[GA - PASSED] Repeal: "Assisted Suicide Act"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Hulldom
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Assisted Suicide Act"
Category: Repeal | GA #285
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Access to Life-Ending Services


General Assembly Resolution #285 “Assisted Suicide Act” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

This august World Assembly finds as follows:
  1. People suffering from a chronic, insurable, and painful condition should have the right to end their own lives voluntarily in a painless manner. Nations should respect an individual's choice in this manner, insofar as that choice does not harm others directly.

  2. GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act' violates this duty by allowing some member nations to prohibit assisted suicide and euthanasia within their jurisdictions. And in consequence of the regulatory decisions that the Assembly permits, it makes member nations collectively complicit in forcing people to suffer unnecessarily.

  3. While GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act' allows people to travel to different jurisdictions, this creates a de facto prohibition on assisted suicide for people who lack funds needed for travel. As most people who seek euthanasia are also suffering from severe medical conditions that require specialised care, GA 285's travel rights also are far more restrictive than they appear on face: chartering a private air ambulance flight, transporting all the equipment necessary for the patient, and arrangement of medical services in a foreign nation without social insurance are all expensive transactions beyond the reach of, say, a terminal pensioner on a fixed income.

  4. It is more than likely that GA 285's travel provisions cannot be exercised, due to massive financial barriers, except by those who are extremely wealthy. The Assembly has in the past acted to strike down domestic prohibitions designed to make certain procedures exorbitantly expensive or available only to those able to travel to foreign jurisdictions. It furthermore has taken decisive action to enable access to regionally-inaccessible medical procedures. This is no different.

  5. Additionally, section 4 of GA 285, by prohibiting 'the use of World Assembly funds for assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures', stops the Assembly from providing funds to pay for or subsidise euthanasia procedures, blocking legislation intended to expand access to such procedures and ultimately keeping the option out of reach for many suffering patients. To take meaningful action on this topic, these blocking clauses must be repealed.

  6. Only by passage of enabling legislation could the Assembly's duty to terminal patients who voluntarily seek euthanasia be fulfilled in the face of local particularists complicit in prolonging suffering (except for those socioeconomically privileged few who can pay their own way in foreign jurisdictions). This is no different from previous resolutions striking down policies that make certain procedures unaffordable and unaccessible to most people. The Assembly hopes that such enabling legislation be enacted forthwith.
Now, therefore, the World Assembly repeals GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act'.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!


ForAgainstAbstainPresent
10300
 
Last edited:
IFV

Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal GAR#285, "Assisted Suicide Act". The author's primary points of contention are that the resolution permits member states to outlaw the practice of assisted suicide, and that the resolution's guarantee for individuals to travel to jurisdictions in order to undertake assisted suicide without the risk of penalization or encumbrance is insufficient for having instituted a significant financial barrier to access this service. The proposal additionally takes issue with the resolution's prohibition of the use of World Assembly funds to pay for or subsidize access to assisted suicide, thus cementing already severe financial barriers.

Recommendation
We wholeheartedly agree with the author's assessment on this often-controversial matter. We specifically adhere to the principle stated by the author within the proposal that those suffering from "chronic, insurable, and painful condition(s)" should hold the right to end their suffering in a dignified manner. GAR#285 falls woefully short of guaranteeing such a right. This is especially when considering- as pointed out in the proposal- that the General Assembly has in the past acted to eliminate domestic policies intended to bar access within a member state or only permit travel to foreign jurisdictions for certain medical procedures. We believe that the same should apply to the subject of assisted suicide.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, Repeal: "Assisted Suicide Act".


Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!
 
Last edited:
IC Hulldom passed dignity with dying back in 2010 with an impassioned speech by then-Opposition Leader (and current Minister of Health and Scientific Research) Tom Lyle clinching passage of the End of Life (Voluntary Euthanasia) Bill.

OOC this is an issue I perhaps have come to understand a little better in recent times and the choice offered one that, while I couldn't see me availing myself of, inherently promotes dignity and actively reduces suffering. While I have my own issues with Apato (the replacement author), I think this is fundamentally a dignity issue that we ought to move on without delay. For.
 
Last edited:
This proposal will proceed to a vote at Sunday’s Major Update following the illegal ruling on Repeal: “Epidemic Investigation Act”.
 
I think it goes without saying that I see this as another attack on those nations which have a set and well defined sacred understanding of what life is where no state of life can ever make it less valuable even a state of suffering. It's a shame that the WA will most likely forward ideas that refuse to look at the nuance of the issue in the name of exercising freedom. We wouldn't let someone who is suffering from mental suffering to jump off a building to end it and I don't think we should be offering that sort of option to someone in physical pain. If life truly is a gift, then it becomes more than a mere burden the person has to bear, it becomes something freely given and so we are to accept it graciously and selflessly without the obsession of power over it such as when it ends. I would ask you to look into ideas such as the principle of double effect which takes into account the suffering and nearness to death of the person without directly pursuing life ending actions.

Right now each nation has the choice to decide if euthanasia is a profane act of the people or not, but now we are on the edge of another despotism which innately belongs to a culture that neither believes in gift, the sacred, nor a culture of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
 
Let us be very clear right now.

The paeans to choice and condemnations of 'despotism' above are profoundly disingenuous. A person has a right to determine whether euthanasia is a 'profane' act or not. Nations do not. Some large corporation owning a whole bunch of hospitals does not. An multinational corporation, regardless of how influential it may be in moral or spiritual life, does not. Corporations and nations cannot 'die'. They cannot suffer. It is not their choice to make. What we have today is an actual despotism, where nations or corporations can choose to impose their preferences on others. It is a despotism of no alternatives. What I seek in this repeal is to abolish that despotism.*

Nor is the overwrought claim of being 'on the edge of another despotism' true, even if we grant that multinational corporations should be able to impose their preferences on others. Repeals can only repeal. They cannot legislate. If the World Assembly truly believes in allowing member nations to ban euthanasia, it can replace Assisted Suicide Act with some near-identical proposal like Assisted Suicide Act II. Similarly, if the Assembly really wishes to bow to Wonderess' beliefs, it could pass a proposal banning euthanasia entirely. This repeal -- arguments notwithstanding -- is merely a tool to open debate, a debate it seems that Wonderess wants to keep permanently closed .

* Footnote. Even if you grant that organisations of people can exercise preferences collectively, there are still two issues that need to be resolved. First is basically a tyranny of the majority issue: whether the majority can impose those preferences on individuals and what standards can govern that imposition (or paternalism). Second, in the World Assembly, the idea that a preference can be exercised collectively is nowhere guaranteed. Member nations are not required to be democracies. In the same way that a country could be a psychotic dictatorship run by Menta-Lee Il, it could be an atheist Communist dictatorship or a Scientologist theocracy. For the state (an organisation of people) to exercise preferences collectively would require that the state actually be a fair and representative reflection of the people from which those preferences are derived. Nowhere is this established (nor can it be in the World Assembly).
 
I think we are all well aware that a resolution such as this would not be repealed unless the intention was to make the legalization of euthanasia mandatory WA wide. So me being naive enough to let this pass thinking any other outcome but more euthanizing would be a failing on my part. Your main assertion that this is just about corporations is misleading. For a society to thrive it must maintain a balance between subsidiarity which values the local levels of governance such as the individual or the town government but also solidarity, the collective understanding and furthering of the common good. This repeal offends solidarity by claiming that the individual is the end all be all of arbitrating what is true or good.

This notion is both dangerous and gravely disordered. One can look to the importance of the family, schools, clubs, and sports to see that a person thrives when responsible to the whole and being formed by it. A nation within the deliberation of the collective good has the right if not the absolute duty to protect its citizens from self destruction because the desire to end one’s life is psychologically disordered. I think it is uncontroversial to say that the only moral theory that could even justify euthanasia is utilitarianism (if you can even call utilitarianism a moral system at all). Virtue ethics and deontology would certainly call for a person to find alternate means to deal with suffering besides destroying themselves.

This is indeed a movement towards despotism because it is a continuation of the materialistic secular worldview being forced onto all members so that gods can be made of individuals, and in the process the destruction of unity and community can ensue. This legislation is just as unacceptable as abortion as both are matters of killing the human person, an action which is not so easily explained away through whispers of utility or the maximization of happiness.
 
Last edited:
I think we are all well aware that a resolution such as this would not be repealed unless the intention was to make the legalization of euthanasia mandatory WA wide. So me being naive enough to let this pass thinking any other outcome but more euthanizing would be a failing on my part. Your main assertion that this is just about corporations is misleading. For a society to thrive it must maintain a balance between subsidiarity which values the local levels of governance such as the individual or the town government but also solidarity, the collective understanding and furthering of the common good. This repeal offends solidarity by claiming that the individual is the end all be all of arbitrating what is true or good.

This notion is both dangerous and gravely disordered. One can look to the importance of the family, schools, clubs, and sports to see that a person thrives when responsible to the whole and being formed by it. A nation within the deliberation of the collective good has the right if not the absolute duty to protect its citizens from self destruction because the desire to end one’s life is psychologically disordered. I think it is uncontroversial to say that the only moral theory that could even justify euthanasia is utilitarianism (if you can even call utilitarianism a moral system at all). Virtue ethics and deontology would certainly call for a person to find alternate means to deal with suffering besides destroying themselves.

This is indeed a movement towards despotism because it is a continuation of the materialistic secular worldview being forced onto all members so that gods can be made of individuals, and in the process the destruction of unity and community can ensue. This legislation is just as unacceptable as abortion as both are matters of killing the human person, an action which is not so easily explained away through whispers of utility or the maximization of happiness.
If it is unacceptable need I remind you, or anyone else espousing this type of viewpoint, that membership in the WA is voluntary but that your compliance is mandatory. If you genuinely feel you cannot be part of an organization that requires you permit euthanasia, the "Resign" button is always on the World Assembly page.
 
Last edited:
If it is unacceptable need I remind you, or anyone else espousing this type of viewpoint, that membership in the WA is voluntary but that your compliance is mandatory. If you genuinely feel you cannot be part of an organization that requires you permit euthanasia, the "Resign" button is always on the World Assembly page.
Well sadly as Delegate of Catholic I have a responsibility to keep hold of the office. Also this isn’t a mere personal issue. I am not so self oriented as to see politics as some tool to gratify myself. I have a responsibility to the whole world community which is why I wage these debates in the first place.
 
Well sadly as Delegate of Catholic I have a responsibility to keep hold of the office. Also this isn’t a mere personal issue. I am not so self oriented as to see politics as some tool to gratify myself. I have a responsibility to the whole world community which is why I wage these debates in the first place.
Well, participation in NationStates is also voluntary. Also if you live in the US, only two states have Participation in Death with Dignity), and only a handful of countries around the world do IRL.
 
For, although I am not a big fan of the replacement (I have actually made some comments on the Forum on this on and off for the last five months)
 
Well sadly as Delegate of Catholic I have a responsibility to keep hold of the office. Also this isn’t a mere personal issue. I am not so self oriented as to see politics as some tool to gratify myself. I have a responsibility to the whole world community which is why I wage these debates in the first place.
Also I appreciate that you come from your particular religious perspective, but I would prefer to have responsibility for my own one.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that every time someone like me makes a moral statement, it is first relegated to my religious perspective alone as if the metaphysical value of life is only tied to theology, and second how religious voices are automatically reduced to a matter of subjective opinion that should have no voice when it comes to national or political policy.

I have a degree in philosophy from a state university, I am more than aware of the issues concerning this question even from outside a system of theology even though whether reasoned philosophically or theologically the argument shouldn't be dismissed as irrational or merely subjective upfront. Law is built upon natural law after all (or was until postmodernity started to get its hands on power over the legal bodies.)
 
I think it is uncontroversial to say that the only moral theory that could even justify euthanasia is utilitarianism...
I find it interesting that every time someone like me makes a moral statement, it is first relegated to my religious perspective alone as if the metaphysical value of life is only tied to theology, and second how religious voices are automatically reduced to a matter of subjective opinion that should have no voice when it comes to national or political policy.

I find it interesting that every time a non-religious person makes a moral statement, it is immediately lumped in with nihilism and other horrors of philosophy, as though the value of ethical thinking is only tied to theology, and second how non-religious voices are automatically reduced to a matter of subjective opinion that should have no voice when it comes to national or political policy.

Virtue ethics: "I ought to spare my loved ones the agony of watching me waste away in pain, keeping me pumped full of painkillers for an extra month or two at enormous expense, occupying a hospital bed that could be used to house someone with a chance to live. The virtues of honor, modesty, and love compel me to stop delaying the inevitable and make a clean break with this life, for there is nothing to fear on the other side and I choose to face death with open eyes in a spirit of honor and liberty instead of clawing at life like a frantic madman, only to be defeated in the end anyway."
Kantian universal law: "All people ought to spare themselves and others pain where doing so does no other material harm; and to prefer to spend society's limited resources on people with hope for a productive future."
Non-Kantian deontology: "My duty to provide for my family, to love them, and to protect them from harms of all sorts including psychological and financial ones, means that I act rightly in protecting them from the hideous spectacle of sitting by my bed for weeks wondering just when I'm going to die. Better I should give them fair warning and a chance to say goodbye with dignity and my mind intact."


Indeed, I would say the only ethical position that would oppose euthanasia or assisted suicide in the face of a painful terminal illness is specifically religious (or at least spiritual) in nature: more concerned with the metaphysics of what it is to be alive than with the actual material conditions of living in the physical world. There is nothing wrong with holding to such an ethical system, but politics can only work in a pluralistic society when it errs on the side of not taking sides at all. Laws based on moral and philosophical statements cannot be justified in any society that believes in not imposing religion on its people. The permissive side of any philosophical question is the only option a free society can take; all else is tyranny. After all, a religious person can always choose not to do something that is legal, but morally wrong under their system; but a non-religious person in a tyrannical society cannot choose to do something that is morally acceptable but illegal.

If any side is guilty of the absolutism of proclaiming that its way is the only way, and that all members of a society, no matter their beliefs, must accept moral precepts handed down from the state, it is in fact the religious side. The secular side says "It is acceptable for many different belief systems to coexist alongside one another." But in order to make that happen, the state must refrain from moral judgments.

It is the religious side that says "All must live according to the precepts of [insert name of system/deity here]." And therefore it would be more honest for religious policy advocates to simply be honest with themselves and the world that what they really want is the imposition of their morality on all the universe.
 
CW // Suicide, euthanasia, self-harm

Conservatives in general do this thing where they assert facts – which can only be determined one way or the other by actually examining reality – and then build their conclusions on those assertions. For example, you do this thing above where you just assert 'it is uncontroversial to say that the only moral theory that could even justify euthanasia is utilitarianism ... Virtue ethics and deontology would certainly call for a person to find alternate means to deal with suffering besides destroying themselves'. This is plainly false and clearly meant to imply that euthanasia is something that no 'real' philosophers support. And, taking you at your word about your degree, a person with a philosophy degree really ought to know this. You also cannot defend your previous assertion by saying 'justify is in my eyes and I think they're wrong' because you state that utilitarianism, which you disagree with, is something that can 'justify euthanasia'.

Stoics in the time of the Ancient Greeks, arguing in the tradition of virtue ethics, argued that the fear of death was something to be overcome and 'that there were occasions, when the timing and reason were right, when a person should commit suicide ... (1) on behalf of his country and on behalf of his friends, and (2) if he falls victim to unduly severe pain or mutilation or incurable illness'. W Englert, 'Stoics and Epicureans on the nature of suicide' (1994) 10 Proc of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 67, 70. Late stoics, like Diogenes Laertius argued three conditions: (1) obligations to others – 'since right action is the only good, while life is not a good, but only something preferable, the save must sacrifice his life for important obligations' – (2) gross imbalance of the indifferents (stoic jargon for stuff that one should be indifferent to), where indifferents – like pain or ill health – 'make it impossible for [someone] to live' virtuously; and (3) to avoid being forced to do immoral or shameful things. The last closely related to the Roman suicide 'to preserve their sense of honour [or] in Roman terms ... dignitas'. Ibid 70–73.

Contra your claims about how euthanasia legalisation would '[destroy] unity and community' and be incompatible with 'furthering of the common good', stoics argued that suicide is a moral positive specifically for the community and the common good; men express their virtue – and I say men because virtue (from virtus) is literally manliness – most clearly with courage or indifference in the face of death. Nor would this kind of suicide be implicitly society destroying: Mediterranean society did not immediately collapse after Socrates drank hemlock, Cato tore his intestines out after Utica, or Brutus ordered a slave to stab him after Philippi.

We know of this from Cicero's De Officiis and also from the praise given to Brutus, Cato Uticensis, Seneca the Younger, and others, who were truly virtuous, for killing themselves rather than be subjected to tyranny and to preserve an person's freedom. Ibid 78. Brutus argued this forcefully in De dictatura Pompei (52 BC) (only snippets survive), saying 'for one can live honourably without power, but to live as a slave is impossible', a view very consistent with that of the Old Academy and stoics writ large. Kathryn Tempest, Brutus: the noble conspirator (2017) 50. Seneca, for example, praises the example of a Spartan boy who when enslaved and when 'forced to perform a servile and humiliating task shouted "I will not be a slave" and cracked his head against a wall', adding, 'so close at hand is freedom'. Englert, supra, 79 (quotations and parenthetical omitted).

Diogenes Laertius summarises that 'Stoics say ... the wise man alone is free and that fools are slaves[,] for freedom is the power of self-determination and slavery [the lack of it]'. Ibid 80 (note 50) (quotation marks omitted). While Seneca does not argue this is appropriate for everyone, he 'applauds the action of those whose personality, commitments, and courage make such actions consistent'. Ibid 80. These are viewed in Cicero's De finibus not only as something that a person could do, but as a duty, that both 'fools' and 'sages' have a duty to sacrifice themselves for their countries or their friends; fools and sages have a duty, in extreme circumstances, 'to die rather than act inconsistently [with their personae]'. Ibid 75.

Leaving the realm of virtue ethics, there also are libertarian deontologies which offer justifications for a right to suicide. They argue that the right to kill one's self is inherent to one's ownership over one's body. These are similar but not entirely the same justifications as stoics give: that one has the liberty to kill one's self because, as the stoics argued, 'the [stoic] sage is always free because he is never forced to do anything against his will'. Ibid 82. Libertarian deontology asserts it both in self-ownership and also in terms of non-interference: that others have no moral justification to stop one from killing one's self. Michael Cholbi, 'Suicide' (Winter 2021) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/#LibVieRigSui. Some libertarians limit this: 'we may be morally required to refrain from suicide when [doing so] harms others'. Ibid.

These ethical determinations are incompatible on the kind of policies banning assisted suicide that Assisted Suicide Act allows nations to impose at will. Those policies create a tension between a choice to end one's life and the risk of that going terribly wrong (for stoics, who dismiss pain as an indifferent, this would be in terms of a failed suicide attempt leaving a body incapable of acting in accordance with virtue), which I think should be avoided.

What you've done here and elsewhere (specifically the WA Discord) is straw-man your opponents as being Benthamite act utilitarians who want to torture babies if doing so will ensure a paradise for everyone else while also being total ignoramuses who know nothing about philosophy. I know I have not helped that by trutilposting, but as Sierra Lyricalia already told you (on Discord, I was ninja'd here, so I edited to clarify), you are confusing peoples' disagreement with your philosophical beliefs as not understanding them. People understand them; they are repulsed. At the same time, you also have shown broad ignorance of other peoples' philosophical beliefs or philosophical beliefs historically: virtue ethics is like only Aristotle, deontology is like only Kant, utilitarianism is only Bentham. Even a Philosophy 101 course goes deeper.

I made this post only to show that your implied claim – which I will parody here – that 'problematic' positivists, materialists, secularists, and pragmatists are entirely philosophically unjustified by anything but baby-torturing act utilitarianism is wrong. Cf Wonderess, Discord (20 Jan 2022) ('Y’all have somehow been able to hit every problematic ideology on my bingo board[:] Positivism, materialism, secularism, pragmatism'). It is also the (incorrect) basis for your otherwise conclusory assertions that legalising painless suicide is 'dangerous and gravely disordered'. But in the main, this entire discussion does absolutely nothing to change anyone's minds. Actual ethics, ie the ethics that people use in their own lives and vote on, is almost entirely intuitive: intuitionism is simply correct, at least as a description of how people actually make ethical judgements. What comes afterward is post hoc justifications for deeper positions already taken. It also means that almost nothing in this discussion thread on a topic this polarised is going to convince anyone of anything.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that every time someone like me makes a moral statement, it is first relegated to my religious perspective alone as if the metaphysical value of life is only tied to theology, and second how religious voices are automatically reduced to a matter of subjective opinion that should have no voice when it comes to national or political policy.

I have a degree in philosophy from a state university, I am more than aware of the issues concerning this question even from outside a system of theology even though whether reasoned philosophically or theologically the argument shouldn't be dismissed as irrational or merely subjective upfront. Law is built upon natural law after all (or was until lol postmodernity started to get its hands on power over the legal bodies.)

I do believe that religious opinion (and any other opinion) should have a voice in national or political policy. I also strongly believe you are entitled to your opinions and to express them. I am also strongly against your opinion.
 
Last edited:
I would oppose that characterization of virtue ethics, at least it’s original Aristotle was a halo morphia that after all which arguably sees the life of the person as also soul and not merely body and so cannot and will not reduce the moral issue to material goods.

Stoicism is what it is, no arguments there.

Kantian morality is limited by the noumea phenomena divide that he set up which of course led to the division between the religious moral vision and society so I do agree that deontology could also be reworked to support one’s idea that their suicide is noble or necessary as a good.

What I will reiterate is the tension between solidarity and subsidiaries. I will sympathize with the difficulty that comes with the uestion of what powers are the person’s and what powers are the states. My main concern in legislation such as this and what is bound to follow the repeal is that the autonomy of the individual is so highly prized that the moral considerations are either pushed aside as important or made out to be relative. “All should make their own decisions and follow their own consciences.” I find that to be a social model that remains relatively new, found in the thinkers of the Enlightenment which stemmed from the sola scriptura thinkers of the Protestant Reformation, but now these ideas have been divorced from, yes, the dominant Christian worldview of the culture which now leaves automomy without a unifying moral voice. There is not one America or European Union, but millions of individuals each a part of their own USA or EU. The unifying metaphysic is gone and so we resort to exhorting our will to dominate the power structures and claim for our own self made identity the power or revolution in the material realm, the likes that Nietzsche or Marx would approve of in their own distinct ways.

I see in these pushes of autonomy the preoccupation with freedom for the sake of having power and control over one’s self or environment just as this resolution will mandate that one has the power over their own death. This stands against an idea of freedom which provides liberty for the sake of perfecting and realizing one’s teleology and ultimate fixed purpose. Even America began with an understanding of rights fixed upon one nature of being created by something extrinsic to the person which in some way anchors objective reality whether that be material or non material reality. This “modern” or “progressive” political design that the WA seems to take for granted is built on the social contractarian ideal. We are just animals vying for the things of animals, driven by instincts and so states exist to avoid mutual destruction, not aid in the perfection or sanctification of the person.

Needless to say this is a very particular political philosophy which stands in contrast to many including, yes, those political ideas rooted in the synthesis of Greek and Christian ideas. These “right to x” proposals that have come one after the other in the WA are built upon this post Enlightenment perspective, but it is not shared by all nations. It inherently lacks a telos and so remains an unstable political order destined to cause division and a further rejection of the human dignity, and so I must oppose it and every appeal to autonomy or the person’s ability to do x or y on the basis of freedom itself.

I am well aware that the vote is lost for my side of the argument, but it certainly does not mean that my fight in the political order is over. In regards to considering your position as nihilistic, it is my standing that any idea that fails to find a metaphysical end will eventually end in nihilism because air it does not have a metaphysical aim or basis, then it is necessarily based in the person with all the faults and impermanence of the man person attached to it which defines for me the meaning of a nihilistic worldview or idea.

I’ll se y’all in the next WA rumble. I’m sure it won’t be too long now.

XOXO

P.S. I despise Libertarianism it’s the ultimate political form of apathy and self absorption. Generally I am socially conservative but fiscally liberal, an alignment that would be conducive of Catholic Social Teaching.
 
Last edited:
Right-liberal with a predisposition toward believing in truly free will for all to do as they please. Perhaps it is a bit libertarian in a sense, but my own moral code wouldn't permit me to consider euthanasia or abortion for myself. Anyways, neither here nor there.
 
I am very careful with my wording here in that I am in favour of Death with Dignity (as defined by the Oregon and Washington State laws) but that is not the same as euthanasia.

Right-liberal with a predisposition toward believing in truly free will for all to do as they please. Perhaps it is a bit libertarian in a sense, but my own moral code wouldn't permit me to consider euthanasia or abortion for myself. Anyways, neither here nor there.
 
I would oppose that characterization of virtue ethics, at least it’s original Aristotle was a halo morphia that after all which arguably sees the life of the person as also soul and not merely body and so cannot and will not reduce the moral issue to material goods.
This is exactly what I meant above when I said: 'At the same time, you also have shown broad ignorance of other peoples' philosophical beliefs or philosophical beliefs historically: virtue ethics is like only Aristotle, deontology is like only Kant, utilitarianism is only Bentham. Even a Philosophy 101 course goes deeper'.

It isn't some ancient Chinese secret that virtue ethics predates Aristotle. Socrates and Plato are ascribed as the forefathers of it on Wikipedia; Plato is given first billing in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (SEP). And to mention those ancient Chinese secrets, it isn't even solely limited to the Graeco-Roman tradition: Confucius and Mencius also were virtue ethicists in a then-wholly separate Chinese tradition. Confucius even died before Plato was born.

Nor is virtue ethics in general limited to a soul-endowing eudaimonist form like Aristotle's. The SEP notes in its article on the topic three other forms: agent-based and exemplarist virtue ethics, target-centered virtue ethics, and Platonistic virtue ethics. These forms are not irrelevant for modern philosophy either:

Theorists have begun to turn to philosophers like Hutcheson, Hume, Nietzsche, Martineau, and Heidegger for resources they might use to develop alternatives (see Russell 2006; Swanton 2013 and 2015; Taylor 2015; and Harcourt 2015). Others have turned their attention eastward, exploring Confucian, Buddhist, and Hindu traditions (Yu 2007; Slingerland 2011; Finnigan and Tanaka 2011; McRae 2012; Angle and Slote 2013; Davis 2014; Flanagan 2015; Perrett and Pettigrove 2015; and Sim 2015). These explorations promise to open up new avenues for the development of virtue ethics.​

Your characterisation of virtue ethics – in imposing a 'true' virtue ethics coming from Aristotle or neo-Aristotelian thought – is not only extremely Eurocentric,* but even ignores most of the rich Graeco-Roman philosophical tradition that flourished in the late Roman republic and early empire. It is not hard to find evidence of these non-Aristotelian traditions. Modern introduction to philosophy courses invariably mention the widespread existence and flourishing of virtue ethics in Old World society writ large.

CW // suicide (for footnote below)

* Now I won't claim I'm very familiar with Confucian and neo-Confucian thought, but at least I know they exist. And also, notably, that Confucianism takes a view to suicide in a way that I think is similar to stoics: that suicide 'suicide is thought of as an acceptable way to protect one’s dignity and virtue'. Eg Wu Fei, 'Cultural and religious traditions in China' in Oxford Textbook of Suicidology and Suicide Prevention (2009). 'In the classical Confucian view, suicide was seen as morally permissible, and even praiseworthy, when attempted for the sake of cardinal values such as ren (benevolence) and yi (justice)'. Justin A Chen et al, 'The Role of Stigma and Denormalization in Suicide-Prevention Laws in East Asia' (2017) 25 Harv Rev of Psychiatry 1.
 
Last edited:
Well, IA, we just keep extending the length of the curtain between the perspectives. Having knowledge of differing viewpoints is a good and important thing, but philosophy's original goal is to get to the truth of the matter, that is the objective reality of things independent of the expressions and perceptions of each individual on their own. Thus either believes in that objectivity or settles for collective subjectivity.

This is, admittedly, where my religious perspective influences my philosophical viewpoint. The synthesis of Greek thought with Christian thought throughout the Middle Age forged the height of both theology and philosophy alike which takes its lead from Plato Aristotle, and others (in part) with the Jewish and Christian wisdom in Revelation to create a fundamental philosophical system that answers questions of human value, purpose, flourishing, and the moral order which conforms in reason to the natural law.

Channeling the Vatican II document Nostra aetate, what is acceptable in other schools of thought are those things that are held in common. The truth exists in shards in each culture and uniquely so save for the realm of the Church which holds the fullness of fundamental truths (that is to say truths that stem from the formal and final causes). This of course does not include material or efficient causes which are rather a scientific matter. The notion that all ideas from every time and in every culture are fundamentally valid must be rejected if one is to dedicate themselves to a system of truth and the build up a better world through that system. The relativistic consideration of each and every perspective leads to confusion, inaction, and a lack of commitment in one's own life.

Thus, I spend a majority of my time in the philosophical realm rehashing the same errors in modern thought with different people mainly focusing on the preoccupation with perception brought on by Descartes and the relegation of philosophy to dealing with mere interpretations and meanings rather than the truth existing independent of humanity. If the human life indeed has a dignity that is inescapable and indispensable, then no heroic description of suicide under any circumstance is viable. The options no longer matter because one fundamental principle has made them moot.

So once again, we speak from difference in philosophical dispositions: one seeking and emphasizing the place of all perspectives through pluralism and one seeking an absolute, non contradicting, and wholistic system of thought.

(What I remember most from my time at LSU is sitting in my consciousness class with my face in my hands having to listen to materialists try to defend the position of there being a consciousness particle in a perpetual crusade of reductionism.)
 
CW // suicide

Literally everything in the post above is irrelevant. The clash above has to do with whether or not there exists philosophers or philosophical systems that disagree with you. You said there are none:
I think it is uncontroversial to say that the only moral theory that could even justify euthanasia is utilitarianism (if you can even call utilitarianism a moral system at all). Virtue ethics and deontology would certainly call for a person to find alternate means to deal with suffering besides destroying themselves.

Sierra Lyricalia and I both gave clear examples where serious philosophers have argued that suicide is not only acceptable, but also in some circumstances is the rational, moral, or just thing to do. This clearly disproves your claim. Your response then was to substitute 'Aristotelian virtue ethics' for 'virtue ethics' and pretend that the only virtue ethics are Aristotelian ones (which also condemn suicide).

That substitution itself should be critically challenged. 'Aristotelian virtue ethics is correct', 'Thomism is correct', or 'Catholic social teaching is correct' is not a defence. What I am challenging is your presumption of a Eurocentric and Judaeo-Christian philosophical discourse that discounts and ignores non-Judaeo-Christian thinkers. 'Correcting' Sierra Lyricalia in this way promotes a harmful discourse that furthers the common Western assumption that non-Western – though here, really, non-Judaeo-Christian – cultures have added nothing of value to human society and thought.

It would have done no damage to your advocacy to at least acknowledge the existence of non-Judaeo-Christian thought. It is intellectually rigorous to develop arguments against any philosophy or tradition thereof. But you didn't do that. Instead, you pretend that your opponents do not exist and that 'virtue ethics' is wholly Aristotelian. More damningly, you don't do this for other Western traditions: you at least state disagreement with stoicism, with libertarian deontologies, with Enlightenment philosophies, and with 'Nietzsche or Marx'. It is only the non-Western philosophies you sweep under the rug unthinkingly. This unchallenged assumption that philosophy is some kind of Western monopoly perpetuates a status quo that systematically ignores non-Western thinking.

Correcting this ignorance also is not difficult. Modern encyclopaedias of philosophy like the SEP spend lots of time mentioning non-Western philosophical traditions. While they don't do so in a fully integrated way – being put into a box like 'Chinese ethics' – they at least do not ignore them entirely. Modern introduction to philosophy courses – you're not the only person to have read some philosophy around here – also spend at least some time talking about Confucianism or Hindu ethics: they do not perpetuate a gravely ignorant and harmful status quo that dismisses and ignores non-Western cultures.
 
Last edited:
I’ll accept that I misspoke when it came to talking about the various moral theories, but the fact of the matter remains that when it comes to this question of euthanasia, the human dignity, and the connection of body and soul that are all pertinent to that question all come from the structures of western culture and the philosophy that built it. We are products of that culture and so cannot escape it. The ontologies of the east vary from ours in the west which is natural since the two areas of the world developed independently for some time. To me, this brand racism the WA authors push is characteristically western in scope and are a result of the history that our cultures here experienced. You seem to have said that the west is based on Jude-Christian values which I am relieved to here you affirm. Thus all in the west is either agreeing with or opposing some aspect of that tradition which I find most modern movements to be.

Introducing even more viewpoints to the consideration of the person’s value or the inherent value of life itself, to me, only creates more confusion and paths that can cause choice paralysis. In short, I recognize the existence of eastern thought and even its value in the formation of the person, but reject its relevance in how we English speakers and products of the European philosophical story either maintain or change our view of the human person, the natural law, and view of freedom and rights.

I do honestly believe that those aforementioned moral systems would in fact reject euthanasia or assisted suicide if they were tied to an understand of the man person as a gift first and foremost.

Furthermore, the fact that my pleas to take up the mantle of double effect logic which allows for a comforting end of life without willing and causing death through killing continues to be met with silence, I feel comfortable saying that we all are limiting our philosophical scope for the sake of our held It isn’t wrong, it is simply a necessary step to limit the question and argument to their most relevant in order to come to a true best and lasting decision.

I think we can all agree that deliberation requires prudence and that prudence demands that at some point we stop referencing every voice in the room and consider the few that are most pertinent.
 
The West's philosophy isn't built on Judaeo-Christian values or thinkers. It is built on Graeco-Roman thinkers; Judaeo-Christian perspectives are a latter-day admixture of a tradition that greatly predates the so-called Christ.

I am not and did not affirm the absolute untruth that Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Epicurus, Cicero, Cato, Brutus, and Seneca were Christian thinkers. What I said is that you pretend they are and ignore them when inconvenient.

Your longer-form response also is not much better. Sure, you admit that you ignored them; you then say doing so was just because then there are just too many options... as if because they [eg Confucius, Mencius] aren't Western, they are so beneath contempt (or in your words not 'pertinent') you do not even need to give the pretence of admitting their existence. Then you just add on some imperialist claptrap that is just one step removed from 'oh, if the savages just accepted Christ, they would agree with me'. That is not quality argumentation.
 
Last edited:
I would oppose that characterization of virtue ethics, at least it’s original Aristotle was a halo morphia that after all which arguably sees the life of the person as also soul and not merely body and so cannot and will not reduce the moral issue to material goods.

Stoicism is what it is, no arguments there.

Kantian morality is limited by the noumea phenomena divide that he set up which of course led to the division between the religious moral vision and society so I do agree that deontology could also be reworked to support one’s idea that their suicide is noble or necessary as a good.

What I will reiterate is the tension between solidarity and subsidiaries. I will sympathize with the difficulty that comes with the uestion of what powers are the person’s and what powers are the states. My main concern in legislation such as this and what is bound to follow the repeal is that the autonomy of the individual is so highly prized that the moral considerations are either pushed aside as important or made out to be relative. “All should make their own decisions and follow their own consciences.” I find that to be a social model that remains relatively new, found in the thinkers of the Enlightenment which stemmed from the sola scriptura thinkers of the Protestant Reformation, but now these ideas have been divorced from, yes, the dominant Christian worldview of the culture which now leaves automomy without a unifying moral voice. There is not one America or European Union, but millions of individuals each a part of their own USA or EU. The unifying metaphysic is gone and so we resort to exhorting our will to dominate the power structures and claim for our own self made identity the power or revolution in the material realm, the likes that Nietzsche or Marx would approve of in their own distinct ways.

I see in these pushes of autonomy the preoccupation with freedom for the sake of having power and control over one’s self or environment just as this resolution will mandate that one has the power over their own death. This stands against an idea of freedom which provides liberty for the sake of perfecting and realizing one’s teleology and ultimate fixed purpose. Even America began with an understanding of rights fixed upon one nature of being created by something extrinsic to the person which in some way anchors objective reality whether that be material or non material reality. This “modern” or “progressive” political design that the WA seems to take for granted is built on the social contractarian ideal. We are just animals vying for the things of animals, driven by instincts and so states exist to avoid mutual destruction, not aid in the perfection or sanctification of the person.

Needless to say this is a very particular political philosophy which stands in contrast to many including, yes, those political ideas rooted in the synthesis of Greek and Christian ideas. These “right to x” proposals that have come one after the other in the WA are built upon this post Enlightenment perspective, but it is not shared by all nations. It inherently lacks a telos and so remains an unstable political order destined to cause division and a further rejection of the human dignity, and so I must oppose it and every appeal to autonomy or the person’s ability to do x or y on the basis of freedom itself.

I am well aware that the vote is lost for my side of the argument, but it certainly does not mean that my fight in the political order is over. In regards to considering your position as nihilistic, it is my standing that any idea that fails to find a metaphysical end will eventually end in nihilism because air it does not have a metaphysical aim or basis, then it is necessarily based in the person with all the faults and impermanence of the man person attached to it which defines for me the meaning of a nihilistic worldview or idea.

I’ll se y’all in the next WA rumble. I’m sure it won’t be too long now.

XOXO

P.S. I despise Libertarianism it’s the ultimate political form of apathy and self absorption. Generally I am socially conservative but fiscally liberal, an alignment that would be conducive of Catholic Social Teaching.

I consider myself a classical liberal (in the non US sense) of being a social liberal but against government spending. Anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top