Morality and Ethics of the Termination of Life.

[☭proletarian☭]

Okay, this is somewhat broad and I think that's what's needed. Looking at how people view homicide- willful and otherwise- and also matters pertaining to other animals, there seems to be great confusion over the underlying question: when is it acceptable to end life and when is it not?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, this is somewhat broad and I think that's what's needed. Looking at how people view homicide- willful and otherwise- and also matters pertaining to other animals, there seems to be great confusion over the underlying question: when is it acceptable to end life and when is it not?

My personal opinion - which is all I can speak to, since your title said "morally and ethically" rather than legally - is that motive is everything. It's not a difficult formulation.

Unborn children who are inconvenient - unacceptable
Annoying spouses with large life insurance policies - unacceptable
Mugger/rapist attacking you - acceptable

The issues of war and capital punishment are more complicated. While they are both technically moral and ethical in my view, both are rather ugly and undesirable and to be avoided as much as possible and carefully hemmed in with firm boundaries.

I know it is often argued that if one opposes abortion on the grounds of respect for the sanctity of life, that means that one must also oppose war and/or capital punishment. I don't consider that a respect for human life automatically translates into wanting to preserve all lives at all costs. Not all lives have equal claims on us in all respects.

War should take place only for just cause, when there is no other, more effective means available. In a just war, enemy soldiers are killed in self-defense or in the defense of others against unjust aggression. It is deplorable that this is ever necessary, but when it is, it is morally acceptable.

In the case of capital punishment, as I said on another thread, I consider it to be societal self-defense. In addition, I consider that my respect for life requires nothing less than the forfeiture of the murderer's life, either through life imprisonment with no chance of parole or through death in the most heinous of cases. Anything less would be to devalue the lives of those he killed and would not properly convey the true horror that such crimes should evoke.

 

[uscitizen]

When is it acceptable to end life?

When it interferes with profitable commerce.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Cecile,

How do you feel the wrongness of taking life relates to the obligation, if there is any, to preserve life? Is refusing to help a man who is dying comparable to actively harming him? To what extent are medical professionals and society at large obliged to sustain the life of an individual?

You said before that, in the abortion thread, that letting a life end is not the same as ending it. How do you view starving a person to death or letting them die of dehydration? Is letting someone who is 'braindead' in that 'higher' brain functions have ceased die slowly, though the brain stem is still keeping the heart and lungs going less objectionable than doing the same with someone who is merely comatose? If so, why?

Is ending the life of a dog, an ant, a rabbit, or someone of a different nation or race more or less wrong morally than ending the life of your own kind? If so, should the law reflect this? Why or why not?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecile,

How do you feel the wrongness of taking life relates to the obligation, if there is any, to preserve life? Is refusing to help a man who is dying comparable to actively harming him? To what extent are medical professionals and society at large obliged to sustain the life of an individual?

No, refusing to take a hand in someone's life - or death, as the case may be - is not comparable to actively harming him. This is not to say that it is not (probably) morally reprehensible to allow someone to die when you could save him, but it is not on the same level as deliberately ending his life.

Medical professionals, in my opinion, have taken on a greater responsibility toward their fellow men than the average person has. While I am generally loathe to establish blanket rules of "people must always do thus-and-so in all situations", I do believe that they should be held to a higher standard of obligation to help others within their capacity to do so, commensurate with the level of trust and respect that they are accorded.

I don't know that society has an obligation to SUSTAIN someone's life, but it does have an obligation to protect people's lives from unjust deliberate termination. If it does not perform that most basic of functions, then nothing else it does has any real meaning at all.

You said before that, in the abortion thread, that letting a life end is not the same as ending it. How do you view starving a person to death or letting them die of dehydration? Is letting someone who is 'braindead' in that 'higher' brain functions have ceased die slowly, though the brain stem is still keeping the heart and lungs going less objectionable than doing the same with someone who is merely comatose? If so, why?

Withholding food from a helpless/handicapped person for whom you are responsible is, to me, actively ending his life. Letting someone who is, essentially, dead actually BE dead is not. A merely comatose person is not essentially dead. He is unconscious. He may be deeply unconscious, and it may be the considered opinion that he will never be conscious again, but that is just an opinion, and people in that condition have, on occasion, woken up. There's a big difference between stopping a machine that is doing the brain's work for it and basically animating a corpse, and withholding sustenance from a body whose brain is still performing basic functions.

Is ending the life of a dog, an ant, a rabbit, or someone of a different nation or race more or less wrong morally than ending the life of your own kind? If so, should the law reflect this? Why or why not?

If I want my life to be viewed as intrinsically valuable, I must establish a precedent that ALL human lives are intrinsically valuable. For that reason alone, humans should value their own species above others. Which is not to say that the lives of lower species should be viewed with no concern or consideration at all, but they simply do not have an equal claim on us.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

This is not to say that it is not (probably) morally reprehensible to allow someone to die when you could save him

What do you mean, 'probably'? Is it morally reprehensible to your mind?

it is not on the same level as deliberately ending his life.

Is it not a conscious decision to allow him to die? Do you mean that it is not a wrong, or merely that it is a lesser offense? Are not the many who ignorance Catherine Genevese's cries, instead turning the volume up on their TV at least partially responsible for what happened to her? Does not the man who allows evil to happen bear the stains of the blood he allows to be shed?

I don't know that society has an obligation to SUSTAIN someone's life, but it does have an obligation to protect people's lives from unjust deliberate termination. If it does not perform that most basic of functions, then nothing else it does has any real meaning at all.

Does protecting that life not extend to attempting to sustain it? Does not society's obligation to attempt to keep a criminal from shooting a random person not also imply some obligation to treat that person's wounds- or are we simply to turn away once the deed has been done?

Withholding food from a helpless/handicapped person for whom you are responsible is, to me, actively ending his life.

Does society as a whole have any such obligation, or only those who willfully incurit by choice of their profession? If society has no obligation to sustain life, do you object to taxes paying for public hospitals that are intended to preserve life and wellbeing?
Is not the duty to pay taxes that keep such facilities open simply a means by which the untrained can fulfill their obligation to their fellow Man?

A merely comatose person is not essentially dead. He is unconscious. He may be deeply unconscious, and it may be the considered opinion that he will never be conscious again, but that is just an opinion, and people in that condition have, on occasion, woken up.

Does society as a whole and does every citizen bear an obligation in your opinion to sustain that individuals life, either ethically or morally?

If I want my life to be viewed as intrinsically valuable, I must establish a precedent that ALL human lives are intrinsically valuable.

Why do you say that only of human life? Also, why do you say 'if I want my life to be viewed as intrinsically valuable'? Do you mean to say your respect for human life is solely based on self-interest and the social contract, rather than on any moral objection to wanton slaughter?

For that reason alone, humans should value their own species above others. Which is not to say that the lives of lower species should be viewed with no concern or consideration at all, but they simply do not have an equal claim on us.

Why humans above others? What is your reasoning? Again, are implying that it is based only on the social contract and ethics, and not upon any moral a foundation? How would a hypothetical race of intelliigent extraterrestrials fit into your scheme?

I was hoping there would be more participants in this discourse :/

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is not to say that it is not (probably) morally reprehensible to allow someone to die when you could save him

What do you mean, 'probably'? Is it morally reprehensible to your mind?

it is not on the same level as deliberately ending his life.

I say "probably" because all situations are different. It is theoretically possible to have a situation where it would not be morally reprehensible to stand aside and let nature, or fate, or whatever, take its course without interference.

Is it not a conscious decision to allow him to die?

Not necessarily, whereas actively killing somene definitely is, with their death being the primary goal. Back to "motivation is everything".

Do you mean that it is not a wrong, or merely that it is a lesser offense?

Probably wrong, generally a lesser offense, definitely a DIFFERENT one.

Are not the many who ignorance Catherine Genevese's cries, instead turning the volume up on their TV at least partially responsible for what happened to her? Does not the man who allows evil to happen bear the stains of the blood he allows to be shed?

Certainly, which is why it's morally reprehensible. However, the primary guilt and blame belong with the person who actually did the killing.

Does protecting that life not extend to attempting to sustain it?

For individuals? Maybe, maybe not. For society? Not really. The proper functions of society as a whole are limited, in my mind, to those things which MUST be done collectively because they cannot be done effectively on an individual basis.

Does not society's obligation to attempt to keep a criminal from shooting a random person not also imply some obligation to treat that person's wounds- or are we simply to turn away once the deed has been done?

Society doesn't treat wounds. Individuals do.

Does society as a whole have any such obligation, or only those who willfully incurit by choice of their profession? If society has no obligation to sustain life, do you object to taxes paying for public hospitals that are intended to preserve life and wellbeing?

My preferences run thusly, in order:

Personal responsibiliy for oneself by the patient
Responsibility by family and friends of the patient
Private charitable hospitals (responsibility taken by the community on a more individual level)
Action taken on a governmental level

Is not the duty to pay taxes that keep such facilities open simply a means by which the untrained can fulfill their obligation to their fellow Man?

You overestimate both how much obligation I think people have to total strangers AND how much I think it's appropriate to force that obligation unwillingly onto people. On the other hand, I think you underestimate how much obligation people are willing to take on themselves voluntarily without needing it forced.

Does society as a whole and does every citizen bear an obligation in your opinion to sustain that individuals life, either ethically or morally?

As a matter of fact, not necessarily. There's a limit to how much responsibility for total strangers people can be expected to take upon themselves, and in large part, it is for the individual to decide that for himself, not for you or me to decide it for him.

In addition, I think you actually do other people more harm than good when you attempt to take too much of the burden for their well-being off of them and onto yourself (or onto others against their will). In many cases, I think that it turns out to be an ultimately selfish act, handicapping another in one's own self-absorbed zeal to feel like a good and moral person.

If I want my life to be viewed as intrinsically valuable, I must establish a precedent that ALL human lives are intrinsically valuable.

Why do you say that only of human life? Also, why do you say 'if I want my life to be viewed as intrinsically valuable'?]

I don't say that only of human life, but in this case, we are speaking primarily of human lives, and I happen to be a human myself.

Do you mean to say your respect for human life is solely based on self-interest and the social contract, rather than on any moral objection to wanton slaughter?

You're skating perilously close to cutting and cherrypicking quotes in order to misrepresent what I said. I trust I won't have to warn you about this again. I think if you go back and look at my WHOLE quote, rather than just the partial sentence you selected, you will see that I never said that was the ONLY reason. It is merely the single one I chose to articulate at the moment.

For that reason alone, humans should value their own species above others. Which is not to say that the lives of lower species should be viewed with no concern or consideration at all, but they simply do not have an equal claim on us.

Why humans above others? What is your reasoning?[/QUOTE]

My reasoning was already expressed, and then obscured by your narrow quoting. If you have no intention of reading with an open mind and honest desire to understand how I believe, but only to twist things to suit your agenda, we can end this discussion right now.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Back to "motivation is everything".

The problem I have with such statements is that it would imply that a man's actions cannot be objectionable in and of themselves. This would effectively mean that homicide, rape, or theft is never wrong, merely the reasons behind it. DO you really mean to imply such a thing, or must action and motivation both be taken into account?

The proper functions of society as a whole are limited, in my mind, to those things which MUST be done collectively because they cannot be done effectively on an individual basis.

Are not most of those things- mutual defense, public roadways, et al- means of bettering the condition of the populace and each member thereof? Does a man bear no moral obligation in your mind to defend his neighbor or his neighbor's children?

Society doesn't treat wounds. Individuals do.

And society compensates them and provides the facilities and employs the specialists who treat wounds. Most hospitals in the U.S. are primarily paid for with 'public' (tax) dollars.

I never said that was the ONLY reason. It is merely the single one I chose to articulate at the moment.

And I'm trying to get you you state the rest. The point of this exercise iis to get and the underlying moral obligations one perceives. Again, how would a hypothetical alien race git into the picture?

For what reasons, if any, outside of social contract and their ability to aid or act against you, do you elevate humanity above the other races of life?

Also, what of a hypothetical non-biological race of intelligence, such as sentient machines? How would they fit into your philosophy?

 

[amrchaos]

I do not think that suicide(or attempted suicide) is, in itself, unethical.

Of course, there are cases where its practice/uses is unethical and illogical.

 

[uscitizen]

The government is the only one allowed to permit someone to die or actually kill them?

the final personal freedom of ending ones life is denied us?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Back to "motivation is everything".

The problem I have with such statements is that it would imply that a man's actions cannot be objectionable in and of themselves. This would effectively mean that homicide, rape, or theft is never wrong, merely the reasons behind it. DO you really mean to imply such a thing, or must action and motivation both be taken into account?

I didn't imply anything. I stated it outright. I cannot off the top of my head think of any action that is universally, 100% always wrong under all circumstances.

And you are using fuzzy, imprecise English here, which is clouding your thinking on the issue. "Murder" is not an act. "Murder" is an act AND a motivation combined. The act by itself, divorced from any motive or circumstance, would be "killing", which is not always wrong. Likewise, "rape" is an act and motivation combined. The act divorced from motivation would be "sex", which is right or wrong entirely depending on the circumstances. Even stealing can sometimes have a moral justification. Say, for example, that I find out the government is engaging in some sort of heinous act, and there's proof of it. I steal the evidence so that I can expose the heinous act to the world and put a stop to it. Yes, it's stealing, and yes, it's illegal and I could go to prison for it, but morally, it would be justified.

Okay, I'm going to answer the rest of this post later. I ate something that didn't agree with my stomach, and I'm off to have a lie-down right now.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I do not think that suicide(or attempted suicide) is, in itself, unethical.

Of course, there are cases where its practice/uses is unethical and illogical.

Do you consider it immoral? If so, why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The government is the only one allowed to permit someone to die or actually kill them?

the final personal freedom of ending ones life is denied us?

Short of putting you in a straitjacket in a padded room, I don't think anyone can actually stop you from committing suicide if you really want to. The question is whether or not it's immoral. Hate to break it to you, but in most cases, it is.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Cecile, can you offer a reason why you consider suicide immoral, or is it simply an emotional/moral abhorrance in your mind? Do you feel the State should intervene? Also, I still await your answer as to your a theoretical race of intelligent aliens would fit into your worldview as relates to this subject.

 

[amrchaos]

I do not think that suicide(or attempted suicide) is, in itself, unethical.

Of course, there are cases where its practice/uses is unethical and illogical.

Do you consider it immoral? If so, why?

Immoral in itself--nope!!

Again, there are cases where its practices/uses is immoral as well.

Understand--when I say immoral, I am refering to immoral as in ethics, society and nature and not in terms of any pre-defined Western religious teachings because I do not subscribe to most of their cosmological claims....

Religion nor government possess neither flesh nor blood--until you give them your own. They both have agendas and one should always be skeptical of their dictates and demands.

 

[Avatar4321]

There seems to be more confusion on when its acceptible to create life and when it's not.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There seems to be more confusion on when its acceptible to create life and when it's not.

?

 

[MajikMyst]

Gosh Proletarian?? Where you come up with these??

The morality and ethics of death or termination of life??

Abortionis a tough issue, while I agree that abortion is wrong, I do believe there are times where it is required.. Like in the case of saving the mother's life.. So, abortion would be eithical in the case of preventing the mothers death..

I also have issues with saying that an abortion is unethical or immoral if the baby was a product of a rape.. I would leave that choice up to the mother and stand by whatever she decides..

I also believe it is ethical to help someone end their life if they have a terminal illness and wish it.. I believe assisted suicide is ok and should be legal.. After all.. Who's life is it anyway?

As for capital punishment?? While some may call it sociatal defence or whatever.. Bottom line is it is revenge.. Something religion gave us.. I don't believe society has the right to kill someone.. Murder is murder no matter if it is a gun or a needle..

'Who's Life is it Anyway' is also a movie about the topic of medical or assisted suicide.. Might want to watch it.. It is a good flick!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Gosh Proletarian?? Where you come up with these??

The morality and ethics of death or termination of life??

Abortionis a tough issue, while I agree that abortion is wrong, I do believe there are times where it is required.. Like in the case of saving the mother's life.. So, abortion would be eithical in the case of preventing the mothers death..

Is it safe to assume you also mean you find it moral in these cases?

I also have issues with saying that an abortion is unethical or immoral if the baby was a product of a rape.. I would leave that choice up to the mother and stand by whatever she decides..

Why does the manner in which a human life is created determine whether it is moral in your mind to end that life? do you intend to state that a child produced by rape is 'less human' or somehow has less rights or value than a child created through willful and desired intercourse?

I also believe it is ethical to help someone end their life if they have a terminal illness and wish it.. I believe assisted suicide is ok and should be legal.. After all.. Who's life is it anyway?

You seem to be confused over the ethics andf morality. Contrary to the etymological roots of the term, 'ethics' is used to generally mean widely or socially acceptable, whereas moral is a personal thing.

Do you also believe it to be morally acceptable to help someone end their life without their being in such a state?

As for capital punishment?? While some may call it sociatal defence or whatever.. Bottom line is it is revenge.. Something religion gave us.. I don't believe society has the right to kill someone.. Murder is murder no matter if it is a gun or a needle..

How do you feel about the rest of society being forced to provide for a criminal? Are there any instances where a person surrenders their right to life through their actions?

 

[MajikMyst]

Gosh Proletarian?? Where you come up with these??

The morality and ethics of death or termination of life??

Abortionis a tough issue, while I agree that abortion is wrong, I do believe there are times where it is required.. Like in the case of saving the mother's life.. So, abortion would be eithical in the case of preventing the mothers death..

Is it safe to assume you also mean you find it moral in these cases?

I also have issues with saying that an abortion is unethical or immoral if the baby was a product of a rape.. I would leave that choice up to the mother and stand by whatever she decides..

Why does the manner in which a human life is created determine whether it is moral in your mind to end that life? do you intend to state that a child produced by rape is 'less human' or somehow has less rights or value than a child created through willful and desired intercourse?

I also believe it is ethical to help someone end their life if they have a terminal illness and wish it.. I believe assisted suicide is ok and should be legal.. After all.. Who's life is it anyway?

You seem to be confused over the ethics andf morality. Contrary to the etymological roots of the term, 'ethics' is used to generally mean widely or socially acceptable, whereas moral is a personal thing.

Do you also believe it to be morally acceptable to help someone end their life without their being in such a state?

As for capital punishment?? While some may call it sociatal defence or whatever.. Bottom line is it is revenge.. Something religion gave us.. I don't believe society has the right to kill someone.. Murder is murder no matter if it is a gun or a needle..

How do you feel about the rest of society being forced to provide for a criminal? Are there any instances where a person surrenders their right to life through their actions?

Yes.. I find it moral as well..

My issue with rape is this.. I morally and ethically have a hard time telling a rape victim she has to keep the child.. What if we were talking about a 13 year old girl??

As for suicide?? No. In most cases we should help the person live.. But there are cases in which suicide is preferable.. Cancer in it's final stages can be very very painful.. Why would we even want to keep someone alive at that point? There is no cure, nothing medicine can do.. They are just going to live in pain until they die.. We kill animals to free then from pain and discomfort, why not our loved ones?

Capital punishment??

Well.. In an ideal world, our prison system would find ways to make prisoners productive in society and earn their keep.. Like the chain gangs of old.. I am sure some of the lower risk prisoners can be used on the farm or something.. Take away some of those jobs from the illegal immagrants.. With todays technology, there is no reason that prisoners can't be used for many of those unwanted jobs..

For the terrorist or murderer??

I guess my thought there is, if we are going to kill them? Why can't we use them then?? Give them cancer and try to cure them then.. Use them as medical lab rats so to speak.. At least then the information they provide will be something.. Or maybe give them that option.. Death or Lab rat..

I don't know.. I am kinda on the fence on some of this..