I think you would find it hard to reconcile the language of the Declaration of Independence or that of the Declaration of Rights of Men and Citizens with this guff about self-awareness and personhood. And what you say is exactly the reason why I focus on humanity as a process. Personhood is infinitely less meaningful and more challengeable a notion than humanity (if, for instance, my will is overcome by that of another, whether by hypnosis or by crowd emotion or by any other reason, do I still have my personhood?), and self-awareness ceases every twenty-four hours in the average healthy human being, which on this sort of argument would make any sleeping person fair game. Besides, euthanasia is often about killing perfectly self-aware persons whose life seems to some third party unendurable - paralyzed, in pain, advanced cancer, etc. Which of course raises the issue that since my judgement cannot logically be made out to be worth any less than that of Professor Singer, I might decide that in my judgement the life of Professor Singer is so debased as not to be worth living, and put him down like a dog. Which would on the whole be no loss.
Take it from me. It is better to consider the whole of humanity from conception to death as one whole. It is also safer.
Self-awareness ceases when you sleep? An interesting idea, but not one I would totally agree with. Self-awareness certainly changes during sleep, it does not disappear. Which is one of the reasons I would not agree with Singer. (You may have noticed my tendancy to act as devil's advocate from time to time) His writings, or at least those that I have read, seem to be based on an almost freudian view of self-awareness or consciousness. The division of the self into lots of distinct component parts, the conscious, the sub-conscious etc. is becoming more and more out-of-date, the internal monologue, which is often thought of as the conscious mind, is probably only a very small part of our self.
I'd also have to say that from my point of view, euthanasia of a self-aware person against their will, or without an indication of their wishes is not euthanasia but murder. That being said I do understand the fine line between pain relief and euthanasia, particularly in advanced cancer patients. But my experience, limited as it is to a couple of acquantances, is that the doctors will normally have discussed the patients views with them prior to the end-stages of their disease.
I think you are probably right that the concept of humanity is a safer one than that of self-awareness, and while I can think of circumstances where euthanasia might be justifiable, I'm also aware of the maxim, Hard Cases make Bad Law. I remain torn.
And I have a tendency to use extremes when arguing, just to make a point. I would, of course, never think of killing Peter Singer, even though I would probably cross the road to avoid him. I was however making the point that the fitness to live and go on living is a matter of opinion. We both have grown up in countries where a certain number of people took it on themselves to decide who lived or who died for political convenience (the Red Brigades, the Mafia, and other assorted terrorists, made the Italy of my youth nearly as dangerous as Ulster). And to decide that a person does not have the quality of life to go on living looks to me not logically different from the Leninist notion of liquidating the members of failed classes, or, even more closely, the Nazi idea of destroying failed races. It was, after all, an actual Nazi belief that inferior races could not be happy except by being destructive; that they were so maladjusted that their desire to destroy their betters (especially, of course, the lofty Arian race) was simply inevitable, a symptom of their deep unsuitability for life. And faced with such a mass of ruinous and destructive congenital sickness, was it not a mercy even to them, to destroy them? It is no coincidence that the Nazi program of planned mass murder (as opposed to the numerous murders committed before as occasion came) began with the planned destruction of the sick and disabled: to them, Arianism was health, and is opposite was the illness of the world.
But I think there is a point where we disagree radically. I think that there is a positive duty to endure suffering, such that any "decision" reached between medic and patient is invalid. Suicide is just as wrong as murder (that is a Stoic as well as a Christian doctrine, by the way). We did not make ourselves and have no right to unmake ourselves either. I do not think that there is a threshold where suffering becomes different in kind, rather than degree, from the ordinary pain that we endure every day in dozens of conditions; and if even the pain of terminal cancer is not different in kind but only in degree from, say, the burns I got myself this morning from a few drops of scalding hot water, then it is impossible to determine that there is a point where pain becomes a justification for self-murder. And in fact, no such point exists: people commit suicide over the stupidest things, and other people endure the most unbearable torments. Of course, that people commit suicide is a fact, but one has to remember that ten thousand facts do not add up to one right, or even to one justification. At most, they may add up to one excuse.
There are illnesses that are attended by ineliminable and more or less continuous discomfort and pain, and can last years. If I understand the evidence correctly, Beethoven was one such person - there is a theory that he suffered from a congenital disease that made him allergic to his own body. So I would be very careful about making permanent and unrelievable pain grounds for euthanasia. At any rate, I am involved in the disabled movement through my brother, who is tetraplegic, and I know a number of people who live dignified and useful lives while subject to the most appalling conditions.
I do understand that people can believe in euthanasia without malice; that can actually be more dangerous. Which is the more dangerous, a bandit who kills in the understanding that what he is doing is not approved (even if he makes an excuse for himself, the very act of making an excuse acknowledges that there is something to be excused), or a pious, conscientious gentleman such as Himmler (of whom everyone who knew him agrees that there was not one shred of cruelty in him) killing because he feels it is his duty? This is another extreme statement, of course, but I think extreme statements may be legitimately used to bring out the tendency of a position. IN real life, even if euthanasia were legal, even most pious and conscientious people would rarely kill more than one extreme case. But in a society of millions, one extreme case here, one extreme case there... it soon mounts up. And in the meanwhile, we are becoming used to treating killing as a kind of sad duty, and people as objects to be discarded when they no longer function correctly.
I do not honestly think that my belief in the sanctity of life is a derivation of my belief in God; more the opposite. I try to argue, as you have seen in my fpb_de_fide essay, that the main ethical points of the Christian faith are not limited to it but universal; that is, that they can and ought to be held just as firmly if we were certain that no God existed. My belief in humanity as a process, which you have seen in my essay on abortion, does not depend on Christianity; almost to the contrary, I would say that it is this view of humanity as a process that makes some Christian concepts, such as that of the individual soul, understandable. That is, in my view, you can go from it to Christianity more easily and more logically than you can go from Christianity to it. You can certainly, in my view, hold it without any belief in Christianity. As a matter of fact, the history of my own conversion or reversion does not directly have to do with it at all; although it is true that, from the moment I had become reasonably certain of the truth of the story of Jesus Christ and of the historical claims, then such issues as abortion and contraception, on which I had held the standard contemporary views, became major issues, on which I had to reach a firm conclusion. And even so, I would not have aligned myself with Church teaching if I did not myself conclude that it was correct. The same thing happened, later, with contraception, and, later still, with divorce. (Indeed, there is one thing on which I have never reconciled myself with Church teaching at all, not in a quarter of a century, except as a matter of obedience: that is, the ordination of women.)
Yes, I think you have hit on the core of our disagreement. As I said somewhere else, I would expect nothing different from someone who professed a faith in God and/or a belief in an immortal soul. (and as tone does not always come over on screen, I say that with respect for the position, not disdain).
Your position on the sanctity of life is clear, unambiguous and consistent across various issues - suicide, abortion, euthanasia. It is based on a core belief, honestly held. I would not try to persuade you that you are wrong. But I would ask you to understand that other views can be held, equally honestly and without malice.
I wish I had an equally consistent view myself, but I don't, I am torn on this because I lack the solid platform of a core belief to stand upon.
Perhaps if, like Singer, I held a simplistic view of the nature of personal identity, of the mind, I could come to a definite conclusion but I'm afraid I don't hold that view so I suspect that this is a subject that I will continue to struggle with.
Just to play Devil's advocate one more time, could I suggest that pain, or the psychological impact of pain, becomes different,in kind, when it moves from being transitory, with the possibility or hope of relief, to become permanent with the only possibility of relief being death.
sorry, was I supposed to take "our ancestors" as a sign you had "said and repeated that [you were] speaking of the Greco-Roman world" or have I missed something? was this post perhaps referring to another one I haven't read?
Take it from me. It is better to consider the whole of humanity from conception to death as one whole. It is also safer.
Reply
I'd also have to say that from my point of view, euthanasia of a self-aware person against their will, or without an indication of their wishes is not euthanasia but murder. That being said I do understand the fine line between pain relief and euthanasia, particularly in advanced cancer patients. But my experience, limited as it is to a couple of acquantances, is that the doctors will normally have discussed the patients views with them prior to the end-stages of their disease.
I think you are probably right that the concept of humanity is a safer one than that of self-awareness, and while I can think of circumstances where euthanasia might be justifiable, I'm also aware of the maxim, Hard Cases make Bad Law. I remain torn.
Reply
But I think there is a point where we disagree radically. I think that there is a positive duty to endure suffering, such that any "decision" reached between medic and patient is invalid. Suicide is just as wrong as murder (that is a Stoic as well as a Christian doctrine, by the way). We did not make ourselves and have no right to unmake ourselves either. I do not think that there is a threshold where suffering becomes different in kind, rather than degree, from the ordinary pain that we endure every day in dozens of conditions; and if even the pain of terminal cancer is not different in kind but only in degree from, say, the burns I got myself this morning from a few drops of scalding hot water, then it is impossible to determine that there is a point where pain becomes a justification for self-murder. And in fact, no such point exists: people commit suicide over the stupidest things, and other people endure the most unbearable torments. Of course, that people commit suicide is a fact, but one has to remember that ten thousand facts do not add up to one right, or even to one justification. At most, they may add up to one excuse.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I do not honestly think that my belief in the sanctity of life is a derivation of my belief in God; more the opposite. I try to argue, as you have seen in my fpb_de_fide essay, that the main ethical points of the Christian faith are not limited to it but universal; that is, that they can and ought to be held just as firmly if we were certain that no God existed. My belief in humanity as a process, which you have seen in my essay on abortion, does not depend on Christianity; almost to the contrary, I would say that it is this view of humanity as a process that makes some Christian concepts, such as that of the individual soul, understandable. That is, in my view, you can go from it to Christianity more easily and more logically than you can go from Christianity to it. You can certainly, in my view, hold it without any belief in Christianity. As a matter of fact, the history of my own conversion or reversion does not directly have to do with it at all; although it is true that, from the moment I had become reasonably certain of the truth of the story of Jesus Christ and of the historical claims, then such issues as abortion and contraception, on which I had held the standard contemporary views, became major issues, on which I had to reach a firm conclusion. And even so, I would not have aligned myself with Church teaching if I did not myself conclude that it was correct. The same thing happened, later, with contraception, and, later still, with divorce. (Indeed, there is one thing on which I have never reconciled myself with Church teaching at all, not in a quarter of a century, except as a matter of obedience: that is, the ordination of women.)
Reply
Your position on the sanctity of life is clear, unambiguous and consistent across various issues - suicide, abortion, euthanasia. It is based on a core belief, honestly held. I would not try to persuade you that you are wrong. But I would ask you to understand that other views can be held, equally honestly and without malice.
I wish I had an equally consistent view myself, but I don't, I am torn on this because I lack the solid platform of a core belief to stand upon.
Perhaps if, like Singer, I held a simplistic view of the nature of personal identity, of the mind, I could come to a definite conclusion but I'm afraid I don't hold that view so I suspect that this is a subject that I will continue to struggle with.
Just to play Devil's advocate one more time, could I suggest that pain, or the psychological impact of pain, becomes different,in kind, when it moves from being transitory, with the possibility or hope of relief, to become permanent with the only possibility of relief being death.
Reply
was this post perhaps referring to another one I haven't read?
Reply
Leave a comment