Philosophical arguments against euthanasia

[LongJohnSilver]

Hi guys,

I’m quite familiar with philosophical arguments against gay-marriage and abortion. I think I’m able to discuss these topics with non-believers without using any religious arguments. But when it comes to euthanasia, I find that I have trouble coming up with arguments that are philosophical rather than religious.

So my question is: what good philosophical arguments are there against euthanasia?

 

[27lw]

Well, just off the top of my head,

1. There is the “slippery slope” argument, that the laws may start with euthenasia for the terminally ill who are in pain, but usually that progresses to just about anyone wants to commit suicide (there are recent examples of this in Belgium in particular).
2. Disability rights organization don’t like the idea, often, because it implies that some outside judge can decide who has a good enough “quality of life”, that there is some level of “quality of life” below which it isn’t worth living. Which is antithetical to a lot of religions, and different ideas of morality.
   You might look at the websites for “Care not killing”, which is based in the UK, and “www.notdeadyet.org” in the US.
   I’m sure lots of people will have other great ideas!

 

[heidi_storage]

Also, why do you have to avoid “religious arguments”? If you think it true that euthanasia is violating God’s command and affronting human dignity, why cannot you say so? Don’t concede your religon as the valid moral center of your thinking.

 

[Bahman]

Hi guys,

I’m quite familiar with philosophical arguments against gay-marriage and abortion. I think I’m able to discuss these topics with non-believers without using any religious arguments. But when it comes to euthanasia, I find that I have trouble coming up with arguments that are philosophical rather than religious.

So my question is: what good philosophical arguments are there against euthanasia?

And what are the arguments against gay marriage and abortion?

 

[dmar198]

Hi guys,

I’m quite familiar with philosophical arguments against gay-marriage and abortion. I think I’m able to discuss these topics with non-believers without using any religious arguments. But when it comes to euthanasia, I find that I have trouble coming up with arguments that are philosophical rather than religious.

So my question is: what good philosophical arguments are there against euthanasia?

Some of the same arguments that apply in the abortion debate apply here, because you have to start out by demonstrating the value and dignity of life. In my opinion, if someone doesn’t believe in God that becomes too subjective to be logical, but there are significant philosophers who disagree.

Once you have demonstrated the surpassing value of life, then both kinds of euthanasia become violations of the dignity of life. Involuntary euthanasia becomes a form of murder and violates the principle of respect for a person’s free will, while voluntary euthanasia, or assisted suicide, becomes an abandonment of one’s duties. Every person has a responsibility to do whatever good we are capable of; suicide abandons this responsibility, and is therefore bad.

In the U.K. the Church has been fighting an effort to legalize assisted suicide, and the pro-suicide argument is that this is a matter of free will and conscience. If you feel that your life is worthless, they say, the dignity of life argument no longer works, and to enforce that is a violation of your conscience. One of the Church’s responses to that is that it’s not just your conscience that is involved here, because in assisted suicide you bring a doctor in as well, along with the state’s medical standards. And even if you think that your life is worthless, the State’s standards have an obligation to be based on the truth, which is that all life has enormous value. They therefore have to hold their doctors to that standard, because everyone has to pay attention to the truth and hold firm to that, not just do whatever you want them to do. I think this argument is effective because it grounds the objection to assisted suicide in an objective responsibility to the truth. So keep that in mind as well.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**LongJohn

So my question is: what good philosophical arguments are there against euthanasia? **

Adolf Hitler? Cost of Obamacare? Disgruntled children? Homicidal physicians and attorrneys?

Make it legal and you will see a hundred other reasons for it to become popular.

The slippery slope argument is never a fallacy.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Thanks all for replying.

Well, just off the top of my head,

1. There is the “slippery slope” argument, that the laws may start with euthenasia for the terminally ill who are in pain, but usually that progresses to just about anyone wants to commit suicide (there are recent examples of this in Belgium in particular).
2. Disability rights organization don’t like the idea, often, because it implies that some outside judge can decide who has a good enough “quality of life”, that there is some level of “quality of life” below which it isn’t worth living. Which is antithetical to a lot of religions, and different ideas of morality.
   You might look at the websites for “Care not killing”, which is based in the UK, and “www.notdeadyet.org” in the US.
   I’m sure lots of people will have other great ideas!

I’m not sure the slippery slope argument works really well, since you’re basically predicting the future and that’s not very convincing. Your opponent in the debate can simply say: I don’t think it will work out that bad. And you have no power to convince him otherwise. Maybe it works afterwards, but then the harm is already done. Would you agree?

Your second reference sounds good, there may be a argument from principle in there. I will look into those websites. Thanks.

Also, why do you have to avoid “religious arguments”? If you think it true that euthanasia is violating God’s command and affronting human dignity, why cannot you say so? Don’t concede your religon as the valid moral center of your thinking.

Because they are usually not very convincing when debating non-believers. You’re often going to be on the level of ‘well, that’s just your opinion’.

Some of the same arguments that apply in the abortion debate apply here, because you have to start out by demonstrating the value and dignity of life. In my opinion, if someone doesn’t believe in God that becomes too subjective to be logical, but there are significant philosophers who disagree.

Once you have demonstrated the surpassing value of life, then both kinds of euthanasia become violations of the dignity of life. Involuntary euthanasia becomes a form of murder and violates the principle of respect for a person’s free will, while voluntary euthanasia, or assisted suicide, becomes an abandonment of one’s duties. Every person has a responsibility to do whatever good we are capable of; suicide abandons this responsibility, and is therefore bad.

In the U.K. the Church has been fighting an effort to legalize assisted suicide, and the pro-suicide argument is that this is a matter of free will and conscience. If you feel that your life is worthless, they say, the dignity of life argument no longer works, and to enforce that is a violation of your conscience. One of the Church’s responses to that is that it’s not just your conscience that is involved here, because in assisted suicide you bring a doctor in as well, along with the state’s medical standards. And even if you think that your life is worthless, the State’s standards have an obligation to be based on the truth, which is that all life has enormous value. They therefore have to hold their doctors to that standard, because everyone has to pay attention to the truth and hold firm to that, not just do whatever you want them to do. I think this argument is effective because it grounds the objection to assisted suicide in an objective responsibility to the truth. So keep that in mind as well.

Yes, that sounds good. I will think about this. Great, thanks.

@all: any other arguments?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Also, why do you have to avoid “religious arguments”? If you think it true that euthanasia is violating God’s command and affronting human dignity, why cannot you say so? Don’t concede your religon as the valid moral center of your thinking.

The religious arguments by themselves may explain to some one else why a person has a certain stance but may not move the other person to agreement. The non-religious arguments can serve to persuade others to have the same stance (though for different reasons). Having non-religious arguments isn’t necessarily conceding.

 

[27lw]

Here’s a recent article from the WSJ:

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323463704578495102975991248

Here’s a quote from it about the situation in Belgium:​

"Now the Belgian senate is debating whether to expand the law. One of the most controversial proposals would let severely ill, suffering minors request euthanasia, if a psychiatrist finds they have a “capacity for discernment” and if their parents agree.

The Catholic Church, among others, fiercely objects to that. “Minors are…considered legally incapable of certain acts, for example buying or selling, marrying, and so on,” Msgr. Andre-Joseph Leonard, archbishop of Brussels, told reporters recently. “And here all of a sudden, they’re sufficiently mature in the eyes of the law to ask someone to take their lives?”​

I think the slippery slope is made manifest here.

 

[dmar198]

Thanks all for replying.

I’m not sure the slippery slope argument works really well, since you’re basically predicting the future and that’s not very convincing. Your opponent in the debate can simply say: I don’t think it will work out that bad. And you have no power to convince him otherwise. Maybe it works afterwards, but then the harm is already done. Would you agree?

In professional logic, the slippery slope argument is sometimes appropriate. The key is to show a logical connection between the first event and the last. For example, in the same-sex “marriage” debate, one slippery slope argument that is often brought up is that same-sex “marraige” will lead to polygamy. The usual answer to that is that if someone tries to do polygamy, the state can just say no. But there is a problem with that answer. Legal decisions set precedents and they have consequences; the reason polygamy was banned by the States was because the Supreme Court once ruled that the State has a right to define marriage as one man and one woman. (The case was called Murphy versus Ramsey.) Now, though, the recent lawsuits about same-sex “marriage” are trying to overturn that. And if the Supreme Court says that the States don’t have the right to define marriage as one man and one woman, that case, Murphy v. Ramsey, will be overturned ipso facto. So there is a logical connection between the cause and the effect, and thus this example of a slippery slope argument is valid.

 

[wanstronian]

The Catholic Church, among others, fiercely objects to that. “Minors are…considered legally incapable of certain acts, for example buying or selling, marrying, and so on,”

Funny how the Catholic Church doesn’t object to the children of its adherents being told what to believe in before they’re capable of thinking for themselves.

 

[wanstronian]

1. There is the “slippery slope” argument, that the laws may start with euthenasia for the terminally ill who are in pain, but usually that progresses to just about anyone wants to commit suicide (there are recent examples of this in Belgium in particular).

Well, it’s my life, who else has the right to tell me whether or not I’m allowed to end it? For any reason, as long as I can demonstrate my rationality?

 

[dmar198]

Well, it’s my life, who else has the right to tell me whether or not I’m allowed to end it? For any reason, as long as I can demonstrate my rationality?

No one can even stop you from ending your life, and you don’t even have to prove your rationality. The question is not whether you can, but whether you should. And if you objectively shouldn’t do it, then a doctor objectively shouldn’t help you do it.

 

[dmar198]

Funny how the Catholic Church doesn’t object to the children of its adherents being told what to believe in before they’re capable of thinking for themselves.

Atheists are selective about that too. They don’t mind teaching children that Alabama is south of Maine or that stealing is wrong, for example.

 

[Qoeleth]

Hi guys,

I’m quite familiar with philosophical arguments against gay-marriage and abortion. I think I’m able to discuss these topics with non-believers without using any religious arguments. But when it comes to euthanasia, I find that I have trouble coming up with arguments that are philosophical rather than religious.

So my question is: what good philosophical arguments are there against euthanasia?

I’m not sure if there could be a purely philosophical argument, unless there are some agreed upon value to start off with.

A kind of philosophical argument- “It’s against nature”.

 

[heidi_storage]

Well, it’s my life, who else has the right to tell me whether or not I’m allowed to end it? For any reason, as long as I can demonstrate my rationality?

Actually, I think your life is on lease from God, so I don’t think you’re allowed to end it at your own whim.

 

[heidi_storage]

The religious arguments by themselves may explain to some one else why a person has a certain stance but may not move the other person to agreement. The non-religious arguments can serve to persuade others to have the same stance (though for different reasons). Having non-religious arguments isn’t necessarily conceding.

But if the other person perceives that the nonreligious arguments aren’t the “real” reason for your stance–if, for instance, they can counter these reasons fairly convincingly–what is gained?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But if the other person perceives that the nonreligious arguments aren’t the “real” reason for your stance–if, for instance, they can counter these reasons fairly convincingly–what is gained?

I’m not sure I quite follow you. Different people can have different motivations for things; and these different motivations don’t necessarily nullify each other. For example, I don’t smoke in part because I have no desire to and I don’t like the way it smells. I understand that a person that does not mind the smell will not be motivated by this reason. But if asked for a reason not to smoke I could mentioned the increased risk of respiratory problems, lung cancer, and the expense over time while. Are any of these invalidated from my position of not liking the smell?

Similarly one may be unsupportive of euthanasia/mercy killings for religious reasons while still having knowledge of other considerations that may impact another person’s view on the issue.

 

[polytropos]

Try looking up some of Elizabeth Anscombe’s writings on euthanasia. I’m not sure which ones would be available online, but she was a rigorous thinker and was involved later in her life in medical societies debating the question of medical ethics.

 

[wanstronian]

No one can even stop you from ending your life, and you don’t even have to prove your rationality. The question is not whether you can, but whether you should. And if you objectively shouldn’t do it, then a doctor objectively shouldn’t help you do it.

And who is “objective” enough to decide whether I should or shouldn’t do it? It’s a matter of opinion, and nobody’s is more valid than mine when it’s my life.

A doctor should clearly be able to decide whether he/she wants to assist, but that’s a different matter.

The “slippery slope” argument is invalid.