Quality of life philosophy

[brycelaliberte]

Originally Posted by brycelaliberte
If one is able to unaccept the importance the another’s life, no matter what their condition, how is one to know theirs is ‘worthy’ to another? (And so hence, if not worthy, removable?)

And then response by ateista;

Well, this is a different problem, which needs more consideration to prevent possible abuses. And, of course, the responsibility which would come with such decision. I think this could (and should) be explored in a thread of its own.

So, I ask, how would a philosophy of “Quality of Life” be implemented, in such a way that life could verifiably, absolutely be guaranteed to be ‘qualified’ without there being abuses?

In other words, how could it be done in such a way that Quality of Life would trump the much more basic (and more easily implementable) Sanctity of Life philosophy?

 

[ateista]

So, I ask, how would a philosophy of “Quality of Life” be implemented, in such a way that life could **verifiably, absolutely be guaranteed **to be ‘qualified’ without there being abuses?

In other words, how could it be done in such a way that Quality of Life would trump the much more basic (and more easily implementable) Sanctity of Life philosophy?

Unfortunately you ask for something that cannot be done. Abuses or simple mistakes cannot be avoided - the best we can hope for is to minimize them as much as possible.

The idea that a high quality life is preferable to no life is pretty much obvious. In my eyes the reverse is also obvious, namely that no life at all is preferable to a miserable, sick, hungry, painful life. I am sure that everyone would choose to cease to exist if they were certain that the remainder of their life would only offer pain and misery. Of course, most lives fall into the middle, filled with joy and pain, happiness and sorrow - to a varying degree.

When it comes to someone’s own life, if the person is in full command of his faculties, the decision making belongs to that person. Be it a good decision or a bad one, the person alone is responsible, and should be given absolute dominion over his decision. The movie title: “Whose life is it anyway?” describes this beautifully.

The true dilemma comes when the decision must be made by someone else, who must take the responsibility for the action taken. An example would be a sick child, who is not capable of making an informed decision, or someone who suffers from Alzheimer disease, and cannot make decisions at all. An easier version is when someone is in persistent vegetative state.

You may argue that the “sanctity of life” can be easier to implement. My problem is that using this criterion you condemn someone “to life” who wishes (or would wish) to cease to exist - and that is cruel. The approach of “quality of life” has an opposite problem. We might condemn to someone to death, who might live a happy and successful life. Both can be erroneous decisions.

We do not have certainty either way. It is possible that a so far uncurable disease will be treated tomorrow. Very unlikely, but possible. Therefore we must “play” the percentages.

In a sense this is similar to the problem of “let a thousand criminals go unpunished rather than one innocent should suffer” as opposed to “let a thousand innocents suffer rather than one criminal go unpunished”. Since it is mathematically impossible to minimize both errors, we must make a decision, which one we try to minimize.

My opinion is this: since death is unavoidable (though at least it precludes taxes ), we must accept that life and death are not contradictory. Life and suffering are contradictory. We must minimize suffering as much as possible.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Unfortunately you ask for something that cannot be done. Abuses or simple mistakes cannot be avoided - the best we can hope for is to minimize them as much as possible.

Ok, sorry, I though we were going to be hopelessly optimistic.

Yes, as you present it, we are largely able to decide for ourselves if we are willing to ‘linger on’ in your sense. Is suicide okay then? But, if it were okay, it would not be a choice that affects only the self, but the family and community around. I’ve done a bit of studying on the subject, and I’ve learned that by and large suicide is not just suicide of just self, but could be more accurately described as communicide.

Now, when it comes to making the decision for someone else, how are we to suppose when someone would decide that their life is through? Is this even possible to know?

For instance, what about the person who is actually asking for their death as ‘mercy from their pain?’ But then, we put them through the pain, and they are better off afterward. Otherwise known as the bear-caught-in-the-bear-trap conundrum. The bear is not understanding that the pain it is being put through is actually for its better.

Are we able to point to any person under any condition, and make the decision for them whether they would choose to live or die?

How are we to define what gives someone the qualifying part of the quality of life?

How can there be quality of life if there is no life for some?

This breaks down after the knowledge of difference of opinion comes into the equation. What if the fact that this quality of life philosophy were to harm my quality of life?

Ok, stopping here. Don’t want to go into it too much, want to see what you say.

 

[ateista]

Ok, sorry, I though we were going to be hopelessly optimistic.

Optimism is good, but sometimes not possible. Realistic is better…

Yes, as you present it, we are largely able to decide for ourselves if we are willing to ‘linger on’ in your sense. Is suicide okay then? But, if it were okay, it would not be a choice that affects only the self, but the family and community around. I’ve done a bit of studying on the subject, and I’ve learned that by and large suicide is not just suicide of just self, but could be more accurately described as communicide.

Possible, under certain circumstances, though not always. But even if your scenario is accurate, we are responsible for ourselves - first and foremost - and can only be held responsible for others afterwards. As before, our life is our own, and if we deem that our life is not worth living, we must ask others to respect our decision, just as we respect their decision.

Now, when it comes to making the decision for someone else, how are we to suppose when someone would decide that their life is through? Is this even possible to know?

There is no definitive answer. It all depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it is possible to know, other times we are left to guesses. It would be great if everyone would set down their wishes in advance. But most people do not, they are “scared” to think of their own death, and refuse to make a last will and testament. Dumb, but there you go.

For instance, what about the person who is actually asking for their death as ‘mercy from their pain?’ But then, we put them through the pain, and they are better off afterward.

Maybe, or maybe not. Taking responsibility for someone’s life is not different from taking responsibility for someone’s death. (In some societies if you save someone else’s life, you are held responsible for that person’s well-being, as long as they live. Interesting, isn’t it?) And where do we take the the courage to override someone else’s wish? Are they not the best qualified to assess their own position?

Otherwise known as the bear-caught-in-the-bear-trap conundrum. The bear is not understanding that the pain it is being put through is actually for its better.

Sorry, this I do not understand.

Are we able to point to any person under any condition, and make the decision for them whether they would choose to live or die?

No, not always. We are left to guesses and it is a very difficult thing to do.

How are we to define what gives someone the qualifying part of the quality of life?

We must do the best we can. An example: I knew once a very seriously retarded person, who was also wheelchair-bound. He was brought to the church I attended (I was still religious back then) and I saw the the happiness on this guy’s face. He did not understand a word, but he was happy. I would not not have wanted to “override” his obvious display of happiness, and would not do it now. Since he looked happy, I have to conclude that he was happy. But, don’t forget, this cuts both ways. If someone looks to be in pain, looks miserable, looks unhappy, we must conclude that he is in pain, is miserable and is unhappy…

How can there be quality of life if there is no life for some?

What do you mean here? Without life there is no quality, that is obvious.

This breaks down after the knowledge of difference of opinion comes into the equation. What if the fact that this quality of life philosophy were to harm my quality of life?

Please give me an example, so I can understand better what you mean. Without an example, all I can say that I respect your wishes, and ask you to respect mine.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Optimism is good, but sometimes not possible. Realistic is better…

Well alright…

Possible, under certain circumstances, though not always. But even if your scenario is accurate, we are responsible for ourselves - first and foremost - and can only be held responsible for others afterwards. As before, our life is our own, and if we deem that our life is not worth living, we must ask others to respect our decision, just as we respect their decision.

Something I think we will just have to accept about this part of the philosophy, it’s for the selfish.

There is no definitive answer. It all depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it is possible to know, other times we are left to guesses. It would be great if everyone would set down their wishes in advance. But most people do not, they are “scared” to think of their own death, and refuse to make a last will and testament. Dumb, but there you go.

Say we could make a list of requirements, that when fulfilled, posit a good reason to let the person die in peace. What would they be?

Maybe, or maybe not. Taking responsibility for someone’s life is not different from taking responsibility for someone’s death. (In some societies if you save someone else’s life, you are held responsible for that person’s well-being, as long as they live. Interesting, isn’t it?) And where do we take the the courage to override someone else’s wish? Are they not the best qualified to assess their own position?

Do we not ‘take courage’ to override other people’s wishes all the time?
Perhaps a modified use of the Golden Rule; do unto others as they SHOULD want done unto them, and expect that you shall receive the same. While infinite mercy we may want, it may not be the best, and we may find it more prudent to incorporate a bit of ‘justice’ and that afterwards the person will be better off.

Sorry, this I do not understand.

Oh, right, the bear caught in the bear trap conundrum.

There is a bear that becomes caught in a bear trap (or maybe it’s a beaver trap… don’t remember which) and is in pain. The hunter comes along, seeing the bear in the trap, and decides to release the bear. To do this, he will be required to twist the bear’s paw in the trap a certain way, putting the bear into more pain, but otherwise the bear will not be able to get out. The bear doesn’t understand that it needs to be trusting of the hunter, but the hunter knows that what he is doing is for the bear’s better.

See?

No, not always. We are left to guesses and it is a very difficult thing to do.

But if we can only guess, why not give the benefit of the doubt?

We must do the best we can. An example: I knew once a very seriously retarded person, who was also wheelchair-bound. He was brought to the church I attended (I was still religious back then) and I saw the the happiness on this guy’s face. He did not understand a word, but he was happy. I would not not have wanted to “override” his obvious display of happiness, and would not do it now. Since he looked happy, I have to conclude that he was happy. But, don’t forget, this cuts both ways. If someone looks to be in pain, looks miserable, looks unhappy, we must conclude that he is in pain, is miserable and is unhappy…

And if that person was sad, would you not do as much as you could to make him happy first? Or would that be too inconvenient and at cost to your quality? Again, it comes back to being selfish…

What do you mean here? Without life there is no quality, that is obvious.

Agreed.

Though what this fact means, we aren’t going to agree, I would presume…

Admitting this, could one still support abortion? Euthanasia?

Please give me an example, so I can understand better what you mean. Without an example, all I can say that I respect your wishes, and ask you to respect mine.

“The selfish shall prosper off the selfless.”

I shall respect your wishes, and you shall demand your wishes respected. I cannot give an example where this won’t be found.

Let me give an example anyways;

A young mother (about 18-19) finds that she is pregnant. This is incredibly inconvenient, for it is not exactly how she envisioned her life panning out. She is also very religious, and will most definitely lose popular standing in her church and among her parents (whom she respects very much). She wanted to go into a career of business after college, but if she chooses to have the child, then this plan shall be ruined or delayed for a very long time. What should she do?

 

[crowonsnow]

A young mother (about 18-19) finds that she is pregnant. This is incredibly inconvenient, for it is not exactly how she envisioned her life panning out. She is also very religious, and will most definitely lose popular standing in her church and among her parents (whom she respects very much). She wanted to go into a career of business after college, but if she chooses to have the child, then this plan shall be ruined or delayed for a very long time. What should she do?

Pardon my interruption.

That is such a bizarre and fantasy-laden scenario, so full of contradictions, stereotype, anecdote and open-endedness. I could write pages upon pages of response to it, and still answer nothing.

Before attempting such a Herculean undertaking, reason and practicality simply dictate that I sit down with each person in this hypothetical and ask, “What do you want?” I’d also ask, “What are you trying to do?”

This would be much easier and far more productive both long and short term.

Don’t you think that makes more sense?

 

[buffalo]

When we speak of quality of life we must speak of both here and everafter.

Where do we find the highest quality of life? Heaven
Where does our trial take place? Earth

Without life one cannot have eternal life.

If the mother chooses abortion and does not confess she effects two qualites of life - her own and her baby.

It’s not about “me”.

 

[ateista]

Something I think we will just have to accept about this part of the philosophy, it’s for the selfish.

I do not see “selfish” as inherently bad. It is bad, if I try to get ahead in life at someone else’s expense. That is bad, no question about it. But the underlying assumption - “life is a zero-sum game” - is false. We can both prosper without exploiting others.

Furthermore, taking care of ourselves first, we are in a better position to help others. The “unselfish” scenario leads to a sub-optimal solution: “I try to take care of you (neglecting myself), and then I will need you to take care of me (neglecting yourself)”. Isn’t that stupid? How can I know your needs better than you do? And conversely, how can you know my needs better than I do? Makes no sense, does it?

Say we could make a list of requirements, that when fulfilled, posit a good reason to let the person die in peace. What would they be?

A highly probable expectation that keeping that person alive (maybe against his own wishes) would lead to more pain and misery.

An example: a team of soldiers infiltrates an enemy territory on an important mission. One of them suffers a serious, but not life-threatening injury and he is incapable to continue. What should be done? Leave the soldier and hope that a rescue mission can save him. The risk is high that he will be discovered by the enemy, who will capture, torture, and murder him. Is that preferable to quick, painless mercy killing?

Do we not ‘take courage’ to override other people’s wishes all the time?

Do we? I doubt it.

Perhaps a modified use of the Golden Rule; do unto others as they SHOULD want done unto them, and expect that you shall receive the same.

I prefer the “inverse” golden rule: “Do not do unto others that you would not want them do unto you”. In other words, leave people alone, and assume that they are capable of making good decisions for themselves. If they ask for help, that is another story, of course.

Oh, right, the bear caught in the bear trap conundrum.

There is a bear that becomes caught in a bear trap (or maybe it’s a beaver trap… don’t remember which) and is in pain. The hunter comes along, seeing the bear in the trap, and decides to release the bear. To do this, he will be required to twist the bear’s paw in the trap a certain way, putting the bear into more pain, but otherwise the bear will not be able to get out. The bear doesn’t understand that it needs to be trusting of the hunter, but the hunter knows that what he is doing is for the bear’s better.

See?

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, sometimes this scenario is valid. But, of course you speak of a bear (or maybe a child), who is not capable of understanding.

But if we can only guess, why not give the benefit of the doubt?

Don’t forget, not all guesses are “created” equal. If there is a good chance, of couse we should give the benefit of doubt. If however, to the best of our knowledge, the outcome is something the person would not want, we must take the responsibility to act.

And if that person was sad, would you not do as much as you could to make him happy first? Or would that be too inconvenient and at cost to your quality? Again, it comes back to being selfish…

Within reasonable limits, yes. But I would not sacrifice my whole life just to help one individual. However, this is not the point: I saw that person who seemed to be happy, and I accepted that he was happy. If I see a person in pain, I must also assume that he is in pain.

Admitting this, could one still support abortion? Euthanasia?

Yes.

“The selfish shall prosper off the selfless.”

Same error as above. Life is not a zero-sum game.

Let me give an example anyways;

A young mother (about 18-19) finds that she is pregnant. This is incredibly inconvenient, for it is not exactly how she envisioned her life panning out. She is also very religious, and will most definitely lose popular standing in her church and among her parents (whom she respects very much). She wanted to go into a career of business after college, but if she chooses to have the child, then this plan shall be ruined or delayed for a very long time. What should she do?

I cannot make a decision for her. It is her problem, she must solve it to the best of her capabilities. In the circumstances you described, I would advise to go ahead and carry the pregnancy to term. Since you said she is very religious, and respects the wishes of her parents, I think that is the best solution under these circumstances. Sad for her to have her life changed so drastically, but an abortion might lead to even worse problems. She might lose her self-esteem, lose her parents’ respect, etc… but as we all know … happens.

 

[brycelaliberte]

I do not see “selfish” as inherently bad. It is bad, if I try to get ahead in life at someone else’s expense. That is bad, no question about it. But the underlying assumption - “life is a zero-sum game” - is false. We can both prosper without exploiting others.

Furthermore, taking care of ourselves first, we are in a better position to help others. The “unselfish” scenario leads to a sub-optimal solution: “I try to take care of you (neglecting myself), and then I will need you to take care of me (neglecting yourself)”. Isn’t that stupid? How can I know your needs better than you do? And conversely, how can you know my needs better than I do? Makes no sense, does it?

Ok, accepting this, can one defend suicide?

And yes, there must obviously be something to be given before it can be given. This is assumed, though then when one has nothing to give, they should be graciously accepting of other’s charity. Otherwise, if the self is not minimally cared for, then that person is just a leech on society. (When they choose to do so)

A highly probable expectation that keeping that person alive (maybe against his own wishes) would lead to more pain and misery.

An example: a team of soldiers infiltrates an enemy territory on an important mission. One of them suffers a serious, but not life-threatening injury and he is incapable to continue. What should be done? Leave the soldier and hope that a rescue mission can save him. The risk is high that he will be discovered by the enemy, who will capture, torture, and murder him. Is that preferable to quick, painless mercy killing?

There is not enough in that question to ellicit a response. What are the soldier’s vows in service? For if he vowed to not speak under torture, then this must be assumed that he will keep his vow, but if no vow was made, then we cannot know. Though chances are if he didn’t make such a vow, such information as could be damaging with his unrequired knowledge would simply not be given.

Do we? I doubt it.

Well, in your proposed idea of quality of life philosophy, I can see that we would be making decisions for others on such basis of their quality. If we can make hard decisions based on such, why not also make a decision based on sanctity of life? What would be so wrong with ‘disrespecting’ the wishes of someone to save their life with ordinary means? What would be so right with assuming their lack of quality and letting them die? Even if it would be possible to correctly know their lack of quality, how would this rule out sanctity of life? We would be playing God with a decision based on their quality…

I prefer the “inverse” golden rule: “Do not do unto others that you would not want them do unto you”. In other words, leave people alone, and assume that they are capable of making good decisions for themselves. If they ask for help, that is another story, of course.

And if one is obliviously happy and in danger, should we not spoil their fun to save their life? We would assume our happiness shouldn’t be tramped upon, so we won’t ask for help from what we won’t know will harm us.

What if, even then, it could be assumed they know the danger they are taking? Are we still off the hook as to informing them and/or saving them?

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, sometimes this scenario is valid. But, of course you speak of a bear (or maybe a child), who is not capable of understanding. [/FONT

]

Or a sufficiently handicapped person. So are you saying its ok to cause pain for the greater end health of the person, when they don’t understand?

Don’t forget, not all guesses are “created” equal. If there is a good chance, of couse we should give the benefit of doubt. If however, to the best of our knowledge, the outcome is something the person would not want, we must take the responsibility to act.

Oh right, you answer my question to a little above.

Within reasonable limits, yes. But I would not sacrifice my whole life just to help one individual. However, this is not the point: I saw that person who seemed to be happy, and I accepted that he was happy. If I see a person in pain, I must also assume that he is in pain.

Well no one is asked to sacrifice their whole lives for another (normally) but it could be argued that sometimes this may be for the best of both people. But, in the scenario I can think of, the benefits would be eternal, not temporal for sacrifice of my life, so I must accept that you would normally choose your own life.

Yes.

How, then? (could one support abortion and/or euthanasia)

Same error as above. Life is not a zero-sum game.

Ok, could I ask for clarification on what you mean by ‘zero-sum game.’ I think I know what you mean, but don’t want to respond just yet.

I cannot make a decision for her. It is her problem, she must solve it to the best of her capabilities. In the circumstances you described, I would advise to go ahead and carry the pregnancy to term. Since you said she is very religious, and respects the wishes of her parents, I think that is the best solution under these circumstances. Sad for her to have her life changed so drastically, but an abortion might lead to even worse problems. She might lose her self-esteem, lose her parents’ respect, etc… but as we all know … happens.

Ok, a decent answer I suppose. (My mother, just so you know, with me. And she chose to carry me to term merely because I was a human life not because she feared loss of anything)
[/quote]

 

[geekborj]

And then response by ateista;

So, I ask, how would a philosophy of “Quality of Life” be implemented, in such a way that life could verifiably, absolutely be guaranteed to be ‘qualified’ without there being abuses?

In other words, how could it be done in such a way that Quality of Life would trump the much more basic (and more easily implementable) Sanctity of Life philosophy?

A good quality of life can be attained from the lessons of Christianity, no doubt. When we try to use just pure Reasons, it needs to have a lot of explanation but still, you lead to the same conclusions as Christianity would. Why bother go around the bush?

When you say something (you think) is “bad,” who decides that it is bad indeed? Who defined “bad”? Is this assuming that there is a Law that defines badness? Does this not support the Christian view?

When you say you can or cannot decide for others “quality of life” you presume that you know the very definition of “quality of life.” It is at this point that Christians admit that they only know what is revealed to us and thus, the Golden Rule.

IMO, one can even use game theory to prove that Christian idea of achieving “quality of life” is the best solution possible, yet still not perfect of course – but best possible, still. At this point, we are just going into something non-spiritual yet.

 

[Swan]

I’m going to step in here because I have some personal experience with suicide. My dad committed suicide because he had emphysema and his quality of life had deteriorated to the point where he was miserable and he knew it was going to get worse. The problems this left me with were complex. Would we, his loved ones, have been able to talk him out of it? Should we have tried? I think that if we had knownk, it he had explained it to us and then had some kind of assisted suicide (as oppossed to shooting himself in the head, twice, and living for 24 or so hours before they unhooked the respirator which he had written legal instructions for them to do) then I, for one, would have had an easier time accepting it. One reason this is so is that I would have been more sure of his state of mind, more confident that he had really thought things through, really understood his options as to quality of life issues, etc. As it is, I’m afraid he was simply depressed and possibly drunk. Bi-polar disorder (aka manic-depression) runs in my family. I have it myself.

Indeed, I checked myself in to the hospital about 14 years ago in a suicidal depression. I did so because I knew my mom would be devasted if I killed myself (this was prior to my dad’s suicide). Otherwise, I would probably have blown my head off (I know what works and what won’t - I’ll succeed on the first try). Since that time I have not had such an intense depression but have been in a bad way since about Oct. But I go up and down quickly (rapid cycling).

I also have rheumatoid arthritis. So with two potentially debilitating conditions, I cannot say that I won’t one day decide that living is just too much trouble without adequate payback and commit suicide. But I can’t escape the question of the role the depression plays in these thoughts and possible decisions.