Do we have a moral obligation to live for as long as possible? • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by bluemooner » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:01 PM UTC

FinanceAnon wrote: post #13

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.

Yes, I am referring to a nature-centric approach to life and ecocentrism seems to be getting there. However, I don’t agree with the ethical claim in ecocentrism which seems to imply an ecological movement: humans should respect nature and compensate for destroying it. This very idea gives humans a special role. I believe humans destroying nature is part of nature itself, so motivating ecology using ecocentrism raises a contradiction. PS: I am not claiming we should destroy nature.

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

#52

Post by oleander73 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:05 PM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #47

oleander73 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the people that remain behind are at peace with the decision it doesn't really matter 'what might have been'. Also, taking away the 'easy' option means that a large number of people will do it in a way that is more gruesome and much harder for the people left behind.

So what? This is unfortunate but in no way implies that a valid response is "might as well just help them instead". That's not better. Hearing someone even present this sort if argument makes me wish I could turn their lack of empathy back on themselves. How about we have psyche tests and anyone who would so lightly let other people die, are killed themselves? Somehow I bet you would say that's immoral and outrageous…

The psyche test would be great. That way anyone who wants to die only has to take the test.

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

#53

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:09 PM UTC

achillesheels wrote: post #46

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

That is not correct. Cicero in his Laws Book I emphatically states right and wrong as attributable what is proper and improper vis-a-vis Nature. That is to say, what is consistent or what is contradictory to natural action. This is in no way related to believing in a higher (and I suppose you mean) personal authority - and which he uses to demonstrate the wonderful idea of “Natural Law” as that which is supreme to an…

That's just like, his opinion, man. :) The concept that what is natural is moral is just a higher authority in another guise. (Or a redefinition of morality away from what it means to me.) It's also inconsistent in many cases with what most humans would label as moral and immoral behavior.

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

#54

Post by akudha » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

oleander73 wrote: post #17

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 j…

There was this young Indian guy who sued his parents for bringing him into this world (to make a point). This sounds absurd, but it also makes one think - I and I alone should decide what to do with my life, no? Especially if I haven't had kids. Why should some politician, religious leader or bureaucrat decide if I have suffered enough?

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

#55

Post by oleander73 » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:38 PM UTC

akudha wrote: post #54

oleander73 wrote: post #17

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 j…

There was this young Indian guy who sued his parents for bringing him into this world (to make a point). This sounds absurd, but it also makes one think - I and I alone should decide what to do with my life, no? Especially if I haven't had kids. Why should some politician, religious leader or bureaucrat decide if I have suffered enough?

Agreed. Although I do believe you have a moral obligation to attempt to make the people who care about you understand your thought process and ideally agree with your decision.

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

#56

Post by louwrentius » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

oleander73 wrote: post #32

louwrentius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least we in NL have access to Euthanasia. Frankly I would like to see Futurama style suicide boots. OK, the latter may seem extreme, but why do we have all the liberty in the world to create life, including a lot of suffering, but not to end our own? In America, Euthanasia doesn’t seem like an option, but access to guns solves that option in practice. Terrible, but the hard reality. In the end, It is about quality…

There are actually a number of countries (and US states) that now have euthanasia laws. We got there first, but that also means we didn't get to learn from anyone. There are certainly problems with the Dutch laws, but there is no political will to change it, because it works 'well enough'. I've extensively studied the Dutch euthanasia law and practice and think I know the right things to say to convince the doctor, b…

Fair enough, Verder mee eens! Heel veel sterkte!

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

#57

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #45

oleander73 wrote: post #17

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 j…

And it's a real life practical issue for me that there be no wiggle room or ambiguity, ever, in any context, about whether it's OK to kill me. Even if the doctor on the scene doesn't know me personally and I'm not capable of making my arguments to him and defend my self from his, say, religious belief that I'll be in a better place or have outlived his concept of usefulness or worth. It makes sense to me that this is…

I'm not aware of anyone who is advocating involuntary euthanasia. I've no doubt that someone is but it is far outside of the mainstream, even among those who support an unconditional right to euthanasia. In all current implementations and all the ones I've seen proposed it has to be actively sought by the patient who is to be euthanized. Your comment seems like more than a little bit of a strawman.

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

#58

Post by tzs » Sat, May 01, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

louwrentius wrote: post #27

oleander73 wrote: post #17

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 j…

At least we in NL have access to Euthanasia. Frankly I would like to see Futurama style suicide boots. OK, the latter may seem extreme, but why do we have all the liberty in the world to create life, including a lot of suffering, but not to end our own? In America, Euthanasia doesn’t seem like an option, but access to guns solves that option in practice. Terrible, but the hard reality. In the end, It is about quality…

Futurama style suicide booths would be terrible. A huge fraction of the people who use them would be people who if they had just had to wait a couple of years would no longer have been suicidal.

Some stats [1]. In 2013 among students in grades 9-12 in the US, 11.6% of males and 22.4% of females seriously considered attempting suicide in the previous 12 months.

19.6% of females and 10.3% of males made a plan about how they would attempt it. 10.6% of females and 5.4% of males did attempt it. But only 3.6% of the females and 1.8% of males made an attempt that actually resulted in injury, poisoning, or overdose that required medical attention.

With a Futurama suicide booth where all you have to do is step in and insert a coin, which you can easily do on impulse while passing by, I'd expect that most of those "seriously considered" cases would become "successfully suicided" cases. As would a lot of people who considered it but not seriously.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet...

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

#59

Post by throw0101a » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

usrusr wrote: post #33

tartoran wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But euthanasia should not be allowed on a whim. For terminal diseases or other suffering it is more than warranted, but for folks who are going through a depressive episode and want to end their life, they may take a rash decision that they’d regret later. For you, I hope you’re not going to go through too much suffering and will be able to enjoy some quality moments before you leave us.

> they may take a rash decision that they’d regret later Sorry to be that guy, but: "how?" Our inacceptance of suicide and related concepts is entirely based what it does to others

>> they may take a rash decision that they’d regret later

> Sorry to be that guy, but: "how?"

By surviving the attempt. The suicide success rate is not 100%.

Plenty of interviews of people who, after initiating the act, report realizing what they did was a mistake.

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

#60

Post by throw0101a » Sat, May 01, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

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…

> there’s no reason why it should in the first place.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism