For or Against Euthanasia

Originally posted by Wesker
Factually? Ridiculous, Bardock. You expect me to provide facts on why something ought not be done? Right. Provide me with facts as to why it's moral to murder someone, Bardock. After all, you DID make the assertion.

Well, it is quite easy, because it isn't immoral. There's no instance to judge that. If there is no absolute then there cannot be a immoral act.

Now, I gave you the reason why it is not immoral. To prove me wrong you now need to provide the absolute that is able to judge morals. If you cannot it is not immoral. So, your go.

Originally posted by Wesker
Factually? Ridiculous, Bardock. You expect me to provide facts on why something ought not be done? Right. Provide me with facts as to why it's moral to murder someone, Bardock. After all, you DID make the assertion.

He actually said neutral, realistically there is no power other then what we believe as a whole that makes it ethical or not.

Originally posted by soleran30
He actually said neutral, realistically there is no power other then what we believe as a whole that makes it ethical or not.

Yeah, exactly.

The Golden Rule, Bardock. Theory of conduct. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you're some kind of ethical relativist, than I can never convince you of why that's a moral obligation. But you saying murder is "neutral" is an entirely different claim.

Originally posted by Wesker
The Golden Rule, Bardock. Theory of conduct. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you're some kind of ethical relativist, than I can never convince you of why that's a moral obligation. But you saying murder is "neutral" is an entirely different claim.

Oh, but that is a chosen rule. Where did it come from? Oh yeah, Jesus said it....that's it, not there before not absolute, just a law as any other...

Being an ethical relativist and saying that murder as well as anything else is neutral is the exact same thing.

So again, who has the right to decide what is moral and what not? Why do you think it is absolute? Why should anyones think murder is immoral, while it is actually not?

I am also aware of Kant's, Schopenhauer's, Aristotle's and many other moral rules, but they are not absolute they are formed by men (or women) with no right to claim objectivity.

Bardock> Yes, there are arguments for and against the Death Penalty. However, I see the arguments in favour being very emotional, often vengeful and in no way furthering society.

So, how do you argue that murder and/or rape is NOT immoral??

Do you base this on MORALS as such being a human invention? I can see that KILLING another human being can be viewed VERY differently depending on the circumstances. Is it done on the streets, on the battlefield, by the executioner??

WordReference writes:
Morals - ethical motive, ethics, morals, morality
motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

So you are right that there is no ABSOLUTE or OBJECTIVE moral as it is based on IDEAS of right and wrong.

Question: Any speculations on why every soceity in the world has developed the IDEA that murder, theft, rape and assaults are morally WRONG?

Originally posted by The Omega
Bardock> Yes, there are arguments for and against the Death Penalty. However, I see the arguments in favour being very emotional, often vengeful and in no way furthering society.

So, how do you argue that murder and/or rape is NOT immoral??

Do you base this on MORALS as such being a human invention? I can see that KILLING another human being can be viewed VERY differently depending on the circumstances. Is it done on the streets, on the battlefield, by the executioner??

WordReference writes:
Morals - ethical motive, ethics, morals, morality
motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

So you are right that there is no ABSOLUTE or OBJECTIVE moral as it is based on IDEAS of right and wrong.

Question: Any speculations on why every soceity in the world has developed the IDEA that murder, theft, rape and assaults are morally WRONG?

I don't know I see the most famous arguments for wither side as very emotional...but looking at rational points both are rather equal, in my opinion.

Well, basically since I don't believe there to be absolute morals I'd say because there aren't murder cannot be immoral.

I think Morals, as we know it are a tool of different societies to keep their "citizens" in a way they wish them to have. So I don't doubt there are subjective morals (as many as there are humans and more....) but to be "moral" or "immoral" there needs to be an absolute that doesn't exist. So, I may agree that murdering is "immoral" ....according to "The Omega's Morality" ...
As an action the Killing of a human being can indeed be very different....morally they are all the same (absolute morals, not my morals)

To your Question. I actually have an idea where it comes from...I think that before Societies ever existed, in a natural state of total anarchy (very simplistic, but you get the picture) when the first groups where formed, these groups had to decide what they wanted to achieve and what they didn't want to happen in their group. And I'd say since most humans do not want to die it is just reasonable that the first "law" would be "You (a member of the society) may not kill another member of said society".

(in george bush voice): I am for Euthanasia. They can do all the technical jobs that i'm gonna outsource.

Bardock> " And I'd say since most humans do not want to die it is just reasonable that the first "law" would be "You (a member of the society) may not kill another member of said society"."

Hmm... I think you assume too much philosophy from our early ancestors. I don't think stone-age people as such had any laws. An anarchistic society in a way, but simply because the size of the kin-groups back then, and the function of each member pre-determined by traits and abilities made the need for laws unnecessary.
As far as I understand modern antropologists these kin-groups relied heavily on co-operation between the indvidual members, so they shared food and clothes and water, as loosing a good hunter or a good gatherer could be fatal to the group.
I think laws didn't arrive undtil early urbanization and agriculture - that is, at the time when people were first taken from "production" (a broad term, I know, bear with me) to serve as e.g. priests. They probably started out as a kind of accountant for the grain-stock kept until next year, and these grain-storages eventually became temples and the accountants became priests.
As soon as we became dependent on agriculture (weather, rain, sun, enough harvest to last the winter and for sowing next year), our immediate needs sometimes had to be over-ruled by "reason" (no, you can't eat this grain, it's needed for sowing next year). -Pop- the first soldiers were made... the first laws...
If you catch my idea?

I don't mean Law in the way that we see it now, I see it as an unwritten rule or at least a code by which one should behave...they dn't need to be aware of that...it's just the way you need to behave...

Is it good to you? I think there are cases where it is okay, but I'd like to hear your opinions on it.

No euthanasia hasn't been really good to me... But that's probably because I never tried it.

And yes I do believe there are cases when it's justified and should be used... Everybody should be allowed to do it whenever the hell they want. However people should first be informed about the situation and if there is no medical reason should see a shrink or something at least a few times. And there should be a waiting time of three days after the decision before you actually die. Oh yeah and if your healthy and everything and just decide to end it life insurance policies shouldn't be paid out... That would be an easy way to give your family lots and lots of money.

I think we have a thread on this.

It has nevere really done good to me.

I am all for it. People have the right to die when they want.

Yes, I agree that it's good, but I don't think people should die unless it's better for them and society for them to be dead. Other-wise it's not good, it's bad.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, I agree that it's good, but I don't think people should die unless it's better for them and society for them to be dead. Other-wise it's not good, it's bad.

Well that's kinda hard to say is it not? How do we know if some random persons death will benefit him or society? It will never have a positive on the persons life that is for sure, so that's not a good judgment to base it on. If they want to die then they should be allowed to, simple as that. It's up to them to decide if they want to continue with their life or not, not that of anybody else.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=315136&highlight=title%3Aeuthanasia+forumid%3A11

In my eyes if something hapend to me and I was in a vegative state and no other way to recover never have any movement or anything yes I would want someone to pull the plug on why just lie there and waste away and suffer you will never be able to do anything ever again and never have movement, you will have a new life on the other side. DMB

Originally posted by Fishy
Well that's kinda hard to say is it not? How do we know if some random persons death will benefit him or society? It will never have a positive on the persons life that is for sure, so that's not a good judgment to base it on. If they want to die then they should be allowed to, simple as that. It's up to them to decide if they want to continue with their life or not, not that of anybody else.

Originally posted by Damien B
In my eyes if something hapend to me and I was in a vegative state and no other way to recover never have any movement or anything yes I would want someone to pull the plug on why just lie there and waste away and suffer you will never be able to do anything ever again and never have movement, you will have a new life on the other side. DMB

i realize this topic has long since been buried, but death has recently become a fascinating subject for me.

anyway...

i believe that people have a right to self-determination. if someone feels compelled to commit suicide, they should have every right. the case of euthanasia, however, is a more complicated issue. euthanasia involves two people, the person who is killed and the person who kills. i agree with voluntary euthanasia (active or passive), in which the person who is killed has consented and has requested to be killed. again, the whole concept of self-determination.

the only glitch that makes me question my stance is why someone would ask another to perform a request of such magnitude when suicide is an option that doesn't involve others. i acknowledge there are cases in which people can't physically take their own lives, but what about the ones who can? why burden someone else?

the only argument i can rationalize is a person wanting to die in a dignified matter that is relatively free of complications and doesn't further prolong suffering.

thoughts? comments?

I'm so freaking awesome.

Anyways, I am still for euthanasia in the form of self-determination.