How the sexual toxicity of the 1960s has harmed the Church

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Are you going to tell me that that is not a religious argument? You seem to have fallen before you’ve even reached the first hurdle.

If Dad is in pain and will die in a few days and he wants to end it, and his family want it to end, and his friends want it to end, then ‘It’s not your life to take’ isn’t going to get far as an example of determining moral principles without relying on ‘God’s existence as its authority’.

Or maybe you were referring to the child’s grandparents. They gave him life. Let them decide. Ah, they did. All the family want it to end.

So what we have now is a situation where euthanasia is acceptable if we leave God out of it and unacceptable if we include Him.

As I said, the second option is not available to me. So I call it as a morally acceptable act.

And to be complete, I remind you of the incentive I used in the example you refer to:

I’m only waiting for confirmation that the insurance company will pay me on his life policy.

So your argument is: If we can just get enough people to agree to kill Dad then killing Dad is a moral act and then I can get the insurance money?

With those as the guiding principles, one could morally kill anyone who is suicidal.

Forget the insurance money. That’s the kid’s argument and it’s a bad argument to use for killing someone. Let’s say we both agree on that. You haven’t answered the specific point about YOUR argument that it’s not his life to do with as he chooses. Which is a religious argument and you have specifically said that you wouldn’t use one. Failing that, all you posted was ‘I say it’s wrong’.

So what we have so far is you saying that it can’t be done because…God. Which I am not going to accept. And apart from that, nothing more than a personal opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

Forget the insurance money. That’s the kid’s argument and it’s a bad argument to use for killing someone. Let’s say we both agree on that. You haven’t answered the specific point about YOUR argument that it’s not his life to do with as he chooses. Which is a religious argument and you have specifically said that you wouldn’t use one. Failing that, all you posted was ‘I say it’s wrong’.

So what we have so far is you saying that it can’t be done because…God. Which I am not going to accept. And apart from that, nothing more than a personal opinion.

OK. Take greed out of the case. Then what is the motive that the others have to kill Dad?

I presume that a sine qua non is Dad’s agreement that others may kill him. As I commented, Dad is in extreme pain or under the effects of palliative drugs.

Let’s be clear. Death is a one way decision; no do overs. How do the others know with certainty that Dad is not talking through the pain or the meds? Even if Dad previously wrote authorizing others to kill him that writing expressed a previous state of mind that is not necessarily his present state of mind.

Dad’s right to life is greater than the others’ misguided emotions that out of their compassion they may kill him.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Forget the insurance money. That’s the kid’s argument and it’s a bad argument to use for killing someone. Let’s say we both agree on that. You haven’t answered the specific point about YOUR argument that it’s not his life to do with as he chooses. Which is a religious argument and you have specifically said that you wouldn’t use one. Failing that, all you posted was ‘I say it’s wrong’.

So what we have so far is you saying that it can’t be done because…God. Which I am not going to accept. And apart from that, nothing more than a personal opinion.

OK. Take greed out of the case. Then what is the motive that the others have to kill Dad?

Dad’s right to life is greater than the others’ misguided emotions that out of their compassion they may kill him.

Sure. We take greed out. And we take God out as well.

Now we have someone’s right to their own life. As you put it, his ‘right to life’ infers that it is something to which he is entitled protection. That is, no-one can decide to take it from him. Because it is his and his alone.

I would agree with that. That it is his and his alone (no-one ‘gave it to him’ - we have taken that out of the equation) and no-one has the right to take it…without his express consent.

If that express consent fulfills certain conditions, and all other interested parties agree, then it should be carried out as per his wishes.

So your argument that his right to life is greater than others’ misguided decision to kill him is wrong. It is not their decision. It is his decision and he has asked for their agreement. All they are doing is NOT asking not to take his own life.

And your other argument simply relies on an insistence that he may not be capable of making such a decision. So what we can do is ask a hypothetical. If we were able to construct a scenario where it could be accepted that he was in a state of mind which allowed him to make such decisions (evidence from any number of psychiatrists, family members and friends) then you would need to agree that your argument didn’t stand.

Now you may suggest that making that call as to the soundness of his mind would be impossible. At which point all we have is a disagreement. I say that it would be possible (and perhaps proffer some evidence to show it’s possible) and you would say not.

Impasse. I say that I am right, and the guy wanting to end it all plus his family and friends back me up. And you say you are right and…who backs your argument? The church? The catechism? A divine word? But we have agreed not to include them.

And please. No slippery slope arguments. Argue the case in hand. Not future developments or what-might-be’s. Decide this first.

 

[o_mlly]

As you put it, his ‘right to life’ infers that it is something to which he is entitled protection. That is, no-one can decide to take it from him. Because it is his and his alone.

I would agree with that.

Good. That is the rational position.

What is not good is to then move to feelings as the regulator for moral acts.

The compassion to end one’s suffering is neither good nor evil in itself but must be judged based on the action to be taken. The act is judged by the intellect – reason.

You argue that if the intellect judges that a preponderance of evidence indicates Dad wills to have others kill him then others may do so. I say that bar is too low.

I argue that unless the evidence is a moral certainty then we may not act against Dad’s right to life. Does the hunter who sees the bushes rustle and brown fur have the right to kill a man wearing a fur coat? No, he must be certain. So must the others and that level of certainty is not achievable by gathering the opinions of others.

Relieve his pain, death will come naturally soon enough if the docs got it right.

 

[Bradskii]

You argue that if the intellect judges that a preponderance of evidence indicates Dad wills to have others kill him then others may do so. I say that bar is too low.

I argue that unless the evidence is a moral certainty then we may not act against Dad’s right to life.

Two things. It is NOT the case that others will kill him. That is twisting the proposed facts to spin the argument to a right to kill others. Which it is not. It is the father who wants his own life to end and will take it himself. No-one is proposing that he should be killed. He is requesting it. I’d appreciate it if that was born in mind.

Your second argument is the clincher. UNLESS the evidence shows that the intellect can be shown with certainty then you vote no.

The corollary of which is that if you were convinced that the evidence DOES show that, you would agree with euthanasia. It is now a simple matter (or perhaps not so simple) of deciding if a person is capable of making such a decision.

Now what does it come down to? There is no objective answer. The argument stands or falls on whether you accept a person’s ability to decide to end his or her own life should all other criteria be met.

Wasn’t that my original point?

 

[o_mlly]

Two things. It is NOT the case that others will kill him. That is twisting the proposed facts to spin the argument to a right to kill others. Which it is not. It is the father who wants his own life to end and will take it himself. No-one is proposing that he should be killed. He is requesting it. I’d appreciate it if that was born in mind.

Your second argument is the clincher. UNLESS the evidence shows that the intellect can be shown with certainty then you vote no.

The corollary of which is that if you were convinced that the evidence DOES show that, you would agree with euthanasia. It is now a simple matter (or perhaps not so simple) of deciding if a person is capable of making such a decision.

Now what does it come down to? There is no objective answer. The argument stands or falls on whether you accept a person’s ability to decide to end his or her own life should all other criteria be met.

Wasn’t that my original point?

As to your first point, euthanasia is “others” doing the killing. Do you now wish to change the context to: It is the father who wants his own life to end and will take it himself.?

And to your second point, as this is a godless argument, I have only appealed to reason. We are not deciding whether to put Dad’s red or blue pajamas on. If we got that wrong then we could remedy our error and a preponderance of evidence would suffice. But the act contemplated has no remedy. Therefore, we must be certain of our right to end Dad’s life.

The objective answer, therefore, is “No”, we may not end another’s life.

To argue otherwise, that is, others may end the life of one on the probability that the one wills it would be absurd.

 

[Bradskii]

As to your first point, euthanasia is “others” doing the killing. Do you now wish to change the context to: It is the father who wants his own life to end and will take it himself.?

And to your second point, as this is a godless argument, I have only appealed to reason. We are not deciding whether to put Dad’s red or blue pajamas on. If we got that wrong then we could remedy our error and a preponderance of evidence would suffice. But the act contemplated has no remedy. Therefore, we must be certain of our right to end Dad’s life.

The objective answer, therefore, is “No”, we may not end another’s life.

To argue otherwise, that is, others may end the life of one on the probability that the one wills it would be absurd.

I don’t think that hair splitting as to the exact meaning of euthanasia is beneficial. It is the case that the father wants his own life to end and all interested parties are in agreement. Whoever ‘pulls the switch’ is frankly irrelevant. As long as the father requests it and all others agree. Let’s say he does it to avoid further problems.

And do we have another argument? That it is irreversable? Gee, I hadn’t considered that (saracsm off).

And again, you state that IF it was certain that he was of sound mind then it would be acceptable. Again it comes to down to a personal opinion as to whether that can be shown.

Most of the literature on this says that you really need very strong criteria for making that call. So be it. I agree in any case. In which case, it’s acceptable.

Your only argument against at this stage is that, in your personal opinion, one cannot attain that criteria. So be it. It’s now, again as I said, a matter of being persuaded that the criteria can be met. In one’s opinion.

Does your position now sound like anything at all that could be described as an objective fact?

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t think that hair splitting as to the exact meaning of euthanasia is beneficial.

Words have meaning. Euthanasia and suicide are not synonyms.

It is the case that the father wants his own life to end …

Begs the question. I argue persuasively that the will to end one’s own life, the most ultimate of all decisions, cannot be known with certainty by others. Please argue against rather than simply dismiss.

and all interested parties are in agreement …

Rationally, irrelevant. Would the fact that all interested parties (whatever that means) agreeing that someone should be killed bestows the moral authority on the parties to kill that person?

And again, you state that IF it was certain that he was of sound mind then it would be acceptable.

A lot of “straw” there. I did not write that. I wrote that we cannot know with certainty the mind of another, especially one who is in pain or drugged. As long as we remain in the “cloud of unknowing” our actions to kill another remain constrained.

Most of the literature on this says that you really need very strong criteria for making that call. So be it. I agree in any case. In which case, it’s acceptable.

My reading list indicates most of the literature opposes the morality of euthanasia and suicide. Either way, such an argument would be merely an appeal to authority which is a fallacy. The only authority here is reason, right?

Your only argument against at this stage is that, in your personal opinion, one cannot attain that criteria. So be it. It’s now, again as I said, a matter of being persuaded that the criteria can be met. In one’s opinion.

Again, defeat my rational argument with reasons. Simply dismissing the argument just will not do.

I claim as a matter of reason (not personal opinion) that knowledge of another person’s will to commit the ultimate act of ending their life while that person is in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs is not possible. You claim if you can get enough experts and have faith in their opinions that is sufficient to kill Dad. Gee, faith in experts? I thought we agreed to keep faith out of the conversation.

And I claim as a matter of reason that to violate that person’s right to life without that certain knowledge is immoral.

Now, it falls to you to launch an argument that in the matter of killing another that one can know that mind that is in distress with certainty.

Or, it falls to you to argue that knowledge less than certainty is good enough to morally kill another person.

 

[Bradskii]

I claim as a matter of reason (not personal opinion) that knowledge of another person’s will to commit the ultimate act of ending their life while that person is in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs is not possible.

I claim as a matter of reason that a person facing imminent death who shows all indications of being in control of his of her mental faculties is perfectly able to decide whether he or she would like to end life in a manner and at a time of their choosing.

As an aside, it is noted yet again that you always qualify your argument so that the person you have in mind is ‘in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs’. Again, there is a corollary which I need not point out.

The one I have in mind is not in extraordinary pain at the time the decision is made nor under the influence of drugs. Making your argument invalid. I’ve known enough people who have died from, for example, cancer, to know that one is not continually in pain. And that there are very lucid moments when the pain is temporarily absent. When the person is himself and not controlled by the disease or by the attempts to alleviate the pain. And that people reject the use of drugs exactly because they fear not being in control.

Your opinion is rejected. It is nowhere near to be an objective truth from what you have argued. Except right at the begining when you suggested it was an insult to God. You should have stuck with that. As you will, no doubt, should a similar discussion arise again.

 

[Bradskii]

The other question is: What were the French doing there in the 1950s?

I was told they were trying out new weapons.

 

[o_mlly]

I claim as a matter of reason that a person facing imminent death who shows all indications of being in control of his of her mental faculties is perfectly able to decide whether he or she would like to end life in a manner and at a time of their choosing.

As an aside, it is noted yet again that you always qualify your argument so that the person you have in mind is ‘in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs’. Again, there is a corollary which I need not point out.

The error in this argument continues to be the absence of certainty in one knowing the mind of another. The “showing of all indications of being in control” of one facing imminent death does not provide the certainty necessary to kill them.

Pain also leads to the protection and “nursing” of affected regions. Such behaviors reflect a strong, sustained desire to minimize or end pain (it has been argued that the affective component of pain is essential for the way it strongly motivates escape and avoidance; van Gulick 2008; McMillan 2003).2 As recent studies have demonstrated, postsurgical/postprocedural, persistent, or chronic pain can have deleterious effects on behavior, cognition, and brain function (e.g., problems with sleep, attention, or depression, even possible loss of gray matter; Apkarian et al. 2004a,b).

I’ve known enough people who have died from, for example, cancer, to know that one is not continually in pain. And that there are very lucid moments when the pain is temporarily absent. When the person is himself and not controlled by the disease or by the attempts to alleviate the pain. And that people reject the use of drugs exactly because they fear not being in control.

Anecdotes are not an argument. I know people who have run stop signs and not killed anyone. Is that sufficient reason to take down all the stop signs? No.

The temporary absence of physical pain does not mean the absence of mental pain, i.e., anguish, anxiety, despair. Using your revised criteria above to justify the killing of a human being would permit Dad to now kill his lovesick daughter whose boyfriend dumped her for her best friend.

We cannot know with certainty the mind of another. We cannot know with certainty the pain of another. Therefore, we ought not put someone down because in their pain or despair they give us the nod. We ought not leave them in their pain or despair but invest ourselves in trying to comfort them. Which is easier: kill them and be done with it, or spend hours, days even months at their side caring for them. Who really wants to be relieved of their pain, the dying person or the ones who do not want to be there for him?

 

[o_mlly]

As an aside, it is noted yet again that you always qualify your argument so that the person you have in mind is ‘in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs’.

That’s twice you tried to straw man my argument.

A lot of “straw” there. I did not write that. I wrote that we cannot know with certainty the mind of another, especially one who is in pain or drugged. As long as we remain in the “cloud of unknowing” our actions to kill another remain constrained.

To avoid misquotes, please use the quote utility to cite me in future.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

As an aside, it is noted yet again that you always qualify your argument so that the person you have in mind is ‘in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs’.

That’s twice you tried to straw man my argument.

A lot of “straw” there. I did not write that. I wrote that we cannot know with certainty the mind of another, especially one who is in pain or drugged. As long as we remain in the “cloud of unknowing” our actions to kill another remain constrained.

To avoid misquotes, please use the quote utility to cite me in future.

I did. And to save you looking it up, here it is again:

I claim as a matter of reason (not personal opinion) that knowledge of another person’s will to commit the ultimate act of ending their life while that person is in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs is not possible. .

 

[Bradskii]

The error in this argument continues to be the absence of certainty in one knowing the mind of another. The “showing of all indications of being in control” of one facing imminent death does not provide the certainty necessary to kill them.

And this is where the discussion ends. After a lot of false starts (not his life to give, only being done for the insurance, slippery slope, simply disagreeing with it), we have reached a point where we can agree that the bone of contention is deciding if someone is sufficiently in control of their own mental faculties to make a decision to end their own life (assuming that other medical criteria are met).

This can only come down to opinion. If this was a matter taken to court, then one side would offer expert opinion that one could indeed to mentally able to make a decision. And the other side would say not.

It could be said, as you have touched upon, that as it is such a final act to take one’s life, one should err on the cautious side. That is a reasonable argument.

But know I have to ask you, has anything been decided that could remotely be called an objective fact? At the very best, you have made an argument that not allowing euthanasia is a good idea because it might not be exactly what the person desires. Not IS NOT what the person desires, but MIGHT NOT BE what the person desires.

Even winning the argument without bringing God into the discussion results in your position that it could well be (even almost certainly is) a bad idea.

That is not anywhere near being an example of objective morality. Which was the point of the discussion.

 

[o_mlly]

Deceptively good try at mining the thread to save yourself but, sorry, no cigar. Check the post numbers – they betray your claim.

#263

And we accept the expressed will to die of the one who is in extraordinary pain as definitive, that is, freely made. Nay, say I.

#271

A lot of “straw” there. I did not write that. I wrote that we cannot know with certainty the mind of another, especially one who is in pain or drugged. As long as we remain in the “cloud of unknowing” our actions to kill another remain constrained.

#272

As an aside, it is noted yet again that you always qualify your argument so that the person you have in mind is ‘in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs’. Again, there is a corollary which I need not point out.

And, of course the one you thought could do the trick. My post after I called you for the straw man that I " always qualify your argument so that the person you have in mind is ‘in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs’."

#275

I claim as a matter of reason (not personal opinion) that knowledge of another person’s will to commit the ultimate act of ending their life while that person is in extraordinary pain or under the influence of drugs is not possible.

Looks like “always” is just not true. By the way, just for the sake of another logic lesson, if “a” is never true then “a” under the condition “b” is still not true.

 

[o_mlly]

But know I have to ask you, has anything been decided that could remotely be called an objective fact?

Yes. As you put it:

… as it is such a final act to take one’s life, one should err on the cautious side. That is a reasonable argument.

And the “cautious side” is never.

 

[Bradskii]

I can only refer you to the last two paragraphs of my last post. Do you have any comment on them?

And apologies if I have jumped the gun and you are, even as I type, replying.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But know I have to ask you, has anything been decided that could remotely be called an objective fact?

Yes. As you put it:

… as it is such a final act to take one’s life, one should err on the cautious side. That is a reasonable argument.

And the “cautious side” is never.

Ah, you were. Patience Bradskii.

Then I must quote you again and ask, again, if this sounds like a description of objective morality:

‘We cannot know with certainty the mind of another. We cannot know with certainty the pain of another. Therefore, we ought not put someone down because in their pain or despair they give us the nod.’

‘We ought not’ doesn’t sound like an example of objective morality, does it. Can’t see that phraseology making it into the catechism. Or anywhere else within a scriptural scenario.

You ought not have any other gods except Me.

Doesn’t sound right. And that’s because your final argument isn’t an example of objective morality. You can’t get there without God. As we have now seen.

 

[o_mlly]

Doesn’t sound right. And that’s because your final argument isn’t an example of objective morality. You can’t get there without God. As we have now seen.

? But you got there without Him? Why can’t I?

“Ought” is not a word from the theological vocabulary but is a word from the ethics vocabulary. That’s what we are discussing, right? The rights and duties we have one to the other based on reason.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Doesn’t sound right. And that’s because your final argument isn’t an example of objective morality. You can’t get there without God. As we have now seen.

? But you got there without Him? Why can’t I?

I didn’t get there. I didn’t get to a position where that which I was arguing could be remotely classed as objective morality. As I said, it comes down to opinions on matters that have no definitive answer.

And you can’t get to a position whereby you can claim objective morality without God, because without God, it doesn’t exist. As we have seen.