Terri Schiavo Case to be Decided soon...

MadArchitect

misterpessimistic: I was not throwing anything in your face, I was simply stating that you are a theist, so you would see loss of life differently than I.

That's an assumption to which you are not entitled. Theism does not automatically entail belief in an afterlife, so there is nothing in my theism that should necessarily lead you to believe that I see death any differently than you do. And honestly, until you've talked to me about my theism (in another thread, preferably) your bases for making any assumptions about what I believe are highly unstable.

Are we really an ethical species? Or are we just making ourselves feel better by imagining we are?

That depends, I suppose, on what you mean by "an ethical species"? Are we a species that tends towards ethical behavior? Probably not. Are we a species that is capable of making decisions premised on ethical inquiry? I would think that the only way to deny this is to deny choice altogether.

Say I am an alien that visits earth. Would your ethics apply to me? Certainly not.

Even if we accept the relativity of ethics as normative, why should we reject ethics as something worth determining within the context of a given society? Perhaps whatever ethical norms we establish will lack applicability to a member of the Arunta or to a Martian, but does that mean they should not apply to everyone living within the society to which they are applied? If ethics are subjective, then they are group subjective rather than on the level of the individual.

But murder is not the case here...it is volutary suicide.

The term "voluntary suicide" is a bit redundant, but it does sufficiently raise the distinction. In this case, we're not really dealing with suicide in its most straight-forward sense. A case like that of Terry Schiavo brings to mind oppositional terminology like "contract suicide". Ultimately, what we're talking about is taking action or refusing to intervene based on a presupposition of what the person would do for themselves if they could. And as I've noted before, there is a level of uncertainty which should complicate the issue ethically, but which a number of people treat as rather straight forward.

MadArchitect · Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: Ethics is all subjective

Well, let's draw a distinction here. Normally the debate over ethics centers on the question of whether ethics can be absolute or are relative. When Mr. P talks about a person from one social background not conforming to the ethics of another social context, he may call that subjective, but it's basically the argument for relative ethics. The larger argument, put in bottom-line terms, is that ethics are determined by the social context, and as such, ethical norms are relative to the society in which they appear.

I have two responses to that theory, though they're based on a simply reaction and not on an in depth study of the argument and its respective viewpoints. The first is to say that the argument seems to suffer from a lack of clarity on the difference between ethics and morality. Morality seems to arise from custom -- that is to say, it's engrained -- whereas ethics has always been susceptible to philosophical inquiry. And the central questions of ethics have always been, what is the good, and how can humans achieve it? Assuming that there are goods that are applicable to all humans -- for example, if we can assume that it is better to be healthy than unhealthy -- then it seems that we ought to be able to derive general ethical principles from such commonality. (I use the healthy/unhealthy dichotomy only as an example -- I don't plan to make it into an argument concerning the right to die.)

My second response would be to say that my first response does not preclude relative ethics, nor does it limit the field of ethical inquiry to only that which may be universalized. If the customs and mores of a given society are part of the situation in which any member of that society must make all of his or her ethical decisions, then it only stands to reason that some part of ethics must be relative to social context.

The notion of "subjective ethics" suggests something different to my mind -- namely that what is good may differ from person to person, not because of their situation, but by virtue of their subjectivity. To maintain that ethics is wholly subjective is to recast it as preference. But I'm not sure that you can reduce all good to preference. We can certainly say that if Mr. P prefers science fiction to romance, then he's likely to find book a better than book b. But to say that he prefers pain to pleasure, and therefore it is subjectively ethical for him to wound himself regularly -- that's not so intuitive (especially if you've made any sort of psychological study of masochism). Good, it should be recognized, is not synonymous with preference, particularly, as Plato has pointed out, preference is almost always influenced by ignorance.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: Ethics is all subjective

Funny that you mention S&M...

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Tessa3

I believe that Mad Architect's scanning of the US Code proved ineffective because the state court has jurisdiction. The governing statute is Florida Statute 765.101. It was on the basis of Section 765.101 that Mr. Shiavo was appointed guardian by the Florida court system, Schindler v. Schavo, 780 So.2d 176 (Fla. 2001). The decision was upheld by the Florida Court of Appeals. That statute provides in part:

"Living will" or "declaration" means: ***
(b) A witnessed oral statement made by the principal expressing the principal's instructions concerning life-prolonging procedures."

Mr. Pessimistic

Thanks for that Tessa3...info like that helps the discussion.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

scrumfish

Here is a link to the New York Times article about Terri's parents selling the list of people who donated to them that was excerpted in blog you linked earlier, Mr. P. The Times quotes someone who says he was there when her father agreed to it.

Times article

Mr. Pessimistic

My wife tells me that they are now asking for sympathetic people to donate $100 to them for defense costs...donations will get you a video of Terri.

It seems to me that those of us who want to let Terri go are the least likely to pull media stunts and play politics.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Tessa3 · Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:33 am Post subject: Put on the brakes

Put on the brakes for a moment. The Schindlers are fighting with every resource available to them. In their position, if I believed I had the slightest chance of regaining the human being that was my daughter, I would fight as hard as they have. My dispute is not with the Schindlers. It is with the Governor of Florida, the President and those Congressmen who are trying to circumvent the law to garner votes even when they clearly do not agree with that minority opinion.

If the Schindlers allow their political action list to be sold for likeminded causes, that is not "ghoulish." I expect that in their view, they are seeking to save someone out of their tragedy. To pick up the flag from a fallen comrade and run with it is a very American tradition.

We progressives lost the last presidential election because we failed to match the mobilization of the religious right. In my opinion, we need to watch and learn.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:29 am Post subject: Re: Put on the brakes

I dont know...I have seen that the Schindler's bills are paid through church organizations and such. But still, I find it ghoulish to seel supporters names and info to a marketing firm. It is their choice, and it is legal so I guess it is ok. I just have better ethics than that.

I will be equally disgusted when the movie comes out.

Terri is the only one that matters here, yet we seem to be focused on the battle, not the person.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:15 am Post subject: Terri Schiavo Dies at 41

And I do not think anyone is happy in anyway. This was a very sad situation.

Terri Schiavo

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Chris OConnor · Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: Terri Schiavo Dies at 41

My real problem is not that she was allowed to die, but the manner in which it happened. A person can bomb a building in Oklahoma City and kill hundreds of innocent people, and we simply give them a lethal injection to terminate their life.

But not with Terri...we allowed her to die a painful horrible death by depriving her of food and water. And all to pretend as if we are facilitating a "natural" death. We ought to introduce lethal injections for humans so that terminally ill people can die quickly. I support the youth in Asia.

Chris

marti1900 · Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:58 am Post subject: I Agree

You are right, Mr. P. Men have that same underlying fear. I believe this is what produced the ritualized taboos which even the most primitive societies have. It prevents the wholesale slaughter of our own (i.e. our own family, our own tribe, our own small community.) The THOU SHALT NOT KILL commandment did not arise out of thin air; it simply codified an ancient taboo that had pretty much always existed.

And yes, I agree, too, that many women felt that the husband's desire to move on with his life was unseemly. If he had agreed to let the parents care for their daughter, and gone for the divorce, there would have been no outcry. But because he wanted the wife DEAD...that was the deal killer. But again, I think this idea is simply a cover up for that basic fear.

I never got the impression from the many comments I read on the various MB's I visit, and articles I read, that it was a gender war kind of thing. It really was that he wanted her dead. I am sure if the situation were reversed, and it was the wife who wanted the husband dead, the outrage felt by women would have been the same. Just my opinion.

Marti in Mexico

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:25 pm Post subject: Re: I Agree

Quote:
It really was that he wanted her dead.

Why cannot people also understand that he may well have been carrying out her wishes!

Why?

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

marti1900 · Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: I Agree

Because his underlying motives made a mockery of his statement that he was carrying out her wishes...wishes that no one else knew anything about. It certainly was coincidental that her wishes were not to be left on life support forever. Just a little too convenient.

You know the old saying: if it looks like an elephant, sounds like an elephant, and smells like an elephant, it's probably an elephant.

But since no one will ever know just what her wishes would have been, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, don't we.

Marti in Mexico

tarav

I think that this would be a good topic to bring up to A. C. Grayling at the chat on Saturday(be there, or be square). It would be interesting to hear what he thinks about the Terri Schiavo controversy. On p 208 of What Is Good? Grayling discusses thanatology. Thanatology is the medical specialty of legal assisted suicide for sufferers who wish to die.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT