Just a simple question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spaten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean that he may have regrets that he did it, and may now think that it was a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
I mean that he may have regrets that he did it, and may now think that it was a mistake.
Click to expand...
That is just a possibility, nothing more. I cannot comprehend the mentality of helping the pets into the “hereafter” - and in the name of REAL love! And denying the same love to a human being. The only “reasoning” was: “humans are different.” Of course, but that should be more incentive to spare them of useless suffering. No rational argument was ever given.
 
Beryllos said:
Hope too is just a possibility.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I don’t get it. What does have to do with stopping the suffering of pets (with the only way it can be done) and denying the same help to stopping the pain of a human? As I said, no rational answer was ever given.
 
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...
@goout

I’m sorry that your mother struggled with breathing for so long and that your family had to endure seeing her suffer so. It’s terribly painful to be unable to alleviate the suffering of those whom we love. I fear that the hurt and feelings of inadequacy and failure last as long as we continue to draw breath. I’ll add you to my daily prayers. May you have peace.
 
Minks said:
I’m sorry that your mother struggled with breathing for so long and that your family had to endure seeing her suffer so. It’s terribly painful to be unable to alleviate the suffering of those whom we love. I fear that the hurt and feelings of inadequacy and failure last as long as we continue to draw breath. I’ll add you to my daily prayers. May you have peace.
Click to expand...
I am sure everyone is sorry for that sad occurrence. But there is STILL no rational answer why should we CONDEMN someone to endure needless suffering, when a quick and MERCIFUL solution is available. Especially if the sufferer BEGS for it. Don’t you see how inhumane and cruel it is to let someone to suffer?

I wonder if there ever will be a rational argument presented for this problem.
 
Spaten said:
40.png
Minks:
I’m sorry that your mother struggled with breathing for so long and that your family had to endure seeing her suffer so. It’s terribly painful to be unable to alleviate the suffering of those whom we love. I fear that the hurt and feelings of inadequacy and failure last as long as we continue to draw breath. I’ll add you to my daily prayers. May you have peace.
Click to expand...
I am sure everyone is sorry for that sad occurrence. But there is STILL no rational answer why should we CONDEMN someone to endure needless suffering, when a quick and MERCIFUL solution is available. Especially if the sufferer BEGS for it. Don’t you see how inhumane and cruel it is to let someone to suffer?

I wonder if there ever will be a rational argument presented for this problem.
Click to expand...
If there is a situation whereby we are powerless to have prevented the death of a loved one, quite often we can be comforted by someone who was perhaps with them when they died. They would offer such comfort by telling you that it was a quick death. That they didn’t suffer. For which we would be eternally greatful. As opposed to having them die slowly over many hours (or even days) in the most terrible pain.

Yet when some pray for an end to a loved one’s suffering and are in a position to actively ensure that they don’t suffer, they take no action.
 
Spaten said:
I wonder if there ever will be a rational argument presented for this problem.
Click to expand...
Your reasoning and conclusion is quite rational given your starting assumptions. So too that of those who oppose you. The disagreement is not in the reasoning, but in the assumptions with which you and they start.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Your reasoning and conclusion is quite rational given your starting assumptions. So too that of those who oppose you. The disagreement is not in the reasoning, but in the assumptions with which you and they start.
Click to expand...
The answers can be LOGICAL, based upon the starting parameters. There is a difference between “logical” and “rational” answers. The rational answer must be based upon the observable universe and its physical characteristics. In this case, what can be rational about extending the suffering against the wishes of the sufferer?
 
Spaten said:
The rational answer must be based upon the observable universe and its physical characteristics.
Click to expand...
If that is your premise, then how pointless of you to seek productive discussion in a religion-based forum! Perhaps preface your posts with: “so that we can dialogue ‘rationally’, I need you to put aside all considerations not rooted in the observable universe and its physical characteristics…” :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
If that is your premise, then how pointless of you to seek productive discussion in a religion-based forum! Perhaps preface your posts with: “so that we can dialogue ‘rationally’, I need you to put aside all considerations not rooted in the observable universe and its physical characteristics …”
Click to expand...
Simple. Because it is possible that we can reach the same conclusion, even starting from a different premise. I am just curious, if you can present a rational argument for your stance.

To try to build an argument not cased upon the reality is futile. Different people can start with different “nonexistent” premises, so there is almost no hope for a discussion.
 
Spaten said:
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?
Click to expand...
Thou shalt not kill–the specific word used in the original language (Hebrew) as well as the word kill in the English of the 1600s is more analogous to murder than to our current usage. So straight from God’s writing to Moses and down to us.

Moreover, the types of situations in which someone would be called upon to end someone’s life who was painfully about to die are extremely rare.
 
I respect the question deeply, but I beg to differ: this is not just a simple question. I will refrain from saying more.
 
Last edited:
That is the scenario you presented.
 
Last edited:
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...
It depends on the intention of the person and the level of malevolence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top