Agnostic.com

22 3

As an atheist I do not believe that the individual life of a person has an absolute and intrinsic value. Hence my question: What is the objection against temporarily practicing euthanasia in an exceptional situation like now ("Corona" ).

For example, one could stipulate that the following persons would no longer receive intensive medical care, but in the case of a serious Covid19 infection would only be sedated, so that they could die peacefully and without suffering:
over 60 and two pre-existing conditions (for example diabetes and hypertension); over 70 and one pre-existing condition; and everybody over 80.

In this case, the intensive care units would not be overburdened, the health care system would not reach its limit and a shutdown for the whole society - with all the negative side effects - could generally be avoided. (By the way: In Sweden, something similar has actually been practiced, that is why they had more deaths due to Covid that Norway, Finland and Denmark combined).

I know that such a thing is impossible in my country (Germany) for historical reasons, but what are the general (philosophical) arguments against it?

Matias 8 Oct 29
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

22 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

11

Setting my personal interests aside for a moment, the first purely philosophical problem I see is an internal conflict in your logic. To state that human life has no intrinsic value, is to state that all human life has equal value, namely zero.

Then, in the same breath, you suggest valuing certain lives over others, based on age and health. If all lives are valued at zero, none can be prioritized over others.

Secondly, if human life has zero value, why should we make any effort to prevent death at all, whether young or old? Why not sedate them all and just let the disease run its course?

skado Level 9 Oct 29, 2020

Wrong, @skado, wrong.

1 ) Nowhere in your comment do you set your personal interests aside.
2 ) You take his I do not believe that the individual life of a person has an absolute and intrinsic value and generalize his “of a person” to your “all human life”.
3 ) He states a necessary hypothesis, and you again generalize, ignoring his “temporarily” and “in an exceptional situation”.
Finally, he closes with I know that such a thing is impossible in my country (Germany) for historical reasons, but what are the general (philosophical) arguments against it? and your personal judgments make general arguments against his hypothesis impossible.

@yvilletom
Your “Wrong, @skado, wrong” supports a conclusion that at least you (but in truth many):
1 ) attach the label “wrong” to what they dislike, and
2 ) attach the label “right” to what they like.
Both words, to the degree they influence others, serve political purposes.

@skado Aw-ww, you didn’t understand.

Copying is a way to give praise. Thank you.

@Matias
The question, "Does X have value?" is only half a question. It isn't a whole question until "to whom" is added. Without a valuer, no value can exist.

If a valuer at the presumed top of the hierarchy does not exist, then the potential for value doesn't cease to exist; it just defaults to the next level down in the hierarchy.

In a free society, the next highest valuer is societal consensus, as established by law.

So without gods to dictate law, we default to reason, philosophy, and consensus.

The philosophical justification for assigning equal value to all human life is very simple.

What goes around, comes around.

Two examples:
A. Those who are young now, will be old later. If you don't want your own life cut short when you get old, you don't do that to others when you are young.
B. The next virus might strike young people. If you don't want old people murdering you for expedience when you're young, you don't set the precedent of murdering them for expedience when they're old.

In free societies, the Golden Rule is universally accepted by a majority to be rational and fair.

So yes, a society could... if it could. But it usually can't where it is free to decide by consensus, and outliers are bound by law.

@Matias
Yes, societal consensus is a fiction. Like all ideals, it will never be realized fully and perfectly. But if you go throwing out all ideals simply because they cannot be realized perfectly, then you must do away with all law, and civilization itself. Civilization is a fiction. It's one most of us want to keep. I do think some plausible arguments for abandoning civilization could be made, but I don't think they're as strong as the arguments for keeping it. And fiction or no... a majority seem to prefer it.

Nobody is afraid to die in the future, because the future isn't now. But very few are willing to die right now, if they can be made healthy again. Deliberately withholding life-saving treatment has the same effect as active killing - a person who could have lived is now dead because of a decision someone else made against their will. The test would be to make it voluntary, and see how many volunteer. I would have no philosophical objection to a voluntary program.

As Wimpy said, "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." Of course you would agree today to be euthanized when you're old, but you have no way of knowing how you will feel about it when the day arrives. No one does. It's not possible. You may guess, and you may guess right, but you have no way to know. If you are to apply the Golden Rule authentically, you must agree to allow a stranger, or small group of strangers to arbitrarily decide the time of your death (at any age) without your consent, based on what they deem expedient for the society at large.

If an individual happens to be willing to die an unnecessary death at 75 it is no test of the Golden Rule; some 14 year-olds take their own life. But it's rare to non-existent for a healthy person to want to die right now if they have a choice. If they are suffering they may be ready to go, but bring them back to health first and then ask them. Or proactively ask all 80yos who are healthy if they will volunteer for euthanasia today "to give society more freedom." I would not have a philosophical argument with that. My issue is doing it without consent of the patient at the time it is to happen.

7

Triage is how medical care is allotted when the need overwhelms capacity. No need to start killing people.

6

Who lives and who dies? That's essentially what triage is all about when the system gets overloaded. Does your mother's life have more value than my daughter's life? Who decides on what the parameters are?
I am a strong supporter of euthanasia provided that the person who makes the decision to end their life peacefully is the person who does the dying and does so with a clear mind.
If the situation in the world gets bad enough in the next wave then there will be triage but this will be mainly because the entitled people of the world decided not to put the capital and resources into making triage unnecessary. Maybe we should apply the same metrics to deciding how much money a person needs to have in a time of pandemic, maybe all of the billionaires in the world need to take a 75% haircut on their assets for the greater good of civilization. Maybe we should decide if having an extra super yacht is more important than your mother dying of a virus?

6

"what are the general (philosophical) arguments against it?"
Those people you mentioned might want to live? I think that is a pretty good argument against euthanizing them.

I was behind you 100% with your statement "I do not believe that the individual life of a person has an absolute and intrinsic value." And in my opinion, if any person wants to commit suicide, or assisted suicide because they wish to stop existing, then I am 100% for that. They didn't get to choose to come into existence, but they should be able to choose the day and time they cease to exist if they want.

However ... EVERYONE'S biology is different, and you shouldn't use the averages of a population to deny medical coverage to any individual. So pre-existing conditions and age should not be factors in denying medical procedures to a sick individual because their individual biology may make the treatment effective more quickly, or they may be in better physical shape than the average, and they may recover easily. You just can't tell.

AND ... prevention is always more effective and much less expensive. If everyone in the world had just stayed home for four weeks in March and worn a mask all April, we wouldn't have this widespread pandemic and hospital beds would be available.

You don’t mention the cost of coverage to non-consenting taxpayers. Is it a factor in your analysis?

@yvilletom Taxpayers in a representative democracy (or any system of government for that matter, short of a hypothetical ideal of voluntary participation) never consent to every use to which their taxes are put. That's the nature of the beast. The goal is, or should be, the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number.

@yvilletom Define "non-consenting taxpayer".

I have no children in school - should I pay school taxes? I don't care if my house burns down - I have insurance. Should I pay taxes for to the fire department? As listed above, taxes are for the general good. If you don't like paying one of the taxes because you don't like it, that is basically too bad, because in the overall scheme the taxes pay to better society.

I want to pay taxes. I want educated children. I want fire protection, police protection, road maintenance and all the other things covered in taxes. Hell, I'd double my taxes if I could get universal health care and free college education for everyone. That would make the U.S. a MUCH better place to live.

@AtheistInNC For schools I am a consenting taxpayer.
For maintenance of church buildings I am a non-consenting taxpayer and I cooperate with people who litigate to stop this use of my taxes.

6

It's already happening when hospitals run out of beds and/or respirators, but it's first come first serve, no planned euthanasia strategy.
Why does this keep coming up from Germans anyway?

That's a bit bigoted, isn't it? You wouldn't think of saying "Why does this keep coming up from [gays, blacks, POC, etc.]" now, would you?

@AtheistInNC If you had more than 3 Russians asking the same question then you too can sound bigoted by asking why do Russians keep asking about this. My step mother is German and I lived there the summer of 1973 in Bad Connstatt.

5

But why should you use such a pointless yard stick as intrinsic value, intrinsic to what? What can be said to have intrinsic value, the planet? Relative to what? The galaxy? Since we are the ones doing the evaluation it might make more sense to use something like, agent relative value. I'm making the decision, they're human, I'm human, they have value to me.

@Gwendolyn2018 so the title of this group is philosophy and meaning? 😄

@Gwendolyn2018

Which guy? I hope not the opening poster, who stated a hypothesis.

@Matias
"value exists only by human beings for other human beings." is not the whole picture. Value exists by human beings for other human beings, and by human beings for themselves. Respecting human life universally can be seen as self-interest, because law is heavily dependent on precedent. If your group is able to pass a law that devalues the lives in another group, then it sets a precedent for the other group to do the same to your group. This is not deep or complicated. It is the simplest of ethical problems to solve. Don't do to others what you aren't happy for them to do to you.

5

Speaking personally, I happen to believe that my life has value - to me. The fact that others might disagree, and there are many, I can assure you; is irrelevant.
When we start down the path of judging life by 'value', then I think that we're on a slippery slope. At what age do we acquire value? What is the value test that we should meet, who decides?

You omit a relevant point, which the OP makes clear—the cost of intensive medical care.to non-consenting taxpayers.

5

Yeah, NO.

Your reason is?

@yvilletom My own.

4

As an atheist you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you correct. It is easy to calculate an individual's value, and the right to life is recognized by virtually everyone and therefore is absolute.

The existence of a god is recognised by virtually everyone and is therefore absolute. That the world was flat was recognised by virtually everyone and so therefore was absolute. You can see where I'm going with this? I don't disagree with your thesis that all individuals have value though.

Do not use the modifier “virtually” when you want to state an absolute.

@Cyklone The first sentence of your reply is an assumption, and questioned by many articles over the past few years. Your second sentence is simply wrong. Even if 100% of people thought the world was flat, that does not make the world flat. The only absolute is the thinking.

No, I really don't see where you are going.

@Alienbeing You state the obvious, they're bullshit statements and it was written to demonstrate exactly that. Now read it in the context of the post it was in response to.

@Cyklone I don't see a context.

4

What it comes down to is this. My body, my right, whatever anyone else thinks/says means nothing. If someone is terminally ill and they choose the Euthanasia route, that choice should be theirs and I am glad more states are making this possible.

Should I ever become terminally ill, I have already made a plan and signed legal papers stipulating not to revive me if I lose consciousness. If it’s in my control I have plans to make my last moments the best that I can

What this also boils down to is.........If you don’t have the freedom to manage your life and body as you see fit and as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, then what kind of freedom do you really have?

3

Your atheism has no connection to your statement. Atheism is lack of god belief, nothing more. Your views on euthanasia are possibly related to some other ideas, not atheism.

Because as human beings being humane is paramount... "if we can help, we should". A doctors first oath is "to do no harm". Not giving care when it is available is not only morally and ethically repugnant but it's inhumane.

Leelu Level 7 Oct 29, 2020

I agree. Atheism has nothing to do with attributing value to human life. Saying as much is a causal fallacy.

@Matias I disagree. All living things have intrinsic value, not based on god but on survival of the species. The whole concept or purpose of life is survival and in order to survive it requires an minimum assessed value that cannot change. The perception of god as an enhancer to that value (humans chosen above other animals) is not real, merely perceived, but the initial value is constant.

3

I firmly believe that euthanasia is something that should be in all societies. Nobody's business if I want to end my life. I am quite sure that a huge proportion of people in nursing homes and others would be happy to have the choice, to end it or not. Besides all that the idea of being sedated and be allowed to die needs a lot of rules/laws attached to it. But you are wrong about Sweden. They have all these deaths because they do not have any lockdown, as opposed to the other Scandinavian countries. According to them each individual should take responsibility for their own actions, ie make sure that they do social distancing, wearing masks, etc, etc.

3

Im confused by your statement, "As an atheist I do not believe that the individual life of a person has an absolute and intrinsic value." As an atheist, I would argue the value is found in basic human nature. As we typically find value in our own lives, in the lives of those we care about, some go as far to find value in all lives individually. The nihilistic viewpoint you've presented is typically reserved for the masses that believe they are a sheep and their life is only as valuable as the Shepard deems it to be. They see the weakest of the herd presents a valid offering to the wolf as long as the flock remains.

The individual is the only one who can claim intrinsic and absolute value as it is all that is needed for life to remain. Societies, beliefs, the ideas of others lack any intrinsic value. We can continue to survive without dumb ideas but we will quickly go extinct without any sense of value. I think you have it backwards Sir.

3

You don't have to be a believer in religious nonsense to believe that human life has intrinsic value.

I think the only way your plan could operate without being immoral would be to require that each of these people sedated and left to die agree to it before while sound of mind and in control of all mental faculties.

I don't have a problem with a person agreeing to give up their own life for the greater good but when others are the ones to decide, no that's wrong. Unless it's an emergency triage situation.

@Matias

If we humans decide that our lives have intrinsic value, then so it is, they do. Opinions can change as you mentioned, but right now, the vast majority would agree that a human life has value regardless of circumstances.

3

I understand your point; however, having a Type 1 son, and being one of those people you believe should be left to die, I beg to differ with you. Reality check, there aren't any overburdened intensive care units or emergency rooms. It's a false pandemic. Regardless, I would rather live and have a fighting chance than be left to die because of a false political narrative.

Please, make it stop. I am getting laugh lines on top of my wrinkles.

[cnn.com]

[worldometers.info]

[statista.com]

@Thirst2learn Why would I spend my valuable time researching your false claims when the onus is on you prove them like I did with mine?

@Thirst2learn Failing to support your factual claims with evidence calls into question the credibility of both your claims and your personal integrity.

@Thirst2learn You don't understand how facts are established or the significance of evidence and I'm not convinced you're bright enough to learn.

@Thirst2learn Another false allegation unsupported by evidence. Even I am embarrassed for you.

@Thirst2learn lovinlarge is a sleeping sheeple ... thank you for trying to awaken them.

You can educate ignorance, can't fix the other.

Blessings.

@Thirst2learn How does a google search prove the CDC is controlled by communists? I don't understand that.

@AtheistInNC

Project Paperclip

Nazi scientists came here after the war, and infiltrated all levels of government, and corporate life.

Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are all owned by big tech companies. Censorship, MKUltra, and so much more.

Try the browser BRAVE, as a Google alternative. BitChute instead of YouTube. Parler instead of Facebook.

The truth is out there, just hidden from those that will lose money from your freed and awakened mind.

@Thirst2learn

Exactly

@Thirst2learn Occam's razor. Just because FB or Google hide something doesn't mean they are communist, socialist or anything like that - they do what increases profit. That isn't communism.
So, I believe they don't give a full answer/search result to anything we put in there, but that isn't because they are communist. show PROOF, not assertions with no proof.

@WarwomanRising The nazi scientists didn't "infiltrate" - they were invited by the government. The U.S. govt knew that they were good scientists, and wanted them for our purposes. Google wasn't a big tech company when it started - it was a webpage started by a geek in a dorm room to meet girls. It became a big website because of marketing, and giving us things people wanted "right place, right time, right marketing" ... that isn't a surprise. Most big companies start that way, they aren't started by big companies and are big companies instantly.

"Freed and awakened mind" - that made me laugh.

I try not to use google products if I have the option, but sometimes I use them to see what the difference in results are among many browsers. If you don't live online, you really don't need to use any of them, do you? Local stores for shopping, Wall Street Journal or NY Times for news, and who wastes time watching any videos online? Meh. I'm not a slave to those things, but it looks like you are very familiar with them, and their substitutes. How do you know that BRAVE, BitChute and Parler are not owned by the very same companies you eschew?

@AtheistInNC

Your pitiful attempts to insult myself and fellow commenter, are noted. I will not do the same to you, in that, intelligent, and awakened members will read it for what it is.

Where we go one, we go all.

@Thirst2learn Even if they are the central tenets, that still is not proof

@Thirst2learn I am not a communist, but I support universal basic income. Not proof.

@Thirst2learn

Universal income is part of the GESARA/NESARA plan as well.

Have you read Michael Tellinger's contributism theory?

@WarwomanRising I made no attempt to insult anyone. If you chose to read something into my reply I can't stop you.

@AtheistInNC Are you still here?

@WarwomanRising

Where we go one, we go all

Ah. I take it you're a Qanon believer. So any facts contrary to your beliefs are simply part of the coverup, and the fact that there's no evidence to support them just shows how pervasive the coverup is. Conspiracy theories are wonderful that way.

45.3 million infections and over 1.1 million deaths worldwide. 1,000 deaths a day in the U.S. alone. Yeah, that's a false pandemic if ever I saw one. I would love to "wake up" from the nightmare of incompetence that is the Trump administration's response to this pandemic.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me that following blindly along with an unproven and unfalsifiable theory that has been debunked by almost every possible source makes someone more sheep-like than anyone who puts stock in open, verified facts. You have little standing to call anyone else a "sheeple" (not a word, by the way) if you put your blind faith in anonymous sources on the internet who dole out drips and drops of "information" at their whim, in the form of jigsaw-puzzle clues, with no evidence to back it up.

"There is nothing more dangerous than a mystic Association; the members of which put a ring through their own noses, by which they are led, panting, after more and more secrets, the less and less of which they are shown, the better they are pleased." -Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy

@Paul4747

Wow. A bit angry there. It appears you're all on board for doing the same thing that hasn't worked for 47 years, like a sheep, aka sheeple.

[facebook.com]

@Matias You mean the photos of the dolls, and the same footage from another event used repeatedly? Where is the proof that this 99.7% survivorable flu bug has jammed packed ERs and ICUs? Not even the fake news reports on it, because it's not there.

2

In this country, some states allow physician-assisted suicide, which starts with, and is entirely dependent upon, the choice and consent of the patient. The word "euthanasia" implies that the patient has no choice and no consent. That is unacceptable. Frankly, it's the kind of thing that Donald Trump would suggest.

You could have closed with “That is unacceptable to me”.

Your omitting the “...to me” is an attempt to add power to your argument.

Your “Frankly, ....” is another such attempt.

@yvilletom At this writing, I see that you have made "correcting" comments to no fewer than eight replies. What are you doing? Grading papers?

@Fit50something Yes, and giving low grades to “in-the-box” comments.

I give high grades to comments that show signs of critical thinking, which in-the-box thinkers may say is amoral, on a spectrum between pragmatic and sociopathic.

@yvilletom Wow! I thought that you were a blowhard and a tight-ass already. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

@Fit50something You asked; I answered. You are most welcome.

2

I am inclined to think that those who hold such a viewpoint as you expressed above are essentially no different from those who favor war as means to resolve a conflict. It would be entirely unsurprising if they were not to be found as volunteers at the head of a queue for euthanasia nor were they be found anywhere near a frontline.

Yes he safely choose 60 as the starting point, allowing 6 years for a vaccine from his current age.

2

American law protects American from discrimination on the basis of age. I won't trouble myself with citations since you didn't.

1

This sounds like situation when my Grandmother passed away from a brain tumor. The tumor in her brain was at least Gulf ball size when it was diagnosed. The doctor said it could be removed but her quality of life and length of living afterwards would be questionable. She was not conscious or aware by any means to understand anything going on. It was decided by family not to operate and allow "nature " to take its course. I don't remember the exact time frame but only a matter of a week or few before she passed.

Death would be the inevitable. Determining the treatment to be give and the value of the treatment afterwards considering death would be end result either way would be the view it seems appropriate to consider.

Word Level 8 Oct 29, 2020

@Omnedon That then would be a governmental choice dictates by law governing the people making the choice for them by that style of the given standard of "over 80 ..."

0

To value human life is an essential part of human nature. Becoming an atheist does not separate you from human nature. Triaging patients is sometimes necessary, but being almost 70 myself, I wouldn't want to live under the system you describe. Sweden by the way has had more Covid-19 deaths per capita than it's neighbors because it didn't take the precautions they took, not because it kills off it's elderly.

0

When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must,
I will help you if I can.
When it all comes down to dust
I will help you if I must,
I will kill you if I can.

  • Leonard Cohen's Story of Isaac.
0

Maybe you should consider suicide to get you out of the way.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:547797
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.