I may or may not want to be denying here? (Here’s a hint as to probably why I deny it: the ‘state of nature’ is irrelevant to any *actual *state of *human *nature.)

So the Genesis story is fictional? I was just saying that’s where my anthropology comes from for comparison not necessarily for dissection. Given the ban of atheism as a topic I fear dissecting mine without the ability to dissect yours seems a bit one-sided.

Yes, Genesis is certainly fictional, at least in some sense. (That’s not a bad thing - ‘fiction’ isn’t a dirty word.) Hobbes’ little story is also (unquestionably) fictional. But that is irrelevant to our discussion of the truth or falsity of the anthropological claims made in each story.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Genesis is NOT fictional, it’s figurative-there’s a difference.

 

[Betterave]

Genesis is NOT fictional, it’s figurative-there’s a difference.

It’s not fictional in any sense? Do you have a reason why we shouldn’t allow this kind of terminology, in a broadly qualified sense? It’s ‘literally’ true in a sense, too (according to Augustine, right?) - but that shouldn’t confuse us into feeling compelled to be young-earthers or anything like that, right?

 

[Betterave]

For those who aren’t familiar with the terminology, a small clarification:

Basically rights are meaningless without freedom, and negative freedom (‘freedom from…’) is meaningless without positive freedom (‘freedom to…’). Preservation of any kind of freedom requires a renunciation of individual freedom which amounts to granting society rights over individuals.