Just a simple question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spaten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spaten said:
Is there a substantial difference between letting someone to die … and actively killing this person?
Click to expand...
If by “actively” you mean “directly” then the answer is: Yes.

As to direct killing.
This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin (Evangelium Vitae, JPII p. 55)
Click to expand...
As to allowing death:
[W]hen death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience "refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. … To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death (Ibid p. 65).
Click to expand...
 
o_mlly said:
If by “actively” you mean “directly” then the answer is: Yes.
Click to expand...
Depends on the law. In some cases it is legally different. But in reality there is no substantial difference. The person is DEAD in either case. Of course “HOW” did she die is relevant. And that makes the case of leaving someone to die much worse than a fast and painless killing - depending on the details / circumstances. Everything depends on the details / circumstances.

Of course you are welcome to disagree with that concept. But a disagreement is only accepted, if you can provide a rational argument for your case. To use an ex-cathedra proclamation that “direct” killing is “evil” does NOT constitute a rational argument.
 
goout said:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
goout:
How do you distinguish between needless suffering and “regular” suffering?

I do not need to die, and I don’t need to have an arthritic hip. And I definitely don’t see the need for even one more bout of anxiety. Those are all “needless” so to speak, yet I will endure them.

Can we escape suffering?
Click to expand...
There’s a scene in Last Of The Mohicans (spoiler alert) when our hero’s rival is being burnt to death as a punishment. Our hero, from a distance, takes aim with his rifle and shoots him dead to end his suffering.

Who amongst us would stand by and let a family member suffer an agonising and protracted death such as described without bringing it to an abrupt end?
Click to expand...
My mom struggled to breathe and just sit up for about a year. She just died in September. She had congestive heart failure. We could have done several things to terminate her life, including quietly medicating her to death.

What you are proposing is consequentialist morality, where the good end justifies evil means.
We don’t commit moral evil to solve problems.

Suffering is part of the human condition. Why is a question full of mystery. But if you begin to solve suffering by evil means, you jump down a bottomless pit.
Click to expand...
I’m honestly sorry for your loss. That was very recent as well.

We do what we think best for our loved ones. I’m certain that you and your family did the best for your mom.
 
Spaten said:
Depends on the law. In some cases it is legally different. But in reality there is no substantial difference. The person is DEAD in either case. Of course “HOW” did she die is relevant. And that makes the case of leaving someone to die much worse than a fast and painless killing - depending on the details / circumstances. Everything depends on the details / circumstances.

Of course you are welcome to disagree with that concept. But a disagreement is only accepted, if you can provide a rational argument for your case. To use an ex-cathedra proclamation that “direct” killing is “evil” does NOT constitute a rational argument.
Click to expand...
This is the Philosophy forum, not the Legal forum. Catholic philosophy holds that the highest good, that is that which will make us truly happy, is to know God, to love Him and serve Him, that is do His will in this life in order to be with Him in the next. We cannot love what we do not know and we will not serve whom we do not love. It’s that simple

I’m guessing that is not your highest good. If so what’s the point of further discourse?
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
This is the Philosophy forum, not the Legal forum.
Click to expand...
Certainly, but it needed to be mentioned, if for nothing else, the sake of full disclosure.
o_mlly said:
Catholic philosophy holds that the highest good, that is that which will make us truly happy, is to know God, to love Him and serve Him, that is do His will in this life in order to be with Him in the next. We cannot love what we do not know and we will not serve whom we do not love. It’s that simple
Click to expand...
I have no quarrel with that. I just see no rational arguments to substantiate that prolonging needless suffering is the proper way to get to God. Where did God declare that mercy killing is “evil”, and it is moral to let others suffer needlessly?
o_mlly said:
I’m guessing that is not your highest good. If so what’s the point of further discourse?
Click to expand...
You can keep guessing, if you are so inclined. Just don’t believe that your guesses are correct.
 
Thanks.
Her suffering was edifying to the whole family.
Our brokenness creates a hole that allows us to connect with each other in ways that “good times” cannot provide.

A world without suffering wouldn’t be fully human. And that doesn’t mean we wish for it. Suffering is simply part of the human condition.

We should do 2 things:
1 Accept it
2 Attempt to comfort and heal it
 
Last edited:
Spaten said:
Where did God declare that mercy killing is “evil”, and it is moral to let others suffer needlessly?
Click to expand...
Whose suffering does euthanasia relieve – the sick one or the caretakers from their duty to suffer with the loved one by being present and giving comfort?
 
o_mlly said:
Whose suffering does euthanasia relieve – the sick one or the caretakers from their duty to suffer with the loved one by being present and giving comfort?
Click to expand...
Both. Where did God declare that “mercy killing is evil”? Please quote the Almighty’s words. Besides the mercy killing is not limited to alleviate the suffering of the loved ones.
 
o_mlly said:
I’m guessing you never heard the Almighty speak so, as I wrote …
Click to expand...
So all this hullabaloo about mercy killing is just a human invention, and had nothing to do with the Almighty. You could have just admitted it. 🙂
 
Spaten said:
Is there a substantial difference between letting someone to die, when you can easily rescue her, (without exposing yourself to any danger, or even inconvenience) and actively killing this person?

What about the slightly modified scenario, where leaving someone to die in horrible pain (eaten alive by worms) instead of administering a quick, painless death?

Try to put yourself in the place of the sufferer and apply the golden rule.
Click to expand...
Ah… Another in the Legion of proverbial and speculative WHAT IF? questions
as are often applied to a background of certain Commands of God

Thou Shalt never Murder!

Next Question?

_
 
Last edited:
I thought I mercifully killed this conversation. But like Michael Myers in Halloween …
 
EndTimes said:
40.png
Spaten:
Is there a substantial difference between letting someone to die, when you can easily rescue her, (without exposing yourself to any danger, or even inconvenience) and actively killing this person?

What about the slightly modified scenario, where leaving someone to die in horrible pain (eaten alive by worms) instead of administering a quick, painless death?

Try to put yourself in the place of the sufferer and apply the golden rule.
Click to expand...
Ah… Another in the Legion of proverbial and speculative WHAT IF? questions
as are often applied to a background of certain Commands of God

Thou Shalt never Murder!

Next Question?

_
Click to expand...
Whenever this subject comes up I am always reminded of an incident in the Falklands War.

A young Argentinian prisoner was clearing munitions shortly after the surrender when there was an explosion. Some prisoners were killed outright but this poor man was left alive but was burning to death. With no hope of him surviving and medical aid hours away, a paratrooper shot him to end his agony.

Could anyone accuse him of anything but being merciful? PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines.
 
Last edited:
Asinner said:
Yeah, the Geneva Conventions and court-martials don’t look too favorably on summarily executing prisoners of war.
Click to expand...
The Hague court is much more rational and can differentiate between an execution and a mercy killing.
 
Beryllos said:
Has anyone asked him how he feels about it? Probably not good.
Click to expand...
Of course “not good”. Even “putting down” a pet feels very bad, but it comes from love and caring, which precludes allowing the needless suffering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top