Acinom

Hey Michael,

My reasoning had more to do with looking at this example from a purely utilitarian point of view that Embodiment seemed to suggest. Killing your mother because she is no longer useful to society is different from other motivations for assisted suicide. For example, probably the clearest reason to take any such form of action is if your mother explicitly said to you when she was still of sound rational capacity: "Please help me die if one day I slip into a coma and there's no chance of recovery." There are other reasons, of course, but none as good.

I still find suicide something hard to justify as a moral duty for anyone. It's an option, but it should never be something one "ought to" do.

What's your take?

best,
~Monica

Totalitarianist

My conduct is never inconsistent with the laws of Canada, and never will be.

This can be settled by the simple fact that citizens cannot be ends in themselves, unless the human eye is not a means to see for the good of the whole (the body).

And please do not speak Utilitarianism. I will have nothing to do with such an easily disproved ethical code.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Embodiment of The Absolute Idea ]</p>

Victor Drake

EOTAI's initial post was so convoluted that I couldn't follow it, so I can't respond to hir assertion.
However, the question has come up in conversation with my friends. I do feel that there are circumstances in which suicide can be a very moral choice, if not mandatory.
Example: You are elderly and terminally ill. Spending your (considerable) life savings on medical care may be able to prolong your life by a year or two.
Choosing to die now, and leave your heirs a large sum instead of spending it, would seem to be a very positive choice, particularly if you have offspring with special needs, such as a chronically ill grandchild.

Totalitarianist

"Hir" still sounds like "her". The purpose of using that word is therefore lost.

Sabine Grant

I guess I would have the same problem as Ronin's.

Sabine Grant

Embodiment : The awareness we each can have to make differences in other people's lives is what will prevent our society to become indifferent to whom you define as "inferior" or " defficient".
Understand that you reflect on your own definition of those terms. It is not my perception of anyone who is needy of support of any kind.
They are needy of support. They are not inferior. They are the ones who keep our sense of empathy where it should be.
There is more greatness to mankind than what you projected in your post.

Totalitarianist

I disagree.

Bill Snedden

What an insightful reply...

I can't say that I agree at all with the OP. As far as I can tell, one has no "moral duty" except to one's self. I can't see where one's duty to one's self would necessitate exterminating said self.

That said, it is plain to see that one's duty to one's self must necessarily include consideration for and of others (as it is would be contrary to one's own interests to behave otherwise). However, to suggest that an individual lives only for the "corporate good" (as if there even were such a thing) is to advocate nothing less than slavery.

I must say, though, that I especially liked the part where you assert that Utilitarianism is "easily disproved" while all along maintaining that individual human beings serve some sort of "greater societal good". How very ironic of you...

Your analogy likening an individual's relationship to society and an organ's relationship to the human body is flawed. Human society is not an organic, indivisible whole. I can remove an individual from a society without damaging the society as a whole. If the individual's role was a critical one, other individuals can pick up the pieces and move on. I cannot remove a human heart and expect other organs or cells to assume its purpose.

Nor are body parts volitional in nature, as are human beings. The heart cannot reason; it cannot desire to be a liver instead.

Human beings can be, and are, ends in themselves, not means to another end. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that we are but slaves.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Gurdur

Well, finally, someone sums up the sense.

There are circumstances under which a person is morally justified in sacrificing themselves for another; there are never circumstances in which a person is morally compelled to kill themselves for another.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Acinom

Well said, Bill.