You literally claimed that people have an inherent right, and even in this comment you are heavily implying that not providing assisted suicide is bad. (Both moral claims. In case you don’t know morality is just a system of determining if something is good or bad).
“Nobody but you is claiming any obligation”
You are claiming that people have a right to be killed by a second party. That second party therefore has some obligation to fulfill that right.
I’m fairly certain that if everyone in the world refused to meet this obligation, you would still object because it violates the subject’s wishes.
“I’m not trying to justify anything”
Besides of course permitting a second party to kill someone.
I’ll accept that I’m trying to justify denying this right to have your desire to die fulfilled (as it simply doesn’t exist for any other action or desire) because that is simply a moral argument, just like you are making moral arguments regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.
FYI mixing insults with an argument is not a logical error as commonly claimed. As long as it not part of the premises or reasoning any statement (insult or not) has no effect on the soundness of the argument. Also my argument wasn’t that you made a moral claim, it’s extremely obvious that you did I would never have bothered to point it out. The argument is that you are arguing for second-party homicide (and impermissible act) to be allowed based on some right to have your wishes fulfilled that simply doesn’t exist.
Wow, what a hilarious rant full of outright lies and misinformation. Are you capable of telling the truth, or is your position so weak that you can’t make your point without repeatedly asserting debunked points such as imaginary “obligations” or by ignoring those with irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering as determined by medical professionals? Because you seem to want to use your own ignorance to judge these people rather than let professionals be the arbiters due to your own twisted morality.
It seems that you just want to see people suffer. Once again: who are you to judge whether someone should suffer rather than be deserving of relief? Why do you refuse to answer?
Do you literally not know what ethics is? You’ve acted like a complete and total moron in every reply on this post.
You realise you can sum your position to
If someone desires something
Then we should grant it despite any prohibition on active killing, ( presumably so long as it does not harm an individual other than the subject)
But this isn’t actually accepted by virtually anyone, see suicidality for temporary conditions or just the fact that we have no apparent obligation to grant something based on mere desire.
The entire pro-euthanasia argument relies on basing moral principles on wildly variable emotions and sympathy.
Very convenient to whine about strawmen when you absolutely refuse to formalise your argument. I too can assume telepathy on the side of my critics, and then accuse them of strawmanning even though I flatly refuse to actually correct them despite having 3 opportunities.
This isn’t you being a giga-brain genius, it’s you failing basic intellectual standards that a 9-year old could meet.
The question is not whether or not someone should suffer, but whether it is permissible to kill another, or even a proper choice. Should assisted suicide be granted for temporary conditions? After all subjects of temporary conditions suffer too and they may even wish to die. If you say no, then clearly your decision making is able to override a desire of the subject. If you say yes, then there is no logical barrier to killing any momentarily sad person.
“Who are you to judge … Why do you refuse to answer”
I’ve been answering this entire time. The answer is everyone is able to judge, there appears to be this underlying fundamental intuition and logic across humans that if followed leads to the statements I’ve made.
Feeling sad for someone and wanting to alleviate there suffering does not logically lead to “therefore we should actively kill them”.
The question is not whether or not someone should suffer
That’s the only question. Because the standard here is “irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering”. By labeling such a person “momentarily sad” you’re not only judging them, you’re placing your judgement above that of medical professionals. You’re also lying about the necessary conditions for consideration for the program.
And aiding in a person’s suicide with their consent is not the same as simply killing them.
You can’t have an honest, rational discussion, like an adult, then there’s no point in continuing
“Because the standard here is ‘irremediable lifelong physical or psychological suffering’”
AND WHO DECIDES THIS? The patient? No. The doctors, because their is no right to suicide, certainly not one that overrides the prohibition against active killing. It’s merely a courtesy that is permitted because it gives some people fuzzy feelings, that’s it. Euthanasia is popular because it panders to the emotions of everyday morons like you.
If there was a right to suicide then the doctors opinions could not possibly matter, the patient must die if they want it.
Thank you for proving my point, despite being too stupid to understand it.
“And honest rational discussion”
I’ve played incredible softball here, normally I would request formal deductive arguments since you know most ethicists know how to construct them. (Not you though, your intellectual bar is six feet under).
“That this has anything to do with morality”
You literally claimed that people have an inherent right, and even in this comment you are heavily implying that not providing assisted suicide is bad. (Both moral claims. In case you don’t know morality is just a system of determining if something is good or bad).
“Nobody but you is claiming any obligation”
You are claiming that people have a right to be killed by a second party. That second party therefore has some obligation to fulfill that right.
I’m fairly certain that if everyone in the world refused to meet this obligation, you would still object because it violates the subject’s wishes.
“I’m not trying to justify anything”
Besides of course permitting a second party to kill someone.
I’ll accept that I’m trying to justify denying this right to have your desire to die fulfilled (as it simply doesn’t exist for any other action or desire) because that is simply a moral argument, just like you are making moral arguments regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.
FYI mixing insults with an argument is not a logical error as commonly claimed. As long as it not part of the premises or reasoning any statement (insult or not) has no effect on the soundness of the argument. Also my argument wasn’t that you made a moral claim, it’s extremely obvious that you did I would never have bothered to point it out. The argument is that you are arguing for second-party homicide (and impermissible act) to be allowed based on some right to have your wishes fulfilled that simply doesn’t exist.
Wow, what a hilarious rant full of outright lies and misinformation. Are you capable of telling the truth, or is your position so weak that you can’t make your point without repeatedly asserting debunked points such as imaginary “obligations” or by ignoring those with irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering as determined by medical professionals? Because you seem to want to use your own ignorance to judge these people rather than let professionals be the arbiters due to your own twisted morality.
It seems that you just want to see people suffer. Once again: who are you to judge whether someone should suffer rather than be deserving of relief? Why do you refuse to answer?
Do you literally not know what ethics is? You’ve acted like a complete and total moron in every reply on this post.
You realise you can sum your position to
If someone desires something
Then we should grant it despite any prohibition on active killing, ( presumably so long as it does not harm an individual other than the subject)
But this isn’t actually accepted by virtually anyone, see suicidality for temporary conditions or just the fact that we have no apparent obligation to grant something based on mere desire.
The entire pro-euthanasia argument relies on basing moral principles on wildly variable emotions and sympathy.
More insults and more straw man arguments
Very convenient to whine about strawmen when you absolutely refuse to formalise your argument. I too can assume telepathy on the side of my critics, and then accuse them of strawmanning even though I flatly refuse to actually correct them despite having 3 opportunities.
This isn’t you being a giga-brain genius, it’s you failing basic intellectual standards that a 9-year old could meet.
The question is not whether or not someone should suffer, but whether it is permissible to kill another, or even a proper choice. Should assisted suicide be granted for temporary conditions? After all subjects of temporary conditions suffer too and they may even wish to die. If you say no, then clearly your decision making is able to override a desire of the subject. If you say yes, then there is no logical barrier to killing any momentarily sad person.
“Who are you to judge … Why do you refuse to answer”
I’ve been answering this entire time. The answer is everyone is able to judge, there appears to be this underlying fundamental intuition and logic across humans that if followed leads to the statements I’ve made.
Feeling sad for someone and wanting to alleviate there suffering does not logically lead to “therefore we should actively kill them”.
That’s the only question. Because the standard here is “irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering”. By labeling such a person “momentarily sad” you’re not only judging them, you’re placing your judgement above that of medical professionals. You’re also lying about the necessary conditions for consideration for the program.
And aiding in a person’s suicide with their consent is not the same as simply killing them.
You can’t have an honest, rational discussion, like an adult, then there’s no point in continuing
“Because the standard here is ‘irremediable lifelong physical or psychological suffering’”
AND WHO DECIDES THIS? The patient? No. The doctors, because their is no right to suicide, certainly not one that overrides the prohibition against active killing. It’s merely a courtesy that is permitted because it gives some people fuzzy feelings, that’s it. Euthanasia is popular because it panders to the emotions of everyday morons like you.
If there was a right to suicide then the doctors opinions could not possibly matter, the patient must die if they want it.
Thank you for proving my point, despite being too stupid to understand it.
“And honest rational discussion”
I’ve played incredible softball here, normally I would request formal deductive arguments since you know most ethicists know how to construct them. (Not you though, your intellectual bar is six feet under).