3 ms·
So, I totally understand how you have taken that from what I wrote, so please allow me to elaborate. The difference between the scenarios you present is volunt
by madaxe_again 12y ago
So, I totally understand how you have taken that from what I wrote, so please allow me to elaborate.
The difference between the scenarios you present is voluntary action. I'm absolutely not proposing that you should pop off and go for a Burton, and actively try to leave your nearest and dearest in the lurch - rather that people are resilient, and life goes on, and that we must believe in those we are closest to. I have life insurance to at least ensure the financial safety of my family should I cease to be.
I'm sorry for your experiences - most of my loved ones have met violent ends or have died of mercifully swift illnesses. Some have lingered, painfully, and wished for but could not have euthanasia.
Perhaps there's an argument for voluntary euthanasia being legal purely in the idea that it comforts the living with the knowledge that they need never suffer a slow death in the future.
- mikeash 12y agoThe initial cause of the two scenarios is irrelevant to the consequences of the outcome. If it's bad to abandon your family then it's equally bad to die on them. And it's completely rational to be afraid of an event that has bad consequences. If you just want to say that your loved ones will survive, that life goes on without you, and you shouldn't be overly concerned about how the world will get on after you die, that's reasonable. But I completely and utterly disagree with going from that to "Fearing death is utterly irrational." Fearing death because of the negative consequences it will have on people you care about is completely rational.