3 ms·
That somebody is simply gone. It doesn't make sense to view it any other way. It's not a disturbing view. However, as long as the affected person is not capabl
by quonn 3y ago
That somebody is simply gone. It doesn't make sense to view it any other way.
It's not a disturbing view. However, as long as the affected person is not capable of suffering anymore it is fully up to the family to decide what they prefer. So either way can be a valid and ethical then. It can be ethical to hang on and it can be ethical to let go.
(That being said, If there is chance that the affected person could recover or even not recover but suffer at the moment then the question becomes very complex. I think most would admit that the complexity exists.)
- bowsamic 3y agoBut the son isn't gone from the experience of the father, why should he pretend like he is?
- cristeigabriel 3y agoI think you forget the fact that his son has 0 ability for self-preservance. In some cases, we may make things that have no chance to exist on their own, persist, but in this case, what does it serve, but our own selfishness?
- retromario 3y agoEvery human being is born with zero ability for self-preservation...
- cristeigabriel 3y agoAnd we help them out for their own sake, so that they can live a life of their own eventually.
- bowsamic 3y agoI don't believe in selfless acts. All selfless acts are done for selfish reasons.
- cristeigabriel 3y agoWhat a bullshit response.
- bowsamic 3y agoIt's my sincere belief, if you think differently then we can agree to disagree. For myself, I've never done a selfless act. All my so-called selfless compassion has ultimately been selfishly motivated. Therefore I can't judge the father for keeping his son alive.
- quonn 3y agoWhat a strange thing to say. Come on, you must have done at least something small as a selfless act. At least something does has not inconvenienced you very much. We do this all the time and not just to feel better about ourselves.