I dislike any moral stances that are absolute like that. Morality is far from objective, and farther still from a binary concept. It's always best to consider each situation independently than to enforce one general rule and hoping it suits every possible scenario. As for determining quality of life, I see it as a relatively simple concept. A normal quality of life is a positive number, death is a 0, because there is zero quality to a life that does not exist. When a life gets so bad that it could be considered a negative value, an overall unpleasant experience, the 0 of death is greater than living in a negative.Originally Posted by Imposter
Who WOULD be the one to decide what is universally right? I don't believe anyone has that sort of moral authority to impose a rule on all. The one whom decides whether it's right in a given situation should be the one the decision will ultimately affect, assuming of course that person is capable of reaching that conclusion logically.You give examples of tremendous physical aliments but can we really be the ones to say that makes it alright?
An abnormal mental state impairs ones ability to reach a conclusion of life or death rationally, those who are no longer able to make a decision rationally should no longer be able to make the decision at all.Other than that, what about metal aliments? Like car crash victims that suffer brain damage that affect them for the rest of their lives.
It isn't a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of value. If the overall quality of life is ultimately negative, what reason is there to try to rise to the challenge and adapt to it? When the only doors left open in your life all lead to fates worse than death, the logical choice is death. A 0 is always greater than a negative.Is it really the pain physically or mentally or just escapism because the new challenge and life is hard?
One can't apply an absolute standard to the whims of man. To me, many ways of life that other people would consider good, I'd consider Hell. If those are my only options left, I'd gladly choose death. When all other options are negative, zero is the logical choice. The sickly in third world countries are among the least likely to commit suicide, because their brains are operating on a lower tier of psychological needs, primarily the survival level. When survival is your primary objective, very few things are going to be able to override your survival instinct in a way that makes death an acceptable alternative. But again, it all depends on the severity of the sickness, and the personality of the victim. Mental disability should immediately take euthanasia off the table for anyone. It's more difficult to stop suicide in general for that, but as a rule, the choice to die made under a flawed state of mind can't be considered a rational choice, and shouldn't' be dignified as such. Someone suffering a mental disability, or in an abnormal mental state of depression should be helped, because the decision to die made under these circumstances is illogical.I guess I'd want to know the standard of comparison in determining what is low enough quality to justify it. The sickly in third world countries, what degree of mental disability?
How can anybody try to make an absolute moral law that revolves around their personal connection to things? A person's choice to live or die is not yours or mine to make. I can agree or disagree with them based on the specific scenario, and I can intervene if I deem it necessary, but it is ultimately not up to me. My personal views on suicide apply to all, regardless of who they are, how I know them, IF I know them, all irrelevant. The logic of the choice is not affected by my presence.Would it be straight across the board or only those you are emotional attached to?
Bookmarks