2 ms·

Well, the logic that if we permit euthanasia then people will be pressured into suicide means that conversely if we disallow euthanasia then people will not be

Well, the logic that if we permit euthanasia then people will be pressured into suicide means that conversely if we disallow euthanasia then people will not be pressured into suicide is a non sequitur. These two implications are not logically equivalent.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wahern 10y ago
True, they're not equivalent, but the second is implied when we use FUD (intentionally or unintentionally) to bias the status quo. We all have a psychological predisposition to prefer the status quo. And we tend to assume the latter type of statement is true (e.g. believe it intuitive that without legal euthanasia people aren't systematically pressured into suicide) even when we don't explicitly think about it. But if we state the latter explicitly and burden ourselves with it, then it becomes easier to reason about the whole issue. We can examine our biases. Whereas by focusing only on the first statement we're predisposed to believe the status quo better. That's also why I dislike abstract questions and contrived situations (e.g. the Trolley Problem). When we frame social issues too abstractly we lose sight, IMHO, of our inherent biases and implied assumptions, and tend to equivocate outcomes. Stick to real facts as much as possible and it's easier to identify and come to grips with our biases and assumptions. In some ways my opinion is counterintuitive. Isn't it supposed to be the case that by distilling an issue into a simple dilemma that we make it easier to make moral decisions? I don't think so. I think it was Wittgenstein who pointed out, more-or-less, that it's the fine, concrete details of a situation wherein most of the substance lies. By stripping the facts and talking in abstractions or relying on contrived scenarios we've changed the context to an entirely different, fictional reality such that any logical analysis and decision is largely irrelevant to the real-life situation.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

wahern 10y ago

True, they're not equivalent, but the second is implied when we use FUD (intentionally or unintentionally) to bias the status quo. We all have a psychological predisposition to prefer the status quo. And we tend to assume the latter type of statement is true (e.g. believe it intuitive that without legal euthanasia people aren't systematically pressured into suicide) even when we don't explicitly think about it. But if we state the latter explicitly and burden ourselves with it, then it becomes easier to reason about the whole issue. We can examine our biases. Whereas by focusing only on the first statement we're predisposed to believe the status quo better. That's also why I dislike abstract questions and contrived situations (e.g. the Trolley Problem). When we frame social issues too abstractly we lose sight, IMHO, of our inherent biases and implied assumptions, and tend to equivocate outcomes. Stick to real facts as much as possible and it's easier to identify and come to grips with our biases and assumptions. In some ways my opinion is counterintuitive. Isn't it supposed to be the case that by distilling an issue into a simple dilemma that we make it easier to make moral decisions? I don't think so. I think it was Wittgenstein who pointed out, more-or-less, that it's the fine, concrete details of a situation wherein most of the substance lies. By stripping the facts and talking in abstractions or relying on contrived scenarios we've changed the context to an entirely different, fictional reality such that any logical analysis and decision is largely irrelevant to the real-life situation.