Is the latest morality the best?

[goout]

There is nothing wrong with this approach - on the contrary! Just bring it to the logical conclusion.

From this concept it follows logically that one should treat fellow humans even MORE lovingly and compassionately than pets. If it is considered cruel to allow pets to suffer needlessly, then it is even more cruel to allow fellow humans needlessly.

Can we get a little more specific?
What is the objective moral norm you are appealing to?
Stated another way, what is the good that your morality leads to?

If it is simply the end of suffering, then why allow any person to be born at all, since everyone without exception will die, and will also suffer during his life?

Why not allow killing of anyone at anytime who is suffering, or encourage suicide?

Will you allow the state to alleviate suffering by killing people, since eliminating suffering is your highest good? If the state knows a person is suffering, why shouldn’t the state kill that person?

If you say these are wrong, why are they wrong?

 

[edwest2]

Definitely not.

ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-chaput-renewing-a-society-requires-a-different-kind-of-people

God bless,
Ed

 

[PRmerger]

I think that there is some major misunderstanding here. No one proposes “killing”.

Oh. Ok. Then I suggest you retract your suggestion here:

What about the phrase: “mercy killing”?

And when you talk about having a pet “put down” is there some other way you can do this besides** killing** it?

Decent human beings do not hesitate to put down their suffering pets. There is something wrong when we treat our pets more humanely then our fellow human beings.

I dunno. It certainly sounded like you were talking about killing…

We simply use the time-honored principle of double effect. Our intent is not to kill, rather to alleviate the pain and suffering. It is a regrettable, foreseen, but unintended consequence of using twice the lethal amount of morphine to stop the pain and suffering which also happens to stop the heart… the intent is very important!

If your intention is to stop the pain,** then you shouldn’t have to use twice the lethal amount.** That seems pretty…obvious. No?

The pharmacokinetics are rather precise here with what amount of opioids can relieve pain and what amount can suppress respiration, so there’s not much guesswork that’s required.

So if your intent is to relieve pain, there should be no “using twice the lethal amount of morphine”.

When someone puts a full metal jacket’s worth of bullets into the terrorist’s brain, the intent is not to kill! It is to prevent the terrorist from pushing that button, which would detonate a dirty bomb in the middle of New York.

Are you sure this is invoking the principle of double effect and not self defense?

Those are, of course, 2 very different principles.

Could you explain why this would be an example of double effect?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Can we get a little more specific?

No need. What I said was quite clear. Some pet or some human are at the end of their life, in terrible pain. That is when loving people decide to administer the necessary drug. There is no hope for reversal. It is acceptable to “send” the pet into the “hereafter”, but not acceptable for the human. In my world that is cruel. To elongate the suffering for a few more hours or days serves no purpose, so it is an unnecessary suffering.

Let me clarify again, I am not talking about “everyday pain”.

 

[goout]

No need. What I said was quite clear. Some pet or some human are at the end of their life, in terrible pain. That is when loving people decide to administer the necessary drug. There is no hope for reversal. It is acceptable to “send” the pet into the “hereafter”, but not acceptable for the human. In my world that is cruel. To elongate the suffering for a few more hours or days serves no purpose, so it is an unnecessary suffering.

Let me clarify again, I am not talking about “everyday pain”.

No, it’s not clear at all.
The universe you envision places the amount of pain and the age of a person ahead of their inherent human dignity. Who decides how much pain and age justify termination?

In fact you are equating human dignity with that of a pet.

But then again, maybe you are being clear, and I am simply having a hard time accepting the perversity of what you propose.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Oh. Ok. Then I suggest you retract your suggestion here:

“Mercy killing” is an excellent euphemism to indicate the positive intent. Sure, it is killing, but killing is a morally neutral word. I was answering to your proposition, which read: “One has to wonder, if the paradigm is: “we kill people when they are suffering”, are you proposing, Vera, that it’s moral to end their suffering by killing them?”. And that indicated a negative assessment of the killing.

If your intention is to stop the pain,** then you shouldn’t have to use twice the lethal amount.** That seems pretty…obvious. No?

Nope. One should “err” on the side of caution. Different people may have a different tolerance to drugs. But it does not have to be drugs. Any quick and painless method would do.

Are you sure this is invoking the principle of double effect and not self defense?

Those are, of course, 2 very different principles.

Not at all. Two peas in a pod. One wishes to defend against an aggression. The only way to do it is to apply lethal force. The aim is to prevent the aggression, which is both defensive and preventive. As long as the intent is to prevent, you are “home scot free”. As the Church Lady used to say: “How conveeenient!”

Could you explain why this would be an example of double effect?

It all boils down to the intent. I can’t emphasize it enough: “it all boils down to the intent”. And not in every conceivable case, only when the sufferer is in terminal condition. Please do not change the goalposts.

 

[truetofaith]

No need. What I said was quite clear. Some pet or some human are at the end of their life, in terrible pain. That is when loving people decide to administer the necessary drug. There is no hope for reversal. It is acceptable to “send” the pet into the “hereafter”, but not acceptable for the human. In my world that is cruel. To elongate the suffering for a few more hours or days serves no purpose, so it is an unnecessary suffering.

Let me clarify again, I am not talking about “everyday pain”.

So you designate yourself to be God and end someone’s life?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Who decides how much pain and age justify termination?

The actual person who is in the state of suffering - as long as they are lucid enough to express their wishes. And those wishes MUST be respected. If they are not in the position to indicate their wishes, then we need to “swallow the bitter pill” and make the decision for them, by following the “golden rule”: “do onto others what you would like them do unto you”. There is nothing wrong with following the golden rule, even though it was not invented by Jesus, only “borrowed” by him in his wisdom.

In fact you are equating human dignity with that of a pet.

There is no dignity in extreme suffering. And I did not “equate” them, I explicitly said that humans must be given a higher level of love, respect and compassion than the pets. If the human can express her wish to be euthanized, and this wish is not respected, then it is YOU who does not grant the dignity to the person. And you accuse me of having a “perverted” view? Very strange.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So you designate yourself to be God and end someone’s life?

Haha! So you designate yourself to be God to elongate someone else’s suffering? Swords can cut both ways, you know.

 

[truetofaith]

The actual person who is in the state of suffering - as long as they are lucid enough to express their wishes. And those wishes MUST be respected. If they are not in the position to indicate their wishes, then we need to “swallow the bitter pill” and make the decision for them, by following the “golden rule”: “do onto others what you would like them do unto you”. There is nothing wrong with following the golden rule, even though it was not invented by Jesus, only “borrowed” by him in his wisdom.

There is no dignity in extreme suffering. And I did not “equate” them, I explicitly said that humans must be given a higher level of love, respect and compassion than the pets. If the human can express her wish to be euthanized, and this wish is not respected, then it is YOU who does not grant the dignity to the person. And you accuse me of having a “perverted” view? Very strange.

I understand why you list no religion on your profile because you are certainly not a Christian.

 

[truetofaith]

Haha! So you designate yourself to be God to elongate someone else’s suffering? Swords can cut both ways, you know.

No I’m not being God…I’m letting God make the call.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I understand why you list no religion on your profile because you are certainly not a Christian.

It is against to rules to divert the conversations to personal ground. The only valid conclusion you can draw is that I am PROBABLY not an ultra-orthodox person. But even that is not certain (I might just test and record your responses for my inscrutable purposes), so I suggest we return to the actual topic. Best wishes to you.

No I’m not being God…I’m letting God make the call.

It is very dangerous to assert that whatever ACTUALLY happens is in line with God’s “call”. This attitude would allow / endorse all the atrocities on the ground that “If God would not like it, then he could interfere”. Whether you actively act or passively allow something to happen is - “PLAYING God”. We all “play” God all the time, not just in some special cases.

 

[PRmerger]

No need. What I said was quite clear. Some pet or some human are at the end of their life, in terrible pain. That is when loving people decide to administer the necessary drug. There is no hope for reversal. It is acceptable to “send” the pet into the “hereafter”, but not acceptable for the human. In my world that is cruel. To elongate the suffering for a few more hours or days serves no purpose, so it is an unnecessary suffering.

Let me clarify again, I am not talking about “everyday pain”.

If you are talking about relieving suffering, then so are Catholics.

But we want moral ways to relieve suffering.

Not immoral ways.

And, again, if you really are intent on relieving suffering, no matter what, then you must be an advocate of killing a whole lot of poor people who are clearly miserable.

Are you willing to say that?

 

[truetofaith]

It is against to rules to divert the conversations to personal ground. The only valid conclusion you can draw is that I am PROBABLY not an ultra-orthodox person. But even that is not certain (I might just test and record your responses for my inscrutable purposes), so I suggest we return to the actual topic. Best wishes to you.

It is very dangerous to assert that whatever ACTUALLY happens is in line with God’s “call”. This attitude would allow / endorse all the atrocities on the ground that “If God would not like it, then he could interfere”. Whether you actively act or passively allow something to happen is - “PLAYING God”. We all “play” God all the time, not just in some special cases.

God should determine when it’s a person’s time to die…unless the person is trying to kill you, then you can make the decision to end their life.

 

[PRmerger]

Can we get a little more specific?
What is the objective moral norm you are appealing to?
Stated another way, what is the good that your morality leads to?

If it is simply the end of suffering, then why allow any person to be born at all, since everyone without exception will die, and will also suffer during his life?

Why not allow killing of anyone at anytime who is suffering, or encourage suicide?

Will you allow the state to alleviate suffering by killing people, since eliminating suffering is your highest good? If the state knows a person is suffering, why shouldn’t the state kill that person?

If you say these are wrong, why are they wrong?

These are all good questions, and I am interested in Vera’s response.

And I will add a few more: if the suffering person is a child, is it permissible for the mother to make the decision to kill the child to end the suffering?

What about the father–what if he doesn’t agree?

And what if the child isn’t really even suffering, but the mom doesn’t wish to suffer any more as a mother and does not wish to have motherhood forced upon her.

Can she kill the child so she (the woman) doesn’t have to suffer?

(And aren’t there examples in the animal kingdom of mamas doing this to their young?)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And, again, if you really are intent on relieving suffering, no matter what, then you must be an advocate of killing a whole lot of poor people who are clearly miserable.

I took the liberty of highlighting your error. I did NOT say that, and did NOT insinuate that. Try again to criticize what I actually DID say. Only an absolutist would say “no matter what” - and I am NOT an absolutist. Of course now I gave you some new ammunition by admitting that I am not an absolutist - so you can try to derail this thread. But I will not bite.

 

[PRmerger]

I took the liberty of highlighting your error. I did NOT say that, and did NOT insinuate that. Try again to criticize what I actually DID say. Only an absolutist would say “no matter what” - and I am NOT an absolutist. Of course now I gave you some new ammunition by admitting that I am not an absolutist - so you can try to derail this thread. But I will not bite.

Fair enough.

So there are some things that you find to be immoral as a means of alleviating suffering.

Good. That puts you one step closer to Catholicism.

So, what are some of those things which you would not do to alleviate suffering?

(Curious, though, that it does include killing?)

 

[PRmerger]

“Mercy killing” is an excellent euphemism to indicate the positive intent. Sure, it is killing, but killing is a morally neutral word.

K.

'nuff said on that.

You first talked about killing. Then you said “who is talking about killing”, and now you’re saying, "sure it is killing’.

That’s fine. Now we are on the same page.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. One should “err” on the side of caution. Different people may have a different tolerance to drugs. But it does not have to be drugs. Any quick and painless method would do.

But your intent should not be to kill, yes?

That’s what you seemed to be saying here:

Our intent is not to kill, rather to alleviate the pain and suffering.

Are you still of the same position, Vera? The intent of giving medication is not to kill but rather to alleviate the pain and suffering?

 

[PRmerger]

And not in every conceivable case, only when the sufferer is in terminal condition

This prompts so many questions!

1. how does one know when someone is “in terminal condition”?
2. would you say that it was immoral for a person to want to end her suffering by taking her life when she wasn’t terminal? Let’s say she was a quadriplegic with no terminal diagnosis, but wanted to end her life. Would you advocate for her right to do so?
3. why does it have to be a "terminal condition? If you want to alleviate suffering, then why shouldn’t it be permissible for any type of suffering?