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

71–78 of 78 posts

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

#71

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

throw0101a wrote: post #70
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The miniscule risk of a slippery slope in some remote and unlikely future cannot serve as a reasonable justification for violating the bodily autonomy of adults in their sound mind today. Nor am I much impressed by the existence of an organization that advocated involuntary euthanasia eighty years ago in the US. There was all kinds of insanely messed up stuff going on in our country at that time. Involuntary euthanas…

> The miniscule risk of a slippery slope The slippery slope is occurring right now in Canada: > Had you predicted [in 2015] that the right to an assisted suicide would soon come to apply, not only in cases of physical pain but psychological, and not only to patients in the last agonizing stages of death but those who were nowhere near it – had you predicted, indeed, that a patient’s request to be killed would not eve…

> The slippery slope is occurring right now in Canada:

I see that the right to end your own life is being expanded in Canada. I see no evidence from what you shared that the qualitative change over to involuntary euthanasia is in any danger of occurring, nor that there is any motion in that direction.

> [Baby-related stuff]

As the blog you cite points out, we withdraw care from infants in the first two categories on a routine basis, which has exactly the same effect as euthanasia, but with extra suffering for the infant. As far as I'm concerned, we already euthanize these infants. We just do it in the most painful way possible.

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

#72

Post by achillesheels »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #68
achillesheels wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is not your speech an extension of your biology? Thus it is ordered according to natural principles. This is the fundamental point Cicero makes. So while, yes, it is his "opinion", to deny a natural foundation to any morals is itself incoherent and not worthy of entertaining for dialogue, because dialogue itself presupposes the pursuit of the correct mode of living: wisdom. And please make the distinction between "mo…

I agree that morals arise from nature, in the same way that all things do, since there is nothing that does not arise from the physical. In that sense all things are natural. I don't think that's what natural principles or natural law mean, and some brief wikipedia reading confirms my suspicion -- this is equivocation. For example, communism and authoritarianism also arise from speech and reason and ultimately human…

Just because speech is biological that does not automatically cause it to be moral, only that it serves, as Plato describes, the "self-moving power" of Life. So then, communism and authoritarianism are contradictory to Nature, as has been visually demonstrated.

I highly suggest Reading Cicero's Laws, it's quite an original reflection and condenses Western classical thought brilliantly - it after all inspired the founders of the American Republic: http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/cicero/primary-source-docume...

P.S. If you believe "nothing [does not arise] from the physical" then how do you explain the ordering principles of logic? Are you to suggest that the mind does not exist independently of the physical brain? If so, where is your evidence?

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

#73

Post by 10122018 »

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…

Hey Oleander, I'm not sure if you will see this reply as I'm a little late to the "party" but if you would like somebody to chat to anytime, please put an email address or something in your bio so I can get in touch (or I've put an email address in my bio that you could reach me at).

I see from taking a quick look at a couple of your previous comments that you might appreciate a postcard, even from a stranger.

Please don't feel any obligation whatsoever to respond, for you have no obligation to me whatsoever. I'm just putting this out there from one human being to another. I don't know your circumstances at all, you might have a hundred friends and family members to talk to and support you, but you might have very few or none at all. Or you might be happier to be left alone. I don't know.

In any case, if you would like somebody to talk to, even just once or infrequently, please don't hesitate, because I do very much know what it is like to suffer (not in the same way that people like yourself with cancer do) and I think many people do not understand how unbearable and terrible suffering can be. I find the question itself, being posed by the title of this article, as repugnant as you do.

In any case, whether or not you wish to respond or correspond any further, I do wish you well and I hope that you are spared as much suffering as possible. I will continue to fight for as long as I live, with the limited resources I have available to me, for what I see as an inalienable right for people to choose a happier or at least more comfortable but shorter life than a prolonged and miserable one.

I am sorry that life dealt you this hand. Life isn't fair, suffering isn't equally distributed, and anyone who thinks they have a right to decide whether another person's suffering is, as you put it, sufficiently bearable, is being callous or ignorant in a way I simply cannot understand.

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

#74

Post by oleander73 »

10122018 wrote: post #73
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…

Hey Oleander, I'm not sure if you will see this reply as I'm a little late to the "party" but if you would like somebody to chat to anytime, please put an email address or something in your bio so I can get in touch (or I've put an email address in my bio that you could reach me at). I see from taking a quick look at a couple of your previous comments that you might appreciate a postcard, even from a stranger. Please…

Thank you for your kind reply. I'm actually doing pretty good. I'm not currently in pain and plan to die before I am.

I figured out a good way to end my life myself should my euthanasia request be denied.

I've always been a proponent of the right to die when you wish and my current situation has given me more time to think about this and made me empathize even more with people who want to die for whatever reason. I too try to spend a portion of my time to fight for this important freedom.

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

#75

Post by stanrivers »

latexr wrote: post #4
stanrivers wrote: post #2

Interesting - I've kind of stolen my view on this question from Cicero. You don't have an obligation to live for as long as possible, per say. What you have is an obligation to live a life that results in 1) you still finding meaning in what you are doing despite your old age and 2) that contributes something back to those around you, even in your old age. At the end of the day, humans need to feel like that have res…

> per say Small note: it’s “per se”.

So, basically, I have sounded dumb for decades. This is great to now know.

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

#76

Post by DoreenMichele »

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…

Thank you for your eloquent comments in this discussion.

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

#77

Post by usrusr »

throw0101a wrote: post #59
usrusr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Saddest example of selection bias: many people try more than once (and some of course do change their minds eventually)

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

#78

Post by dTal »

oleander73 wrote: post #39
refurb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it’s not solely based off that. It’s also based off our knowledge of people who feel suicidal who later go on to lead happy and productive lives. Assisting every person who feels suicidal is likely to assist in the death of plenty of people who would later have happy lives.

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.

>If the people that remain behind are at peace with the decision it doesn't really matter 'what might have been'.

The problem I have with this is that it also justifies murder. As long as the rest of us are cool with it who cares what the murder-ee thinks?

Post reply on HN