OwlFancier posted:I'm a little lost there, not sure what the legal status of the unborn has to do with it? The argument I was making was moral. Rights are a moral as well as a legal category. quote:Sure if you like, I don't draw much of a distinction because I don't feel it necessary for the purposes of this discussion. I do because I believe there are obvious qualitative differences. People who are already going to die proximately, as a result of no external act, without the possibility that this situation can be reversed quite clearly occupy a separate category. quote:I will grant that it is quite possible for the suicidal party to not act reasonably, but I would still advocate against absolute legal prohibition of assisted suicide because I don't believe that the law is capable of making a good decision about whether they're acting reasonably. I absolutely believe that almost anyone is a better judge of what is best for an individual than a severely delusional mentally ill person. The law is, in fact, not awful at doing this kind of thing in other situations. In any event, the 'law' doesn't have agency really, either a doctor, official, or family member does, usually as a result of special knowledge, skills, or knowledge of the individual in question.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Babblingly incoherent statement in the context of the conversation. As I've said before, opposition to suicide is a socially conservative belief and deeply founded in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Disinterested posted:I absolutely believe that almost anyone is a better judge of what is best for an individual than a severely delusional mentally ill person. Careful dude, your colors are showing. I want to to now try and apply that framework to abortion and tell everyone in this thread how that reasoning correlates without being intellectually dishonest.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:"The state, and therefore by necessity the majority, doesn't recognize the absolute right to bodily autonomy; therefore, there is no such thing because morality is derived from the state and its laws." You're confused. Rights are normative principles; standards of human behavior that are widely accepted. States make laws to protect and enforce such moral principles. Whether or not normative principles are derived from facts is highly controversial. You seem to believe that there is some natural, immutable, and self-evident set of normative facts from which a right to absolute bodily autonomy can be derived, which is something of an extraordinary claim that you haven't even come close to supporting.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:34
|
|
Job Truniht posted:As I've said before, opposition to suicide is a socially conservative belief and deeply founded in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. That is not the only point of origin. Many pre-Christian classical authors expressed deep scepticism for suicidal behaviour, particularly suicide outside of key areas and categories, most of which we don't regard any longer as particularly valid - such as dishonour, or as a form of imparted punishment. Job Truniht posted:Careful dude, your colors are showing. I want to to now try and apply that framework to abortion and tell everyone in this thread how that reasoning correlates without being intellectually dishonest. I don't regard the destruction of a fetus as a destruction of a human life, which is the thing to which I am attaching my test. There is no inconsistency.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Rights are a moral as well as a legal category. I would argue that rights should follow from moral principles, so a moral argument should determine what rights people ought to have, especially in the case of a proposed right that isn't legally established. Disinterested posted:I do because I believe there are obvious qualitative differences. People who are already going to die proximately, as a result of no external act, without the possibility that this situation can be reversed quite clearly occupy a separate category. It's true that if people are proximately about to die that makes the question easier by removing the "potentially may lead a good life" argument but as I don't agree with that argument to begin with, I don't see it as a necessary distinction. You can draw one certainly but I don't feel the need to. Disinterested posted:I absolutely believe that almost anyone is a better judge of what is best for an individual than a severely delusional mentally ill person. The law is, in fact, not awful at doing this kind of thing in other situations. In any event, the 'law' doesn't have agency really, either a doctor, official, or family member does, usually as a result of special knowledge, skills, or knowledge of the individual in question. Doesn't that sort of... fall apart when you define "delusional and mentally ill" as "wants to take their own life without me understanding why" ? They can't make the right decision because they're mad, they're mad because they made the wrong decision. It seems a bit circular?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Stop taking a drug in order to die = Ok. Start taking a drug in order to die = Not ok. You either prevent deaths with forced medical treatments at the discretion of doctors or explain how your position is consistent.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Rights are normative principles; standards of human behavior that are widely accepted. So close! You almost got it. Rights are normative principles that dictate human behavior. Full stop. If rights exist their acceptance is secondary. Ogmius815 posted:States make laws to protect and enforce such moral principles. If you think that the state acts to preserve moral principles before it acts to preserve and/or expand its power you're delusional. It doesn't matter who is in power, the first responsibility that the state takes on is its own continuation of existence. Ogmius815 posted:Whether or not normative principles are derived from facts is highly controversial. True. But this is not a reason for denying that there exists a genuine human right to bodily autonomy. So I'm still waiting for even one of those reasons to be presented to me.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:58
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would argue that rights should follow from moral principles, so a moral argument should determine what rights people ought to have. Yes - but what has that got to do with anything? You are saying what rights people ought to have, I am saying that the status of non-conceived children is that they are not people at all, and therefore not capable of having a moral right. I invoked the law at precisely no point in the argument, so I just think you are not following what I am saying and should start over with this thread. OwlFancier posted:It's true that if people are proximately about to die that makes the question easier by removing the "potentially may lead a good life" argument but as I don't agree with that argument to begin with, I don't see it as a necessary distinction. You can draw one certainly but I don't feel the need to. It's all very nice that you don't agree and everything, but you haven't posited any reason why. One very good reason to draw a line is the irrevocably of the status of the terminally ill and the irreversibility of their loss of capacity and/or suffering. quote:Doesn't that sort of... fall apart when you define "delusional and mentally ill" as "wants to take their own life without me understanding why" ? It is circular, but this doesn't make it wrong in itself. One could phrase it less problematically by saying that the wish to die is a likely indicator of a loss of rational capacity. But I don't have a problem conceding the point that from the point of view of the subjective experience of the individual the act can be rational. To me that does not alter the calculation that it is necessary to prevent people from committing themselves to an irreversible act of self harm so as to give them the opportunity to not be in this position. And, to play the utilitarian game, I'm fairly sure lives will be saved this way that outweigh any potential cost. But I don't have to provide a definition of mentally ill or loss of capacity for the purposes of this conversation really.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:And, to play the utilitarian game I can play that game too. Since the majority of people would be happier if they didn't have the obstacles presented by minority opinions in the way of achieving their social and political goals, it is a morally right action to kill any and all people who do not agree with the political opinion of the majority. Is this entire thread utilitarians versus existentialists? Because gently caress that poo poo, I'm not wasting any more of my time on utilitarians.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:08
|
|
Zaradis posted:I can play that game too. Since the majority of people would be happier if they didn't have the obstacles presented by minority opinions in the way of achieving their social and political goals, it is a morally right action to kill any and all people who do not agree with the political opinion of the majority. I'm not a utilitarian actually but lol at how self involved your narrative of this thread is. This is not about totalitarianism. I'm sorry, but it just isn't.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:13
|
|
Evil totalitarian state trying to keep everyone alive 
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
As someone who has to worry about this later in life, I don't like the fact that people are trying to tell me that I have to live out my later days as a vegetable. That's all I have to say.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:20
|
|
site posted:As someone who has to worry about this later in life, I don't like the fact that people are trying to tell me that I have to live out my later days as a vegetable. It's not my position that you should so I hope that wherever you are has good laws on this by the time you're there.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's not my position that you should so I hope that wherever you are has good laws on this by the time you're there. I haven't read a single post in here, that wasnt directed at you. Just a general statement.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yes - but what has that got to do with anything? You are saying what rights people ought to have, I am saying that the status of non-conceived children is that they are not people at all, and therefore not capable of having a moral right. I invoked the law at precisely no point in the argument, so I just think you are not following what I am saying and should start over with this thread. I am a little lost then because I don't see the distinction between the unborn and the happy future of a living person. Both deal with things that exist entirely hypothetically. There is absolutely no guarantee that a person's life will improve with time, and even less guarantee that it will improved markedly enough that they will feel that it merits the difficulty of living. If you advocate for the preservation of life in the hopes that it will lead to hypothetical happy life later on, why not the same for birth? That is why I disagree with the notion that "they might be happy in the future" is a good argument, especially as this is a discussion about the legality of assisted suicide. Legalising assisted suicide says absolutely nothing about efforts to make it unneccesary, just as banning it does not do so either. The sole exception I would make to this is that by making suicide difficult, it makes it much easier to pretend that it isn't a problem. As has been demonstrated, people think suicide is tragic, but it isn't. What's tragic is what lead to the suicide. The death itself is much better than the person continuing to suffer, surely? It is not an ideal solution, but it may be the only option the person has available. I advocate the provision of care to those who need it, but I disagree that it is necessary to, with the other hand, prevent people from seeking a peaceful death. If access to medically assisted suicide lead to an increased rate of suicide, that should be seen as a challenge to provide better alternatives. The response to that challenge should not be to push suicide under the rug by making it harder to do, and necessitating people committing it in manners which are violent and/or harmful to others. Try to make it so that people may, perhaps, have a better life, but don't take away their option to end their life if they don't have an alternative. Zaradis posted:I can play that game too. Since the majority of people would be happier if they didn't have the obstacles presented by minority opinions in the way of achieving their social and political goals, it is a morally right action to kill any and all people who do not agree with the political opinion of the majority. I'm not sure if I would be a utilitarian or an existentialist in that argument given that I always thought I would be both.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:26
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am a little lost then because I don't see the distinction between the unborn and the happy future of a living person. One of them is alive.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:So close! You almost got it. Rights are normative principles that dictate human behavior. Full stop. If rights exist their acceptance is secondary. Great. Now you just have to make a conclusive argument for moral realism AND locate the facts from which your view of rights is derived (and no "it's just obvious to me" isn't good enough). Good luck! It's now absolutely clear, by the way, that you haven't seriously thought about or studied moral philosophy at all. You're basically a naive realist and you haven't made one single substantive argument to support any of it other than "it just is that way". It's very amusing. It's totally hilarious that you attributed the "god says so" view to me when you're the one talking about some kind of magic immutable morality that dictates human action. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 23:35 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:One of them is alive. But neither of them exist. The supposed happy futures, that is. Both exist in-potentia. One is simply slightly more in-potentia because the person isn't alive yet either. But neither one are real things that you should act as if they are certain.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:31
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But neither of them exist. That isn't the relevant qualifying condition, but even if it were, the potential future of non-existent persons it's definitely qualitatively different given how far removed it is, so as to render the distinction easy enough to me.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That isn't the relevant qualifying condition, but even if it were, the potential future of non-existent persons it's definitely qualitatively different given how far removed it is, so as to render the distinction easy enough to me. So, you're arguing it is less likely for any given unborn child to have a happy life, than it is for any given depressed person? It is less likely for a blank slate to be happy, than it is for a person who has a proven history of being unhappy? If you're of the view that potential happy futures are something worth preserving unhappy lives for, then surely you should be more in favor of having children in the random hope they become happy? This argument is farcical obviously but the reason I'm making it is because so is the premise. Potential future happiness is not a rational basis for making an argument, it's unfounded optimism.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:34
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So, you're arguing it is less likely for any given unborn child to have a happy life, than it is for any given depressed person? No, I'm arguing that the in-potentia happiness of children not conceived is simply not worthy of consideration because it's laughably remote from reality.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No, I'm arguing that the in-potentia happiness of children not conceived is simply not worthy of consideration because it's laughably remote from reality. How is it possibly more removed from reality than that of someone who is chronically depressed? Most people can produce a child just by loving a lot, making someone who has an established past full of misery and an established situation perpetuating their misery, not miserable any more, is much harder than that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:38
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How is it possibly more removed from reality than that of someone who is chronically depressed? I'm not even commenting on the likely happiness of children, I honestly couldn't give a toss. I have already answered the question as to why I cannot be under an obligation to have children to promote happiness several posts ago so can we stop talking about that already.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No, I'm arguing that the in-potentia happiness of children not conceived is simply not worthy of consideration because it's laughably remote from reality. I thought this part of the debate was about unborn, not unconceived, children.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
I guess, it doesn't seem to be illustrating the point very well to you.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:43
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I guess, it doesn't seem to be illustrating the point very well to you. The only relevant thing to weigh the chance of being able to create a bearable existence for suicidal persons against is the total finality of death and the the clear impossibility of improving the experience of one's earthly existence in that situation, religion to one side. That death is arguably preferable to some things I have already accepted, but that death is preferable to even remote hope for improvement is difficult for me to accept. I wonder if anyone has stats on whether that is actually as remote as it is being made out to be, though. Do you support the right to suicide, let alone assisted suicide, of persons with an observable and correctable physical defect of mind, such as some sort of hypothetical physical damage of the brain that happened to give rise to depressive feelings, correctable through surgery? Bel Shazar posted:I thought this part of the debate was about unborn, not unconceived, children. I believe I have been clear about this from the beginning of this absurd derail. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:52 on May 24, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I believe I have been clear about this from the beginning of this absurd derail. Wow, totally missed that part. How would someone even compare .. ugh, never mind.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Do you support the right to suicide, let alone assisted suicide, of persons with an observable and correctable physical defect of mind, such as some sort of hypothetical physical damage of the brain that happened to give rise to depressive feelings, correctable through surgery? Yes. Is the surgery physically available? Is the surgery affordable for the person? Is the person likely to be made aware of the availability of the surgery? Is the person likely to be accepted for the surgery if all of the above are true? Is the surgery certain to fix the problem? If all of the above are yes, then I would suggest that the person would choose the surgery of their own volition. And thus I support their right to suicide, and hope that they elect not to utilize it. I would also suggest that it is unlikely that all of the above would be true, and that it is unlikely that the person would be presented with that option to begin with. Mental healthcare is critically under-available in many places, and even where it is physically available, it is often not practically available. In the context of discussing laws governing assisted suicide, unless you are proposing to make up for that deficit, banning assisted suicide on the basis of better alternatives being available is based on an erroneous premise. Hypothetically, there are better alternatives. Practically? There often aren't. Provide alternatives and suicide won't be necessary, and you should have little to fear from legalizing assisted suicide. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:43 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Do you support the right to suicide, let alone assisted suicide, of persons with an observable and correctable physical defect of mind, such as some sort of hypothetical physical damage of the brain that happened to give rise to depressive feelings, correctable through surgery? Generally back when suicide was illegal, the punishment was that the perpetrator's estate was seized by the government, and they were prevented from having a proper funeral. I don't see how that helps anyone though. (Other than giving the coroner's staff a perverse incentive to find suicides where there are none.)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:18
|
|
I'm happy to leave the argument with OwlFancier where I left it.Guavanaut posted:If I don't, what would be the correct punishment? No punishment necessary for my argument.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Evil totalitarian state trying to force everyone to stay alive even if it's against their will FTFY Zaradis fucked around with this message at 01:15 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Great. Now you just have to make a conclusive argument for moral realism AND locate the facts from which your view of rights is derived (and no "it's just obvious to me" isn't good enough). Good luck! Read Kierkegaard's Enten-Eller , Heidegger's Being and Time , Sartre's Being and Nothingness , and de Beauvoir's The Ethics of Ambiguity and then maybe you will understand. If I have to show that moral realism is legitimate then so do you! I honestly do not care if you agree with me or not. A very unworthy summary, which will not nullify the need to read and understand the above mentioned books, could be explained thusly; the fact of the matter is that a human beings number of choices is nigh immeasurable in any specific situation and they are free to choose any which they wish. We are nothing more than the choices we make, those choices are absolutely freely made whether or not that is recognized or admitted, and we are therefore fully responsible for every one of those choices. Those choices allow us to provide meaning to our world, and this meaning is made meaningful through distinction with the meaning provided to the world by others. Any and all immoral acts are reducible to attempts to or actual actions taken that limit or prevent a human being from exercising they're freedom. If you have not read the actual, painstakingly precise philosophical works which explain this then your opinion on it is less than worthless. And whether you have or not you are free to choose to disagree, proving the beginning premise of existentialism to be true.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I guess, it doesn't seem to be illustrating the point very well to you. OwlFancier is, of course, correct in terms of logic and correct human thinking. I have a theory. Let's call it "Zaradis' Principle." It states that any logically sound or cogent argument will be rejected by a majority of individuals who come into contact with it because a majority of individuals do not have or have not been taught the skills necessary for identifying an arguments soundness or cogentness.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Read Kierkegaard's Enten-Eller , Heidegger's Being and Time , Sartre's Being and Nothingness , and de Beauvoir's The Ethics of Ambiguity and then maybe you will understand. If I have to show that moral realism is legitimate then so do you! I honestly do not care if you agree with me or not. This all assumes that our brain isn't a deterministic meat-computer, which is a hell of a mountain for some philosophers that lived long before neurology was even a thing that anyone, let alone they, understood to overcome.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:13
|
|
Who What Now posted:This all assumes that our brain isn't a deterministic meat-computer, which is a hell of a mountain for some philosophers that lived long before neurology was even a thing that anyone, let alone they, understood to overcome. people had thought about that a long rear end time ago dude
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:people had thought about that a long rear end time ago dude Yes, and? That doesn't put their level of understanding on par with modern day understanding.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:16
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, and? That doesn't put their level of understanding on par with modern day understanding. you don't have to understand neurology to game out determinism and free will
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This all assumes that our brain isn't a deterministic meat-computer, which is a hell of a mountain for some philosophers that lived long before neurology was even a thing that anyone, let alone they, understood to overcome. That isn't an assumption, it's self-evident in that we make choices and could have chosen differently had we chosen to do so. Yes, most of the universe is a deterministic, closed system. However, there are mountains of evidence that human consciousness is a separate emergent property of the configuration of the atoms of the brain. This means that most of the universe, including our bodies, is a deterministic machine; but consciousness is a transcendence within that machine which produces legitimate freedom of choice.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:That isn't an assumption, it's self-evident in that we make choices and could have chosen differently had we chosen to do so. Yes, most of the universe is a deterministic, closed system. However, there are mountains of evidence that human consciousness is a separate emergent property of the configuration of the atoms of the brain. This means that most of the universe, including our bodies, is a deterministic machine; but consciousness is a transcendence within that machine which produces legitimate freedom of choice. The antithesis to determinism isn't free will, it's merely random probability and mathematical chaos.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Zaradis posted:Read Kierkegaard's Enten-Eller , Heidegger's Being and Time , Sartre's Being and Nothingness , and de Beauvoir's The Ethics of Ambiguity and then maybe you will understand. If I have to show that moral realism is legitimate then so do you! I honestly do not care if you agree with me or not. Now, compare that with the topic at hand. If someone is seriously depressed, their reasons for making the choices they do aren't going to be legitimate. They're going to be contradictory, they're going to be strongly biased by their existing condition. You have to take that into account. People are not purely rational, they don't always make the best decisions. An husband striking their wife is a 'choice' that many people make today, yet that doesn't make it right - the reasons for that choice have to be examined. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't have a right to die, but that right must be contingent on them being able to make a sound decision, ie- motivated by reasons others would regard as legitimate.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:47
|
|