I
InJesusItrust
Guest
I did not say I would let person B die. I just said that I would not automatically choose person A because person B will suffer or have less pleasure.
The point I am trying to get as is that most of the responses were talking about happiness and worldly pleasures. I am asking if suffering and lack of pleasure would then make a life less valuable. I reason that the reason euthanasia is favored by the more liberal and secular societies is because they can only see happiness and value as consequence of more pleasure and lack of suffering. There is the old “quality of life” thing thrown by euthanasia advocates, yet at the same time they will support counselling people who are not old or disabled to escape from suicide. Clearly they are saying that lives are less valuable because they will continuously suffer.
The point I am trying to get as is that most of the responses were talking about happiness and worldly pleasures. I am asking if suffering and lack of pleasure would then make a life less valuable. I reason that the reason euthanasia is favored by the more liberal and secular societies is because they can only see happiness and value as consequence of more pleasure and lack of suffering. There is the old “quality of life” thing thrown by euthanasia advocates, yet at the same time they will support counselling people who are not old or disabled to escape from suicide. Clearly they are saying that lives are less valuable because they will continuously suffer.