I’m not judging her – you are. I hold no judgment on her actions, because I’ve never been in the same situation.
If you’re currently facing constant and severe pain due to a terminal disease, then you’re qualified.
But you’re not.
Yes.
So no one is allowed to disagree with her unless they’re in the exact same scenario, but anyone is free to agree with her regardless.
Noted.
You can disagree with her. But you judged her to be a coward. Unless you’ve suffered the same as she has, you’re unqualified to judge her bravery.
There is no filter on the news that will prevent non-terminal people from seeing her story and following her example.
Well, as Rudy Cheeks would say, “That proves it.”
If that’s truly what you believe then I have no words. And it’s not because there aren’t any that I would choose to use.
I appreciate the direct answer to the hypothetical.
But I’m wondering - is there a hypothetical you could construct in which you’d choose ending suffering over life?
I realize this is an extreme hypothetical - but that’s what we do with hypotheticals, we test our beliefs when taken to their logical ends.
We take that person in the previous example, the one who is locked in, can’t move or communicate, and experiences severe pain every moment they’re alive. Their quality of life is as bad as a human being can have. And they’re going to die soon.
But we have a magic wand that can extend their life. By one second. But in order to use this magic wand, 5 billion people in the world will also be afflicted with this horrible locked in with pain syndrome. Now they’ll all still live a normal human lifespan, so we aren’t losing actual alive time, but 5 billion people will spend the rest of their lives in as bad a state as a human being can be in.
The remaining 2 billion people have to work under miserable conditions every day just to feed and take care of those 5 billions. And of course those two billion have to suffer through knowing that the vast majority of their loved ones are in agonizing pain with no hope of recovery.
Is all that worth the one extra second of life for the person who’s already suffering so much that they have no desire to live?
I’m not even gonna say “gotcha ya!” if you say no, I’m just curious how far you’ll take your stances.
Edit: Seperate but related question: Let’s say we put the decision in the hands of the person who’s currently suffering and stands to gain that one extra second of life. If they chose to die instead of inflict their horrible condition on billions, would you say they’re irrational, since you’ve said that choosing death is never rational?
I’m as qualified to judge her bravery as you are to judge mine.
I gave you a hypothetical in which we’d have the same starting conditions (and thus the same standard to judge). Here it is again. Your answer was far, far more cowardly than a terminal patient killing themselves.
I don’t know.
If I were the dying man, I would want the one second more than anything.
If I were the man with the wand, I would feel incredibly guilty no matter which decision I made - I would likely lean towards not using it because the harm would outweigh the benefit, but then I would know that I failed in my obligatation to do whatever is necessary to stave off the death of a patient.
If I were anyone else in the world, I would be willing to let him die.
I’m not sure what’s right here.
Yes, I likely would.
My answer was not cowardly as it did not involve my failing to fulfill any obligations placed on me.
She failed to fulfill her obligations. She was a coward.
You would then, given the choice, allow billions of people to spend the rest of their lives suffering the worst possible human existance if it would extend your own life for one second?
Yes it did – as a human, you have obligations to behave in a moral way towards other humans. Not freeing slaves when to do so poses no risk to you violates this obligation.
Your answer in post #130 demonstrates your incapability to answer any question of what’s right or wrong, much less who is or isn’t a coward.
Smapti, would you condemn all humans and all existence in the universe to be destroyed 2 seconds after your death if it meant you could live one additional second longer than you would otherwise?
Clearly this statement is your opinion and has little or no basis in reality.
From my perspective, the universe ends in one second regardless of what choice I make.
This is bordering on a hijack, but your hypothetical failed to guarantee an absolute lack of risk in the first place.
This isn’t the same thing, since in this case you’re trading life for life. If he answers yes to this question, it does show a craven disregard for other people, but if he answers yes, it could logically be consistent that obviously he’s choosing for more people to have more life.
Which is why I created all my hypotheticals so that there was no net loss of life - everyone still lived just as long - only there would be extreme suffering.
With no regard what so ever for what others had to go through to give you your second?
Where does that come from?