Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ksagnostic · 07-02-2002, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Michael:
Hi ksagnostic,

Sorry for the delay - I've been caught up in the PoA brouhaha.

I can see that I (or we) should have more clearly defined the OP scenario (I'd blame it all on philechat, but I guess as moderator I'm supposed to help facilitate these discussions, but keep in mind I'm only a moderator 3rd class and still in training) as you seem to largely be discussing it taking place in a first-world society, while I think I've been looking at a broader-base.

I don't have much difficulty with your arguments when they take place in a society with ample resources to care for all.

I think though that in a society that was suffering from a severe lack of resources a case could be made for euthanasia.

For example, would it be better to let the person being considered starve to death when the society lacks the resources to care for him/her, or would it be more humane to euthanize?

If you ratchet the scenario up a level to where the care that takes place is something in the Bedlam level (least-common denominator warehousing of the nasty, short and brutish category) things are more difficult. Would a n,s,b life filled with terror and pain be more humane than euthanasia?

Would the family be justified in euthanasia in that case?

cheers,
Michael

The short answer remains "no". One of the realities is that even a society suffering from a severe lack of resources does not exist in a vacuum. There are developed societies, with substantial resources, that are aware of their existence. Hence, one of the reasons why my number one charity is UNICEF. My understanding is that vulnerable people, including those with substantial developmental disabilities, are the ones who really suffer in societies where resources are scarce (and I claim no real world experience with those societies, but people I know who do have a good deal of experience in these societies are not about to throw in the towel, and I'm not either). There might be situations where life boat ethics are forced to apply, but those situations should be very rare, and decisions made under those circumstances are still by no means "right".

Regards,

ksagnostic

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

AtlanticCitySlave · 07-04-2002, 06:58 AM

Yes, we should.

ksagnostic · 07-04-2002, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AtlanticCitySlave:
Yes, we should.

Why? Or are you just trolling?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-04-2002, 06:58 AM	#22
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	Yes, we should.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.