4 ms·

Every time I see one of these stories I'm reminded that the Nazis started by exterminating the unfit [1] - the mentally unstable, the elderly, etc. Only once th

Every time I see one of these stories I'm reminded that the Nazis started by exterminating the unfit [1] - the mentally unstable, the elderly, etc. Only once they had that program well in hand did the Nazis move on to removing others who were (in the Nazis assessment) a "burden to society". The danger here is that we're saying "there is a right to control how and when you die" but I have never seen anyone articulate an actual moral theory that allows for self-ending but does not also allow for other-ending (and the heart-rending stories that encourage allowing suicide only require the addition of "and she couldn't communicate her wishes" to cross over from supporting suicide to supporting euthanasia). Baring which, allowing suicide is allowing euthanasia. And allowing euthanasia is allowing coerced euthanasia. [1]: https://hmh.org/event/medical-ethics-and-the-holocaust-how-healing-becomes-killing-eugenics-euthanasia-and-extermination/ https://hmh.org/event/medical-ethics-and-the-holocaust-how-h... & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>I have never seen anyone articulate an actual moral theory that allows for self-ending but does not also allow for other-ending. What do you mean by "other ending"? Do you mean non-consensual ending (murder) or consensual ending (euthanasia). The fact that someone can be coerced into taking action themselves is a simple fact of life. It is always a possibility with suicide or euthanasia. Moral theory does not need to split hairs on the probability of that coercion occurring. You can simply say it is moral for someone to decide to end their life , and either do it themselves or get help. You can also hold it immoral to coerce someone into death. Morality does not depend if those standards will be perfectly upheld by humanity. Moral standards never are.
542354234235 2y ago
>I have never seen anyone articulate an actual moral theory that allows for self-ending but does not also allow for other-ending. An individual should have the right to control their own life and their own body, including choosing to end that life. When people have freedom to choose, they may make choices you do not agree with or do not like or that you believe is a bad choice. Being able to choose for oneself is not basically the same as allowing someone else to force you to do something.
gambiting 2y ago
>>And allowing euthanasia is allowing coerced euthanasia. That's one hell of a logical leap. I guess that's an argument against abortion too then? Since allowing abortion is now allowing coerced abortion?
- svieira 2y ago
  It happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion#United_Kingdom > On June 21, 2019, the UK Court of Protection ordered a disabled woman to have an abortion against her will.[18] The woman had a moderate mood disorder and learning disability and under the care of an NHS trust, which argued that she was mentally incompetent and that having a child would worsen her mental health. Justice Nathalie Lieven subsequently approved the forced abortion under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 despite the wishes of herself and her mother.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    I didn't say it doesn't happen.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

>I have never seen anyone articulate an actual moral theory that allows for self-ending but does not also allow for other-ending. What do you mean by "other ending"? Do you mean non-consensual ending (murder) or consensual ending (euthanasia). The fact that someone can be coerced into taking action themselves is a simple fact of life. It is always a possibility with suicide or euthanasia. Moral theory does not need to split hairs on the probability of that coercion occurring. You can simply say it is moral for someone to decide to end their life , and either do it themselves or get help. You can also hold it immoral to coerce someone into death. Morality does not depend if those standards will be perfectly upheld by humanity. Moral standards never are.

542354234235 2y ago

>I have never seen anyone articulate an actual moral theory that allows for self-ending but does not also allow for other-ending. An individual should have the right to control their own life and their own body, including choosing to end that life. When people have freedom to choose, they may make choices you do not agree with or do not like or that you believe is a bad choice. Being able to choose for oneself is not basically the same as allowing someone else to force you to do something.

gambiting 2y ago

>>And allowing euthanasia is allowing coerced euthanasia. That's one hell of a logical leap. I guess that's an argument against abortion too then? Since allowing abortion is now allowing coerced abortion?

svieira 2y ago
It happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_abortion#United_Kingdom > On June 21, 2019, the UK Court of Protection ordered a disabled woman to have an abortion against her will.[18] The woman had a moderate mood disorder and learning disability and under the care of an NHS trust, which argued that she was mentally incompetent and that having a child would worsen her mental health. Justice Nathalie Lieven subsequently approved the forced abortion under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 despite the wishes of herself and her mother.
- gambiting 2y ago
  I didn't say it doesn't happen.