“We’d consider it cruel if an animal where in the same situation”
Mercy killing animals isn’t an actual thing, they can’t possibly consent. The reality is that we kill animals at will for basically any reason, so we have no problem lying to ourselves that we are performing a mercy killing.
Most recently one had a problem with bone loss in its femoral head. It couldn’t walk much at all and was getting further injuries because of that. The other ducks would also leave it behind. Being alone is very stressful for a duck.
You can’t do a hip replacement on a duck. They wouldn’t understand or be able to recover. In any case, she’d easily get picked off by a daytime predator. Eaten alive.
You better believe that euthanasia was the best course of action for her.
So you read the duck’s mind? Do you think the duck even has a conception of what death is? According to you it wouldn’t even understand a hip replacement. Why are you assuming that it therefore wishes for death?
Anyway the point of this is that killing the duck is permissible because killing ducks is always permissible. The delusion that you are making the best decision for it is impossible to know. And more importantly it is completely irrelevant to the permissibility of killing humans.
The criteria by which we are able to kill mentally incapable animals (species membership or even low mental ability) is not the same by which we can argue for assisted suicide. Because humans and ducks are radically different objects with different inherent moral valuations.
Additionally consider that your comparison is morally relevant. If it is permissible to mercy kill ducks based solely on presentation, without being able to determine the ducks desires. Then it follows that we can kill humans based on presentation alone as long as we don’t know there desires. Even worse if we undermine the validity of there expression of desire it is permissible to kill them anyway.
“Look this paraplegic wants to live, they must be delusional who would want live like that, time to get the MAID”.
Even stupid films like Million Dollar Baby, embed the perception that disabled people just want to die.
As much as people want to be nice and give people whatever they want, it is without question that as soon as you permit others to actively kill other people, it’s going to be open to abuse and severe ethical consequences. The history of MAID is a fine example of that, it’s expansion was actually made by a court decision to make the law more consistent. True logical consistency would naturally follow to permit assisting suicide in all cases, after all why are we discriminating against people with very temporary conditions. Clearly they are just as capable of experiencing suffering as any other person.
You realise pro-euthanasia is a left-wing position?
I’m centre-left, so in this circumstance you’re the raving left-winger (along with everyone else here).
Let me distill your argument
Premises
Ducks can suffer
We can alleviate duck-suffering by killing said duck
It is permissible to kill ducks to alleviate their duck-suffering
Then you construct an analogous argument
Humans can suffer
We can alleviate human-suffering by killing said human
Conclusion
Because it is permissible to kill ducks to alleviate their suffering it is therefore permissible to kill humans to alleviate their suffering.
Now the error is actually on premise 3. You make a deductive claim that it is permissible to kill ducks because they are suffering. But this is faulty, it is permissible to kill ducks regardless of whether they are suffering, because as cited before they are ducks. Therefore your claim that it is permissible to kill ducks who are suffering is at best indeterminate, we would need to show that it is uniquely permissible to kill ducks only if they are suffering because the corresponding circumstance in humans is creating a unique exception to prohibition against active killing.
TLDR: Pretty sure either I know your argument better than you do OR you are awful at communication.
“We’d consider it cruel if an animal where in the same situation”
Mercy killing animals isn’t an actual thing, they can’t possibly consent. The reality is that we kill animals at will for basically any reason, so we have no problem lying to ourselves that we are performing a mercy killing.
You are making no sense.
I have pet ducks.
Most recently one had a problem with bone loss in its femoral head. It couldn’t walk much at all and was getting further injuries because of that. The other ducks would also leave it behind. Being alone is very stressful for a duck.
You can’t do a hip replacement on a duck. They wouldn’t understand or be able to recover. In any case, she’d easily get picked off by a daytime predator. Eaten alive.
You better believe that euthanasia was the best course of action for her.
So you read the duck’s mind? Do you think the duck even has a conception of what death is? According to you it wouldn’t even understand a hip replacement. Why are you assuming that it therefore wishes for death?
Anyway the point of this is that killing the duck is permissible because killing ducks is always permissible. The delusion that you are making the best decision for it is impossible to know. And more importantly it is completely irrelevant to the permissibility of killing humans.
The criteria by which we are able to kill mentally incapable animals (species membership or even low mental ability) is not the same by which we can argue for assisted suicide. Because humans and ducks are radically different objects with different inherent moral valuations.
Additionally consider that your comparison is morally relevant. If it is permissible to mercy kill ducks based solely on presentation, without being able to determine the ducks desires. Then it follows that we can kill humans based on presentation alone as long as we don’t know there desires. Even worse if we undermine the validity of there expression of desire it is permissible to kill them anyway.
“Look this paraplegic wants to live, they must be delusional who would want live like that, time to get the MAID”.
Even stupid films like Million Dollar Baby, embed the perception that disabled people just want to die.
As much as people want to be nice and give people whatever they want, it is without question that as soon as you permit others to actively kill other people, it’s going to be open to abuse and severe ethical consequences. The history of MAID is a fine example of that, it’s expansion was actually made by a court decision to make the law more consistent. True logical consistency would naturally follow to permit assisting suicide in all cases, after all why are we discriminating against people with very temporary conditions. Clearly they are just as capable of experiencing suffering as any other person.
This place is full of raving lunatics.
I’m not used to a world where left wing thoughts are this stupid and ill informed. That’s the realm of right wing media, ime.
You’re not even acknowledging any of my argument.
It’s so fucking weird.
You realise pro-euthanasia is a left-wing position?
I’m centre-left, so in this circumstance you’re the raving left-winger (along with everyone else here).
Let me distill your argument
Premises
Then you construct an analogous argument
Conclusion Because it is permissible to kill ducks to alleviate their suffering it is therefore permissible to kill humans to alleviate their suffering.
Now the error is actually on premise 3. You make a deductive claim that it is permissible to kill ducks because they are suffering. But this is faulty, it is permissible to kill ducks regardless of whether they are suffering, because as cited before they are ducks. Therefore your claim that it is permissible to kill ducks who are suffering is at best indeterminate, we would need to show that it is uniquely permissible to kill ducks only if they are suffering because the corresponding circumstance in humans is creating a unique exception to prohibition against active killing.
TLDR: Pretty sure either I know your argument better than you do OR you are awful at communication.