trunks2k

OK the other night my "girlfriend" (a whole 'nother discussion on the quotes around the word girlfriend) and I got into a discussion on morals/ethics. I stated that I believe that I believe that everyone has an individual consious that only exists once and I have empathy for each consiouseness, so therefore I think it's wrong to take that consiousness away (read: kill anybody). I'm a passivist, so this involves the death penalty, I personally feel that we should never give up on trying to make a person a well functioning part of society. Although she disagreed with my view, she accepted it as a valid view. Now tonight we were readin questions that are to make you think, for example: Would you step on a cockroach for a million dollars? What about ripping the wings off of a butterfly? Anyways one of the questions was about if you supported euthanasia, to which I promtly responded that I did support it. Big mistake....
She went all off on me about how I'm a "walking contradiction" and that if I vlaue every consiousness I should be against euthanasia. So I told her that I didn't consider euthanasia as stealing a life, but rather releaving a person of it. Because I think it's better to die rather than suffer, if the person so is in pain, is termanilly ill, and wants to die, I say let them die peacefully and with dignity, it isn't humane keeping them alive.
Eventually she seemed to accept that idea, but went off on me again when I told her that even if a person will be in pain every day of his or her life but isn't going to die in the immediate future, that person has a right to end their life. She couldn't accept that for some reason. I see it as the same thing as letting a terminally ill patient die. If you look at it, in the long run we are all terminally ill.

Quick analogy that I just thought of right now, so it may not be right:

Most people will agree that stealing a car and destroying it is not right. Now suppose your friend has a nice car that you are jealous of and you really just want to go and blow it up or something so you don't have to look at it anymore, you aren't very likely to actually go and do that. But if a friend comes up to you and says that his car is a piece of shit barely works, constantly breaks down and is making his life a living hell, is well beyond any repair and wants you to take the car to the junkyard to be crushed, you be likely to do your friend a favor and to accept that offer.

Now does anyone else follow my logic, or am I the only one?

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: trunks2k ]</p>

99Percent

I stated that I believe that I believe that everyone has an individual consious that only exists once and I have empathy for each consiouseness

You have it - almost. Its not that each "individual is conscious", but that each individual human being has free will, when you realize the root of your moral dilemmas.

For example:

Most people will agree that stealing a car and destroying it is not right.

Why? Because it goes against the individual's (who owns the car) free will.

Now suppose your friend has a nice car that you are jealous of and you really just want to go and blow it up or something so you don't have to look at it anymore, you aren't very likely to actually go and do that.

Because you are going against the free will of your friend.

But if a friend comes up to you and says that his car is a piece of shit barely works, constantly breaks down and is making his life a living hell, is well beyond any repair and wants you to take the car to the junkyard to be crushed, you be likely to do your friend a favor and to accept that offer.

Sure, as long as you tell your friend you are going to accept his offer and "relieve" him of his burden. Oh, you are not going to do that? Then you are not going with his wishes (free will) after all, are you?

Now does anyone else follow my logic, or am I the only one?

I follow our "logic", yes sir. But is it logic?

echidna

I don’t read your car example as quite analogous to euthanasia.

Rather I think that not only do I value consciousness, but I also value the free will that is expressed by that consciousness.

I won’t forbid someone from climbing K2, despite us both knowing they have a fairly good chance of not returning.

Similarly quality of life, and the responsibility to define ourselves with our own choices is a crucial part of our existence. It seems inappropriate for one person to forcibly impose a quality of life on another free will, unless in self-defence for instance.

Ms. Siv

I think every person has a right to do what they want with their bodies - except if this affects others (short term or long term) .

And therefore euthanasia, suicide, drugs and (volunary) prostitution should be legalised.

- Sivakami.

tronvillain

trunks2k, perhaps you should consider supporting "assisted suicide" rather than euthanasia. It would seem to more accurately describe the position you're taking.

99Percent, unless you can explain "free will" I'm not sure why anyone should listen to your opinion. Unless you were joking or something.

E_muse

But then murders and other offences are committed by those who are expressing their free will! Do you really mean that in an absolute sense.

The law (especially through the death penalty), seeks to control the free will of others.

No, but the law does forbid an adult from having sex with a minor.

What we seem to be saying is that the exercise of free will must not remove the free will of another. Is that workable at any practical level?

What does the law do then? You seem to be saying that it is not inappropriate for a number of people to forcibly impose a quality of life on another's free will. Why?

Is gang rape acceptable then? (hyperbole!!!)

If, within secular humanism, we find an emerging set of core values which need to be upheld in order for society to function are we moving towards a form of secular fundamentalism which is the product of rationalization rather than divine revelation?

Through rationalization we adopt a system of thought which:

1. Doesn't claim to be making any absolute 'truth' statements about 'reality' but only statements which are meaningful to existence within the context of a particular level of understanding based upon limited perception.
2. Must put together a set of 'core' values on which society can operate and will remove personal freedom at some level.

How does this differ from religion in the context of discussing morals? Obviously I'm referring to religion as it would observed by someone rationalizing its presence in the world rather than an adherent.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

99Percent

tronvillain: 99Percent, unless you can explain "free will" I'm not sure why anyone should listen to your opinion. Unless you were joking or something.

I am not joking. How about I explain "free will" to you while you are locked in a room and I only have the key. Are you going to still deny free will does not exist?

tronvillain

I will continue to claim that it is an undefined concept until you define it. Is simply a description of the normal operation of the human brain?

E_muse

What is being said here in an absolute sense is that a person should never take any physical action that will affect any other person in any way.

Surely this can't be true.

I'm simply saying that this principle can't seem to operate as an abosolute standard for behaviour.

E_muse

Isn't this 'confined will'?

If I could attempt a feeble definition which can be pulled apart:-

"Free Will" is only present when a person is completely free to implement any intent of purpose without internal or external restraint.