Not gonna lie, sometimes you scare me.Yeah, overdose is the better way to go.I will put it this way. I don't want to put an undue financial burden on my wife and family. As long as my health insurance covers care, I would likely keep going. But if it doesn't, I hope to God that if I contract a terminal illness it's not one that will eventually be so physically debilitating to keep me from overdosing on my pain killers or wheeling out in front of a truck/bus. Apologies in advance to the driver of course.
You can accomplish this under the term “Hospice care”. 20mg of morphine every 15 minutes is usually effective with the added 1mg of Ativan every 2 hours
These prescriptions come in multiple times a week.
I’m not sure you can really answer it without first asking whether we have any moral obligation to this universe we are passing through at all, and if so, from whence does such obligation arise? I’m not trying to be pedantic, here. I really do think it touches on issues of the nature of existence, of sentience, of nihilism, etc.
Wow. You are going for the long ball here. My take on these issues coincide with life. . . and death in and of themselves. Not necessarily when and how we die. Even without the deep ball, there are enormous questions about the practicalities of the means and timing of death that involve religion, economics, social good, the well-being of those who survive and more. This has been touched on with litigation and legislation, but not a lot of resolution.
I’m not sure you can really answer it without first asking whether we have any moral obligation to this universe we are passing through at all, and if so, from whence does such obligation arise? I’m not trying to be pedantic, here. I really do think it touches on issues of the nature of existence, of sentience, of nihilism, etc.
Wow. You are going for the long ball here. My take on these issues coincide with life. . . and death in and of themselves. Not necessarily when and how we die. Even without the deep ball, there are enormous questions about the practicalities of the means and timing of death that involve religion, economics, social good, the well-being of those who survive and more. This has been touched on with litigation and legislation, but not a lot of resolution.
I know, I'm not making it simple. Let me give an example of just how difficult I think this discussion is.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, existence is eternal. That after our death, our consciousness survives in some other place/form/realm/whatever. If that were the case, you could argue that ending your own life quickly to alleviate the burden on others is absolutely the right thing to do, because if death is only transitory, then doing so costs you nothing in the long run.
On the other hand, someone might come back from the other side of the argument and say, yeah, but if existence is eternal, then it is for everyone else, too, and the burden you are alleviating them of is really nothing at all, since any temporal burden amounts to zero in the context of the infinite.
I think that kind of washes a lot of moral arguments into a murky meaninglessness. But if we are wrong, if our existence is limited, and all we get forever and ever, then ending our own existence comes at a very great cost, and we'd have to weigh that against what we are doing to/for the people we leave behind, who have their own limited existences still ahead of them. That's a much thornier math equation to solve, but one that seems to me much more obviously meaningful.
Your title misframes the issues covered in the article. They are better stated this way:
Does the state have a duty to spend hundreds of thousands or million to keep an elderly or very ill person with no chance of recovery alive?
Should the state be able to outlaw an individual (of sound mind) choice to die?
I'd say no to both.
Nailed it. I think this is a simpler issue in some ways than the OP is making it out to be.
Your title misframes the issues covered in the article. They are better stated this way:
Does the state have a duty to spend hundreds of thousands or million to keep an elderly or very ill person with no chance of recovery alive?
Should the state be able to outlaw an individual (of sound mind) choice to die?
I'd say no to both.
Despite my attempts to make this even more complicated than CO.H intended, when you frame it like that, your answers are obviously correct.
Utilitarianism doesn’t really talk in terms of “duties,” although you could claim every moral agent has a duty to maximize utility.I’m not sure you can really answer it without first asking whether we have any moral obligation to this universe we are passing through at all, and if so, from whence does such obligation arise? I’m not trying to be pedantic, here. I really do think it touches on issues of the nature of existence, of sentience, of nihilism, etc.
Wow. You are going for the long ball here. My take on these issues coincide with life. . . and death in and of themselves. Not necessarily when and how we die. Even without the deep ball, there are enormous questions about the practicalities of the means and timing of death that involve religion, economics, social good, the well-being of those who survive and more. This has been touched on with litigation and legislation, but not a lot of resolution.
In that case, you could certainly see how arguments could be made that people would have a duty to die if their death would maximize utility.
Or kill someone else. Like an old spinster pawnbroker.
Cato was a Stoic and one could read his suicide as a utilitarian calculation.
But I think he believed his death was required even if it would make no difference in turning the tide of Caesar’s rule. I’m uncertain if he would have considered it a “duty,” although I lean that way.
if existence is eternal, are we talking reincarnation? Do living beings just hook up to an existing existence when they are conceived?
if existence is eternal, are we talking reincarnation? Do living beings just hook up to an existing existence when they are conceived?
Reincarnation, Heaven, Virtual Reality? What's it matter? If our consciousness survives death, then anything we do in this life has meaning that gradually approaches zero as eternity wears on.
and one could read his suicide as a utilitarian calculation.
Isn’t that the calculation of most who commit suicide?
A selfish motive isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the greater good. Based upon some of the writings of the Minneapolis shooter, Im sure he thought the world would be better without him in it.
Cato was a Stoic and one could read his suicide as a utilitarian calculation.
But I think he believed his death was required even if it would make no difference in turning the tide of Caesar’s rule. I’m uncertain if he would have considered it a “duty,” although I lean that way.
This doesn't sound quite right for a stoic, but I think one could argue that Cato killed himself out of shame, that he simply couldn't accept that his cause could be defeated in battle.
A selfish motive isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the greater good. Based upon some of the writings of the Minneapolis shooter, Im sure he thought the world would be better without him in it.
Do we think psychotics are actually engaging in any sort of calculation? Or are they just following their gut/demons?
Utilitarianism doesn’t really talk in terms of “duties,” although you could claim every moral agent has a duty to maximize utility.
In that case, you could certainly see how arguments could be made that people would have a duty to die if their death would maximize utility.
Or kill someone else. Like an old spinster pawnbroker.
oh, I thought Midsommar handled the topic with a certain elegance.
