Allan Macdougall 30+ +2Reply
1 day ago: I can only approach this argument from the standpoint of how I would feel if I was the one in unbearable pain, and I had become burdensome to others. It is the stuff of nightmares for me – so much so that I would write it in my will that my life should end at the hands of trusted others before I get to that point, and if it were legal to do so.
But here’s where the hypocrisy starts: If any of my loved ones were in that position, I know I would probably do everything in my power to keep them alive.
Assuming I’m not alone in this, I think it may be one of the main sources of dilemma in this debate. Why does morality change so much when we consider our own mortality, as opposed to the mortality of others close to us?
I’m guessing here, but it may be something to do with the difference in our perceptions of what loved ones (who are suffering) have left to give (which would be held in high regard), as compared to what we think of ourselves and what we have left to give (which may be held in less regard).
Who then, is the best judge of life or death based on those perceptions? The autonomous individual who is suffering? Those closest to them? Those who are professionally appointed to do so?
Personally, I think autonomy should be retained, and the only way that can be achieved is when the decision for euthanasia is untainted by the illness itself – ie request painless death in one’s will whilst still in sound mind.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+ 0Reply
1 day ago: Re: ” Why does morality change so much when we consider our own mortality, as opposed to the mortality of others close to us?”
I completely agree with this statement. I have observed some time ago that any moral rule when applied to others is hypocrisy. Even the “do not judge” principle – when I rebuke someone for judging other people, I’m guilty of judging others myself. This invisible border between “self” and “not self” (self-consciousness) is so fundamental to our ability to draw lines and define everything else including “good” and “evil”.
This is why the abortion issue will always remain controversial. It’s fundamentally impossible to solve with reason: an entity within entity, “self” within “self” with a conflict of interest of death and life nature. What a wonderful legal and moral dilemma! Once that fetus is outside the mother’s body, things become a lot more clear.
I don’t mean to derail this topic. Just an illustration of how moral reasoning works.
M-L Reifschneider 0Reply
1 day ago: I agree with Arkady’s analysis. But does that not bring it down to the individual’s decision, right or wrong? Some will more deeply consider the consequences of their actions than others but that is human difference, no? And it will always remain so.
Tify Ndanoboi 30+ 0Reply
1 hour ago: I disagree with you all.
I think it takes a strong will to allow you not to be hypocritical. And in fact also one that truly respects the other persons, possibly different viewpoint, and choice.
Be it a loved one, me, or a stranger, I have absolutely no problem in people deciding for themselves and the outcome of that, irrespective of the their singular choice. It’s their choice, it’s their life. If not, then one is saying a loved on is not really a loved one, but a slave to your decisions, your morality. What freedom, what justice is that?
If I demand and require that of others, then I cannot deny others what they choose, as it’s their choice, even if i disagree wholeheartedly with it.