The Value of Life

[perspective]

Over in the Abortion thread, we were getting slightly off-topic, so I decided to make a new topic regarding the value of life.

Those who accept abortion usually only accept it up until a certain point - the point at which a child becomes a viable human being, where viable is defined as being able to live unsupported outside of the host (mother's) body. Some only accept abortion up until other specific points - heartbeat occurs, movement occurs, etc etc.

Introspecting my own opinion, I believe that most people/families are filled with enough love and caring for their own kin, that the family is the unit who should make the difficult decisions about whether a relative should live or die; be him a newborn, or an elderly relative, or any close relative within the family who may be injured severely. This decision might entail abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or do not resuscitate orders.

The slippery slope of this position is obvious. Of course it would be immoral for a family to decide to euthanize a relative for the sake of collecting insurance money, or some other selfish motivation. Of course the legal implications of motivations for decisions would be difficult to define, enforce. I'm not advocating that we should change the system we have now. But realistically, treating someone as an end in hisself, versus a means to an end, is always moral - is always right. Helping a suffering, lonely grandmother find her way to the next world is not an immoral, is not cruel. IMO. Each family knows how much quality of life supersedes society's arbitrary value of life. "Family" might mean only the closest, most trusted, loving persons in that person's life - mother, father, siblings. "Family" might mean that person's best friend. But those who love a person should not be lynched by society for wanting to help this person.

Question for debate:
Should our value of life be placed before the quality of life - at all costs?
In other words: Is killing NEVER ok, EVER?
Ignore the legal implications/slippery slope aspect of it - focus simply on morality.

[Crixus]

Should our value of life be placed before the quality of life - at all costs?

I think quality of life has great importance, yet if we had throughout history willingly dispatched ourselves at any instance of distress, then we would never have accomplished the wonders that have set us apart from the other earthly inhabitants.

I do think that there is certainly a point where one should have the choice of ending their existence, however destruction should, in my view, never be compulsory.

Is killing NEVER ok, EVER?

I'm honestly conflicted about when killing is acceptable. I think that killing is wrong almost always, though to protect ones self or another it becomes tolerable. Where I am conflicted is how far this rule can stretch, thus questioning is it legitimate to destroy a person whose existence causes the affliction of others?

As for euthanasia, to me it is acceptable only if it is by choice of the affected. I don't believe in executions, and feel abortion, except for extreme circumstances, should be abolished.

Continuing from the Abortion thread:

To some families, this is a stance they would take. Our family would take this stance. A person would not be euthanized simply because they were not capable of making their wishes known. In our family, a person who would make his wishes known, but who knows not or understands not all the circumstances surrounding his wish, his opinion would not be considered with as much weight as those who could completely grasp all the implications of each option.

I cannot envision a circumstance where a person's existence so plagues those around them that their life should be stolen from them.

I think making someone choose to die or live with pain is a horrible option to leave someone you love. Once that person has tasted the sweet things life has to offer, they'll be torn between suffering and survival. Not only the person suffering, but the family who loves him. A person may not ever come to the mental capacity to decide that life is not what they want. In those circumstances, for our particular family, death is chosen. For those who believe in reincarnation and heaven and such, this is not a punishment but a blessing.

I do not believe that death is necessarily a punishment, however I do believe that life belongs to those whom it is granted, and should they desire to extend their life, even if it is one of suffering, they should be allowed to do so.

Well I would not want to live in a world where such a high value is placed upon life that the value of life suffers. It's not necessary to be paranoid of death, especially if you believe in life after death. And if you can't trust your family to do what is right by you, that family should not be allowed to reproduce anyway. If they won't do right by their own, they won't do right by the rest of humanity either. It's sort of a self-cleansing of humanity.

The two of us I think have very different ideologies. I do not believe in cleansing humanity, or only the fittest surviving. I believe natural selection is the antithesis of civilization, and so reject all similar concepts outright.

Perhaps it is not the value of life upon which we find disagreement, but the measure of which one should be subject to another's will.

[fried beef sandwich]

Question for debate:
Should our value of life be placed before the quality of life - at all costs?
In other words: Is killing NEVER ok, EVER?

Well, not when you put it like that, at such extremes. All I need to do is find one counterexample and there goes the debate.

A better, more nuanced question to ask would be, "When should the quality of life be weighted more heavily than our a blanket statement of our value of life in and of itself, if ever?"

[otseng]

Should our value of life be placed before the quality of life - at all costs?
In other words: Is killing NEVER ok, EVER?

Actually, I was thinking about this during my trip to Taiwan. I visited my grandmother who has a serious case of Alzheimers. She doesn't respond to people and just sits there staring into space and doing nothing. She's been in this condition of years and her family has faithfully taken care of her. I was impressed to see the dedication the family has to her. From a quality of life perspective, it'd be about zero for her. Actually, it might even be a negative value since she's burdening others. But, does it mean that they should just kill her?

Part of the problem is, who gets to define at what point is the quality of life not worth living anymore?

Suppose one teenager has lost his girlfiend and decides life is not worth living. He consults his friend and they both agree he should commit suicide.

What if the parents of a Down syndrome child decide to kill their child?

What if someone becomes a quadriplegic?

Or like the example above, what if someone gets a terminal illness?

Defining quality of life is very subjective. Therefore, I'm not convinced it can used as a criteria for whether a life should be terminated.

[Corvus]

Should our value of life be placed before the quality of life - at all costs?
In other words: Is killing NEVER ok, EVER?

Actually, I was thinking about this during my trip to Taiwan. I visited my grandmother who has a serious case of Alzheimers. She doesn't respond to people and just sits there staring into space and doing nothing. She's been in this condition of years and her family has faithfully taken care of her. I was impressed to see the dedication the family has to her. From a quality of life perspective, it'd be about zero for her. Actually, it might even be a negative value since she's burdening others. But, does it mean that they should just kill her?

Part of the problem is, who gets to define at what point is the quality of life not worth living anymore?

Someone we would hope would have a mature and unbiased point of view. My own opinion on this subject is, a person's existence always places obligations on another person. When that obligation results in the suffering of every party, and there is no other way to alleviate it, some form of euthenasia becomes an option.

When an emotional investment comes at the cost of everyone, not offering any "return", that emotional investment is pointless.

I am sorry to hear about your grandmother, otseng, and I am trying to phrase this in a way that can respect your feelings, but in cases such as those, I believe there is no "return on investment" and people's actions are for nil.

But here I have been talking about justification, not ethics. To me, ethically speaking, if someone suicides, it is unfortunate, but I could only consider it unethical insofar as it causes grief to the people that person was acquainted with.

[otseng]

I am sorry to hear about your grandmother, otseng, and I am trying to phrase this in a way that can respect your feelings, but in cases such as those, I believe there is no "return on investment" and people's actions are for nil.

I understand what you're saying. But, on the other hand, my grandmother had invested in her children and sacrificed her life to raise them. And when it comes time for her children to sacrifice for her, what should be their response? To simply say, your future holds no hope, therefore death is the best option? In an isolated incident like this, that might seem like a viable option. But, when the whole society starts thinking like this, it becomes a slippery slope (I'll end my slippery slope argument here before I get too far).

In the case of why her children continue to give her life, I was thinking the main reasons are a sense of duty and a high respect in the Taiwanese culture for the elders. Even in the apparent grim state she's in, all the people that saw her approached her with compassion and respect. Coming from America, I immediately noticed the contrast at how someone like her would be treated in the US.

Elders (with no apparent usefulness) are often treated as discards in American society. We visited a retirement home in the US recently and talked with a resident. On her birthday, nobody came to visit her. Should people only get respect only when they are useful, live a quality life, or can have potential to give back to society? I hope not.

[Yahweh]

Question for debate:
Should our value of life be placed before the quality of life - at all costs?
In other words: Is killing NEVER ok, EVER?

It may sound cynical, but it is rather unrealistic to place human life as supremely valuable as to be preserved at all costs.

If we want to talk about killing by omission, I would consider these 2 questions:
1. Is life so valuable it may be preserved at all costs?
2. Should the government be obligated to raise taxes sharply if it will save lives in 3rd-world nations?

If one answers "No" to the first question, they recognize there are some limits to the claim.
If one answers "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the second, then they are effectively a hypocrite.
(Other variations on how those questions can be answered is irrelevant.)


A continuation of the topic of abortion:

It depends on whether you consider the baby to be an individual which is entitled to rights as all other individuals.

If the answer is No, then the question of the value of life is irrelevant. There is no "killing" at all, and the logical conclusion would proceed that it would be illegal to refuse a women medical attention such as an abortion.

If the answer is Yes, then a gray line is crossed:
People are concerned about the rights of the unborn child, but neglect to carry over those sentiments to the mother.

I think the situation can be easily assessed by merely asking yourself "Can the government compell you donate your organs to another individual against your will". No, of course not. "Even if it will save their life?". The answer is, of course, still a "no". This relates to abortion because the unborn child is nonetheless using the mother's organs against her will, the mother's basic right to privacy is not revoked. You might think that the welfare of the child comes above the will of the mother, but that would be incorrect. At least one reason:
One of the foundations of law is what is called the Undue Burden clause. That simply means that the goverment cannot enforce any act which an undue burden on any person for any reason (this is why the government cannot take away everything your make above minimum wage). Taken together with the above, it is quite easy to see why it would be illegal to criminalize abortion or make it unavailable.


To answer the original question all at once:
There are just some situations where killing is necessary or permissable, therefore the most rational approach is to view some instances of "killing" as a Necessary Evil.

[Yahweh]

Defining quality of life is very subjective. Therefore, I'm not convinced it can used as a criteria for whether a life should be terminated.

Absolutely correct.

There is no objective measurement for "Quality of Life". Some people may measure it by how happy a person is, and others may measure Quality of Life by how much money a person has, and still others are perfectly happy with meager existence.

I agree with you completely that it is a worthless criteria for whether life can be terminated.

[Corvus]

I am sorry to hear about your grandmother, otseng, and I am trying to phrase this in a way that can respect your feelings, but in cases such as those, I believe there is no "return on investment" and people's actions are for nil.

I understand what you're saying. But, on the other hand, my grandmother had invested in her children and sacrificed her life to raise them. And when it comes time for her children to sacrifice for her, what should be their response? To simply say, your future holds no hope, therefore death is the best option? In an isolated incident like this, that might seem like a viable option. But, when the whole society starts thinking like this, it becomes a slippery slope (I'll end my slippery slope argument here before I get too far).

But I think it's different when we are talking about someone who not only cannot appreciate their life, but has lost the will to choose whether or not to live it. If I were in the same situation, to me that person would not be the person I once knew, because all the qualities that identified them are absent. (Yes, this ties in with my other topics in the abortion thread on defining a person). Since they are completely incapable of valuing their own life, the only thing keeping them alive is an external value imposed on them by their caretakers. I'm afraid I can't consider that living.

Elders (with no apparent usefulness) are often treated as discards in American society. We visited a retirement home in the US recently and talked with a resident. On her birthday, nobody came to visit her. Should people only get respect only when they are useful, live a quality life, or can have potential to give back to society? I hope not.

No, I don't think elders should not get respect when they are no longer of any "use". We assume the resident was a good mother, not abusive, and attentive to her child's needs. One of the practical reasons - though not a motive - for rearing a child is the expectation that they will reward the parent for their kindness in turn. So parenting becomes an investment, the benefit of which is reaped at a later date. The motivation of the child could be gratitude, or even the expectation that the child's child will do the same for him. It's almost a transaction. But it is a privilege, not a right, if her children repay her kindness. There are no obligations here, only propriety. This "should" is not a "must", and I would not call that lady's children bad because I do not know their circumstances.

But here we digress. This topic is more about our reaction to death than ideologies of life. The lady in the retirement home is in possession of a will, and that will allows her to value her life, rightly or wrongly, for better or worse, and until that will goes, anyone taking her life without permission is making an injustice. I was going to write more but it would become too complex to describe exactly what constitutes an injustice and exactly what negates the will.

[otseng]

I think the situation can be easily assessed by merely asking yourself "Can the government compell you donate your organs to another individual against your will". No, of course not. "Even if it will save their life?". The answer is, of course, still a "no".

This brings up an interesting thought. What if the person is dead? Can the government still take the organs from the deceased to save another's life? No. So, even a dead person has a sense of sanctity. And even if it obviously has zero quality of life.

This relates to abortion because the unborn child is nonetheless using the mother's organs against her will, the mother's basic right to privacy is not revoked. You might think that the welfare of the child comes above the will of the mother, but that would be incorrect. At least one reason:
One of the foundations of law is what is called the Undue Burden clause. That simply means that the goverment cannot enforce any act which an undue burden on any person for any reason (this is why the government cannot take away everything your make above minimum wage). Taken together with the above, it is quite easy to see why it would be illegal to criminalize abortion or make it unavailable.

Some comments on this. I disagree that an unborn child uses the mother's organs against her will. Unless she was raped, she gave consent to the possibility of having a child.

Actually, I do believe the welfare of the mother does supercede the welfare of the unborn baby. But, we have to consider what is meant by welfare. In the case of an abortion, what is at stake is the life of the fetus. So, only when the life of the mother is also at stake should it be permissible to abort the child.