Why ending a life is morally neutral

The ending of a life removes something from someone. That they'll not miss it after it's gone doesn't change that it's still the permanent removal of something from someone. And that thing you removed wasn't 'yours' to destroy.

The ending of a life removes a lot of somethings from a lot of someones. It may remove a father from that someone. It may remove a friend from you. It may remove a son from me.

But it may also removing a tormentor from that someone. It may remove an oppressor from you. It may remove a direct threat to my survival from me.

A life has no single owner.
 
Hmmm... perhaps I misunderstood "morally neutral" :p

Well, we should just blame the OP for inadequately defining the terms used, and go have a beer and congratulate each other! :beer:
 
Have you ever had a pet who was terminally ill (ie. cancer)? It's a very hard decision to have to have a pet euthanized, since that pet has been part of the family for many years. I've had to do it for my first cat and three of the dogs. My oldest cat is at the stage of life when I have to start thinking about this again, and psyching myself up to make that very hard decision, if it becomes necessary.

But it's a decision that any sane pet owner will make, because presumably that person doesn't want their pet to suffer needlessly.

This is what I want for humans, as well. What I say to people who get on a soap box and preach about how physician-assisted death (or suicide, if you insist on referring to it that way, although it's inaccurate in this instance) is that if you don't want it for yourself, nobody will force you. But if someone else wants it, have the courtesy to mind your own business. You don't live in that person's body, you don't know how they feel, and it's reprehensible to deny that person an end to their suffering because of some notion that everyone must follow your version of morality.

I had to watch my grandmother go from being a lucid person to a fearful, terrified woman who had no idea who any of her family were. My dad and I were strangers to her, and of course the pets didn't understand why she suddenly seemed to hate them and would keep pushing them away. Thank goodness she died within a year of this; some people linger on for decades.

My dad has dementia, and it will be 10 years in August this year. He doesn't remember most of his life - not his own parents, and he has no idea where he is. He keeps asking to go home, and of course he can't.

I know I don't want to live like that, and I also don't want to end my days as my mother did - aggressive cancer that spread everywhere, until she didn't even know who she was.

I've never understood the arguments against assisted suicide. I had a family member pass away recently, but not in those kind of circumstances, you have my sympathies.
 
I've never understood the arguments against assisted suicide. I had a family member pass away recently, but not in those kind of circumstances, you have my sympathies.

In my opinion the only valid argument against assisted suicide is regulatory, not prohibitive. If we legalize assisted suicide we need to be damn sure that "I'd rather you just die than spend my inheritance on medical treatment" doesn't become an accepted motivating factor.

Valka's world of pets provides good examples. While I have not the slightest doubt that Valka will do what is best for her pets, I also know with certainty that "she isn't in any pain, but her bladder has weakened with age and she leaks on my carpet" gets pets put down every day in the USA. The death of another just because they are inconvenient is hard for me to tolerate in pets, and certainly would be in humans.
 
In my opinion the only valid argument against assisted suicide is regulatory, not prohibitive. If we legalize assisted suicide we need to be damn sure that "I'd rather you just die than spend my inheritance on medical treatment" doesn't become an accepted motivating factor.

Valka's world of pets provides good examples. While I have not the slightest doubt that Valka will do what is best for her pets, I also know with certainty that "she isn't in any pain, but her bladder has weakened with age and she leaks on my carpet" gets pets put down every day in the USA. The death of another just because they are inconvenient is hard for me to tolerate in pets, and certainly would be in humans.

The biggest problem is when the person can not choose for her/himself, but then it's not really assisted suicide. Living wills certainly help remove ambiguity as to what the person's wishes would be.
 
Here's a question that's been controversial in Canada for many years: Robert Latimer, who spent years in prison for euthanizing his 12-year-old severely disabled daughter, Tracy.

Some advocates for the disabled felt that if he had been found not guilty of murder, it would become open season on all disabled people.

In this particular case, I don't consider Latimer guilty. His daughter was in constant, agonizing pain, and about to face yet another operation that really wouldn't have done much for her. I know I wouldn't have wanted to live her life. This is why I want the physician-assisted dying legislation amended. It doesn't go far enough as it is.
What I am saying only clarifies the issue - it does not solve it, at all. Remember I am essentially only outsourcing the question of life or death to a not directly related but all the essential and complex theater - the theater of meaning and value.
The sanctity of life is IMO something to be mostly hold dear, regardless, rather than a prior. An important distinction, especially regarding your concern. Individual emotions are the measure of it all, just they all need balancing. That is the whole point, after all. So if a person can not for the life of his or her stand life - there certainly has to be room to legally and properly end it. It just needs to be properly balanced with those caring for this person's life, one way or the other. For that there are ways to ensure that the person with a death wish is forced to duly consider that decision. Giving everyone a change to make an appeal.
In the end, I am inclined to say that when in doubt, go with the person most directly concerned in that most existential matter. So have her death, in dignity.
 
The biggest problem is when the person can not choose for her/himself, but then it's not really assisted suicide. Living wills certainly help remove ambiguity as to what the person's wishes would be.

Well, they help, but there are still a lot of difficult grey areas. If you say "do not resuscitate under any circumstance" you are setting yourself up to die from a trivial electrical shock that you can recover from with no lasting consequences at all, so that's a bad idea. But anything less leaves someone answering hard questions after a car accident. Would you want to be resuscitated into a life that will always feature a wheelchair? How about if you will always require help to feed yourself? If the person answering that question is the person who is going to have to help feed you, can they be sure they are answering the way you would actually want them to answer? Can the doctors?
 
Emotionally or rationally, the ending of a life removes the value of that life from the lives of others. In that regard the question of who ended the life becomes secondary, even if the life ended was ended by "the owner."

We have absolutely no control over our emotional reaction to a loss, unless we are sociopaths. At some point we have to give up some of our feelings and move on with life.

The whole point is: if we base our morals on emotions, then we have no control over our morals. That is why laws are made by sound rational humans. They cannot be based on emotional states of mind.

Some people are unable to legally consent due to not being sound of mind, or yeah, being too young to have that legal/moral authority.

Before we even get to a legal framework, you have to have a majority agree on the moral aspect of an idea.
 
We have absolutely no control over our emotional reaction to a loss, unless we are sociopaths. At some point we have to give up some of our feelings and move on with life.

The whole point is: if we base our morals on emotions, then we have no control over our morals. That is why laws are made by sound rational humans. They cannot be based on emotional states of mind.

Laws also generally aren't based on morals, because morals generally are based on emotions.
 
Emotionally or rationally, the ending of a life removes the value of that life from the lives of others. In that regard the question of who ended the life becomes secondary, even if the life ended was ended by "the owner."
Well I wouldn't say "secondary". For all the emotional impact someone can have on others, there still seems to be a quality unique to the impact you have on yourself. Applying relations on morality does not seem to make morality entirely relative. But my own sorrow or relieve or pleasure when I want to end my life is surely not the only issue, I agree so far.
Agency is part of it.
Of what? Morality? Yes. Rivers are part of earth. Ding! Enlightenment. :p
I understand the difference between wanting a choice to be rational instead of emotional.
But when morality wants to be rational, it HAS TO refer back to the emotional, in the end. Otherwise it is puffs and smoke. My whole point.
I intend to do things in the future. By ending my life you prevent me from doing what I had intended.
Cool.
Fictional future projectings of being, however, carry no weight in themselves. Pure logic *throws end of scarf over his shoulder and walks off*
Your attachment to them, does, however. So as said, cool.
 
Cool.
Fictional future projectings of being, however, carry no weight in themselves. Pure logic *throws end of scarf over his shoulder and walks off*
Your attachment to them, does, however. So as said, cool.
why don't they carry weight? Maybe I'm attached to them because they carry weight rather than my attachment to them mitigating them from being otherwise weightless. Your "pure logic" precluded that possibility.
 
I've never understood the arguments against assisted suicide. I had a family member pass away recently, but not in those kind of circumstances, you have my sympathies.
Thank you. Condolences on your loss, as well.

The biggest problem is when the person can not choose for her/himself, but then it's not really assisted suicide. Living wills certainly help remove ambiguity as to what the person's wishes would be.
The assisted dying legislation in Canada doesn't accept living wills. My frustration is that I can do the right thing for my cats, if they become afflicted with cancer, or suffer a stroke, or something else that either isn't curable or that I couldn't begin to afford to pay for... but I'm not legally allowed to make provisions for myself, if it turns out that the dementia that has afflicted the immediate two generations before me on my dad's side of the family or the aggressive cancer that has afflicted the previous several generations of women on my mother's side of the family is going to settle on me as the next in line.

The cancer thing is the main reason why I decided over 30 years ago that I would not have children. Several aunts, my mom's mother, and a cousin had had cancer, and some died. My mom was still okay then, and so were my youngest aunt and myself. Now there is just that aunt and me and it's a waiting game, to see if we will escape this. I decided not to risk yet another generation having to go through this. Thank goodness my aunt had boys, and my other cousins are adopted.

We have absolutely no control over our emotional reaction to a loss, unless we are sociopaths. At some point we have to give up some of our feelings and move on with life.

The whole point is: if we base our morals on emotions, then we have no control over our morals. That is why laws are made by sound rational humans. They cannot be based on emotional states of mind.
There are times when dealing with death that a person has to switch off their emotions. I refer to the necessity of dealing with legal matters.

My grandmother's last lucid conversation with me included her begging me to make sure that her body was donated to medical research. That's what was done with her brother and my grandfather. It's what she wanted for herself... and I wasn't allowed to carry that out. She died at home, so legally an autopsy had to be done. The university doesn't accept bodies that have had autopsies.

So we had to scramble to make arrangements with a funeral home, and it turned out that the POS that handled this had all the morality of a used car salesman, trying to upsell, trying to guilt us into what wasn't affordable (nobody expected to have to deal with this, so no money had been set aside), and kept phoning and harassing me to make snap decisions and get him the money NOW.

A friend went with me to the funeral home, and handed me a box of kleenex. She said, "Have a good cry; they're used to it and expect it." I told her that this was a business meeting, and I needed a clear head. I didn't have the time to fall apart there, and knew they would try to take advantage of it if I did.

So in the end, everything was minimal, and my grandmother's ashes are in a box in one of the closets here. My mother always found it creepy that I hadn't had her buried and apparently some other people also find it creepy. But her ashes have sat in some closet or other all these years, and it's been frustrating. I have no idea what to do with them, because I have no idea what she would have found acceptable as a Plan B. None of us anticipated needing a Plan B, so we never talked about it.
 
why don't they carry weight? Maybe I'm attached to them because they carry weight rather than my attachment to them mitigating them from being otherwise weightless. Your "pure logic" precluded that possibility.
You say you are "attached to them because they carry weight".
Let me add two tiny words:
You are attached to them because they carry weight to you.
I have accounted for that version.
You truly got a different one?
 
A life has no single owner.
A life will influence many others. But it only has a single owner. That owner may have moral obligations towards others, sure, but that's not the same thing. It's like saying my shirt has an owner, since it affects other people's brains. Yes. But no.

But this is more of a distraction. That you've expanded my point doesn't devalue my point. I was objecting to the idea that the murder is morally neutral, when it's not.
 
A life will influence many others. But it only has a single owner. That owner may have moral obligations towards others, sure, but that's not the same thing. It's like saying my shirt has an owner, since it affects other people's brains. Yes. But no.

But this is more of a distraction. That you've expanded my point doesn't devalue my point. I was objecting to the idea that the murder is morally neutral, when it's not.

I wasn't trying to devalue your point, so I'm glad I didn't.
 
You say you are "attached to them because they carry weight".
Let me add two tiny words:
You are attached to them because they carry weight to you.
No, I'm not letting you do that. My speculation is that they carry weight in general. I have not seen you demonstrate that it doesn't contain weight in general.

Here's a question for you, what isn't morally nuetral and why isn't it?
 
Laws also generally aren't based on morals, because morals generally are based on emotions.
That is the problem with both your's and Terx's analysis; morals are hardwired because of human behavior not based on human emotions. Emotions are reactionary responses.

Laws are assumingly based on rational human thought of those who take responsibility for human actions. They can even go against accepted morals.
 
Laws are assumingly based on rational human thought of those who take responsibility for human actions. They can even go against accepted morals.

Laws are based on maintenance of stability. Maintaining stability can be measured, so it can be approached rationally.
 
Planetary extermination prior to interplanetary spread of your species.
If we discount all the reasons why it isn't morally nuetral that's morally nuetral.
 
Back
Top Bottom