Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#11

Post by bobthechef »

No human being wants to die technically. You want release from a bad situation. People who commit suicide are trying to free themselves not from living, but from some kind of suffering. They imagine it will give them rest. It won't. This points to a fundamental principle, that we will the preservation of our own being. No one wants nonexistence. We are constitutionally unable to will that, to will nothing. In order to do what appears to be that, we must first confuse being with nonbeing and construe this nothingness as something. But here we must distinguish between permission and active willing. I do not will my death, but take a permissive stance toward it under such and such circumstances.

So, you have the obligation not to shorten your life per se or to harm yourself intentionally, but you can under certain circumstances licitly permit your death.

In this case, we must distinguish between ordinary care (supplying the needs of the body, etc, as much as possible) and extraordinary care (administering medical treatments) and the nature of the illness. Examples (simplified because I'm not writing a book here):

x. If your illness is treatable and curable, but refusing treatment will lead to death, then you are obligated to receive treatment to the degree that such treatment does not compete with equal or superior concerns. Can you afford treatment? Could it deprive you of the means to live anyhow? These considerations would make treatment an option, but not an obligation.

x. If your cancer is terminal (i.e., it is incurable), and you are able to absorb nutrients, you are obligated to take in nutrition, but not to receive treatment.

x. If you are unable to receive nutrition (or the offering of nutrition causes harm), then you are not obligated to receive nutrition.

x. If treatment causes disproportionate harm in relation to the disease, then treatment is not an obligation.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#12

Post by bobthechef »

Cilvic wrote: post #9

I'm reminded of/intrigued by Star Trek episodes. How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"? It's easy to imagine a planet/culture where people chose to go voluntarily and on their own terms and then everybody celebrates around that. I do think it's a high burden on younger generations to pay "up-keep" for older generations, especially when technological…

> How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"?

Just because people generally operate according to convention doesn't mean there isn't a sound basis for the convention.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#13

Post by FinanceAnon »

bluemooner wrote: post #6

Recently I have started believing that humans are just another part of nature and nothing more. I don’t know whether this idea is part of some greater philosophical tradition. I have not looked into it, but it feels like it should be, i.e. probably somebody else has already thought and written about it. The good part of thinking like this is that you become content with everything, you don’t worry about stuff not wor…

I think you might be referring to something like Ecocentrism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocentrism), as opposed to Anthropocentrism which centers around humans.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#14

Post by tryptophan »

Cilvic wrote: post #9

I'm reminded of/intrigued by Star Trek episodes. How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"? It's easy to imagine a planet/culture where people chose to go voluntarily and on their own terms and then everybody celebrates around that. I do think it's a high burden on younger generations to pay "up-keep" for older generations, especially when technological…

>How do you justify that especially if one can't contribute much to society anymore and maybe didn't raise kids on your own?

Interesting point. I do think it is kind of insane that like 70% of our government money goes to old people. Investing in the past instead of the future? Meanwhile everything else is getting cut, because SS and medicare are "mandatory" spending. The reality is that these old folks did not pay high enough taxes and save enough money to justify the money going to them now. Younger generations are getting pillaged.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#15

Post by libertine »

Cilvic wrote: post #9

I'm reminded of/intrigued by Star Trek episodes. How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"? It's easy to imagine a planet/culture where people chose to go voluntarily and on their own terms and then everybody celebrates around that. I do think it's a high burden on younger generations to pay "up-keep" for older generations, especially when technological…

>How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"?

Probably most of it, but there might be a underlying reason for that information to have passed on for thousands of years, across cultures.

Either for practical reasons (like they're a source of the accumulation of information and life experience), or because it's out of fear (let us give the example to younger generations so when it's our turn they won't leave us to die, or just kill us to save resources), or maybe because you have a bond and a moral sense towards elders, or all of these and some more...

Even if they serve the sole purpose of introducing us to death, and to remind us of our brief passage and reframe our perceptions and align our selves and our actions towards something with that end in sight, the fact is that elders are seen as a integral part of the family structure.

This pandemic actually got me a bit worried for the example set to younger generations, that framed the elders as statistics that just die a lot and stripped a lot of the humanity in this situation - and we're the ones that are going to deal with this when it's our turn, that despite your efforts, contributions and value is completely disregarded just because you're old and old people are just numbers that die a lot.

I don't mean to say this as a criticism, but you sound like someone who hasn't been around elders and you might not have much life experience.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#16

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

wanda wrote: post #7

define first exactly what we mean by a “moral obligation”. A moral obligation or a moral duty is a morally required form of conduct. This defines the word obligation. The word "moral" and "morally" remains undefined. Let's be frank, moral means good and evil, right and wrong, already antiquated concepts these days where money matters more than truth, and goodness/righteousness are interpretations that can more or les…

The whole concept that we can specify a universal judgment on whether a given act is moral or not relies on the idea that there is an inherent and universal morality (which I define as "what ought to be done"). This is a left over notion from the days when there was some reason to believe in a higher authority. For most folks who think about these issues seriously today, the question posed in the title can only be answered with another question: "From whose perspective? According to what values? In what frame?"

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#17

Post by oleander73 »

As someone for whom this is a real life practical issue, not some idle philosophizing, even asking the question is repugnant to me. I have incurable cancer and at some point I will decide "enough is enough" and I'd like to be euthanized by a doctor. The doctor will then have to decide if my suffering is sufficiently unbearable and only if he comes to that conclusion is he allowed to do it. He'll have to justify his judgment to a committee and if they disagree he can (theoretically) be prosecuted for murder. This is insane and caused by assholes who believe human life is sacred or some such bullshit. (I'm in The Netherlands.)

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#18

Post by derbOac »

Cilvic wrote: post #9

I'm reminded of/intrigued by Star Trek episodes. How much of our attitude towards end-of-life is "learned" and result of "we have always done it like that"? It's easy to imagine a planet/culture where people chose to go voluntarily and on their own terms and then everybody celebrates around that. I do think it's a high burden on younger generations to pay "up-keep" for older generations, especially when technological…

There's a certain danger in framing life continuation in terms of value to society though. I don't say this flippantly because I've wrestled with these things in a very real sense, and appreciate the argument you're trying to make. I'm not trying to trivialize it.

However, it's ethically a slippery slope in the strongest sense:

There's the argument that older people don't have an obligation to live as long as possible because it puts a burden on younger individuals when the older individuals aren't contributing "'much' to society anymore."

But how do you define "much"? Who gets to define that?

Logically, too, that argument can't just apply to the elderly anymore, so now you have to apply it to the population at large. Where do we draw the line at that? People in prison? The severely disabled? The socioeconomically less fortunate? How do you make the distinction between the self-destructive thoughts of the depressed versus others? Is the depressed person always wrong?

I tend to think that the decision to end one's life is the ultimate manifestation of autonomy, and as such should be protected and respected.

But by the same token, sometimes I think these discussions are slightly misguided, in that we should be focused on improving life circumstances rather than on the means by which someone dies. To extend your example a bit, I'd argue that if age burden is a tremendous issue for society, why not invest, in a "moonshot" kind of way, in eliminating old age as a disease state, along with the stereotypes that go with it? Why is there so much focus on preventing suicide rather than improving people's well-being?

Death is inevitable, but sometimes I think we spend too much time focused on whether people should be able to choose to end their lives, and not enough on how to prevent them from being in that state where the decision is even an issue.

Finally, I see a lot of these types of posts on HN, about suicide and euthanasia; I appreciate them but wonder if, and if, so, why, they appear here more than in other places.

Re: Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible?

#20

Post by alsetmusic »

> We might do better to ask whether we have good reasons to prolong our lives or whether we act virtuously if we seek to prolong our lives.

I think it all comes down to quality of life. If a person is still able to enjoy living, great. If they’re miserable and suffering from physical deterioration, I consider it immoral to suggest life-extending treatments unless there’s a good chance that life enjoyment is also restored.

I support the right-to-die movement. If I’m only able to survive on a machine in a bed, give me time to say goodbye and then let me drift away and die. Definitely don’t pressure me and suggest that I have an obligation to the living to stick around.

Post reply on HN