.

Avicenna:
That is why I noted it is not euthanasia. And I quoted that alive because the person has a VERY remote chance of recovery. His muscles will merely suffer atrophy and he will grow older but he most likely will not recover or even improve. This is a persistent vegetative state. Some people try to avoid that by signing an advance decision form.
It is a decision made not to burden his/her family.
You will agree this burden cannot be compared to unemployed youths or babies or children or unproductive members of society.

Euthanasia, on the other hand, is a request for assisted suicide due to 'incurable' diseases and conditions causing interminable pain. These patients are very much alive and may even live long enough BUT in severe pain.

I must admit, my support for euthanasia as it is, has diminished but I know there's a way to avoid all the pitfalls and design a specific, rigid procedure for Euthanasia. Afterall, It is the individuals that make the group. Individual concerns cannot be totally ignored.

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between vegetative state people wishing to die and people in pain wishing to die. For me, they all fall under euthanasia as they are all people looking for other people to kill them.

I do not agree that a burden placed on the family of extremely sick people is greater than the burden placed on the family of extremely lazy ones. Infact, for the sake of humanity, extremely lazy people should be euthanised. But that's another debate.

There may be theoritical ways of avoiding the pitfalls but in practice, once the pandora box opens and the cat is out of the bag, the system would be abused. That's human. There is no human system that is immune to abuse. The real question then becomes, "is it worth it?".

Alfa Seltzer:

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between vegetative state people wishing to die and people in pain wishing to die. For me, they all fall under euthanasia as they are all people looking for other people to kill them.

I do not agree that a burden placed on the family of extremely sick people is greater than the burden placed on the family of extremely lazy ones. Infact, for the sake of humanity, extremely lazy people should be euthanised. But that's another debate.

There may be theoritical ways of avoiding the pitfalls but in practice, once the pandora box opens and the cat is out of the bag, the system would be abused. That's human. There is no human system that is immune to abuse. The real question then becomes, "is it worth it?".

Like you say, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is subject to abuse. Risks are necessary and unavoidable. Obviously, in the 3rd world it's not worth it. But I wouldn't say the same for some of the west (and some of the far east maybe). There's no excuse in some regions.

wiegraf:

Like you say, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is subject to abuse. Risks are necessary and unavoidable. Obviously, in the 3rd world it's not worth it. But I wouldn't say the same for some of the west (and some of the far east maybe). There's no excuse in some regions.

Not all risks are necessary. And even less risks which results will be detrimental to humanity.

Alfa Seltzer:

Not all risks are necessary. And even less risks which results will be detrimental to humanity.

You've not shown how this is detrimental to humanity, if there is a way of achieving it that is impervious to abuse, ie, so the bolded is moot.


If these are your arguments then;

Alfa Seltzer: On the philosophical side, what does euthanasia say about us humans? Have we reached the limit of our medical progress? Do we abandon and kill people instead of trying harder to find a cure for their illnesses?

And who says this is the what's happening? Abandoning people and killing them? Killing them? Yes. Murder? Definitely not. That's a salient distinction.

What exactly does philosophy have to do with this per say anyhow? It's an issue of individual rights, that's also important 'philosophically', no?

Alfa Seltzer:
You might say that there is no cure. But a lot of curable diseases today had no cure a few years or decades ago.

And the whole point is to put rigorous checks in place to make sure it's only applied in cases in which the patients involved have their full mental capacities and virtually no chance of survival.

Alfa Seltzer:
Why should countries invest billions into medical research if they could just euthanise the incurable?

And I'm not sure how you make this leap. Why in the world does legalizing euthenasia or (assisted suicide, better term which I would use) lead to less investment in medical research? That would be silly, what of future generations, or even cases of those similarly inflicted but who choose to fight on despite their poor prognosis?

Alfa Seltzer:
For me personally, I think it is very bad for the individual suffering but legally killing him is very bad for mankind as a whole. Should we render our future generations hopeless in the face of diseases because we want to end the suffering of a few people? Are the interests of these few bigger than the interest of future generations?

Remember that no human suffering in this world has ever been in vain. Our ancestors had to suffer a lot of incurable sicknesses so that we have the immunity we have today to survive. Our sicknesses today are providing immunity to our offsprings. That is how nature works. If we start killing off sick people, we ultimately harm ourselves.

And what of organ failures and such? What exactly is to be learned in these situations? And a patient that is dying is supposed to pass on his already failed genes? If his genes were any good or resistant, he wouldn't be dying now, would he? Also, are the patients now required to submit, against their will, to experimentation? (If you argue that abortion is an issue of the woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body (which is a valid argument as well imo), can you see how weak/hypocritical this stance is?)


So far, all I've read (granted I've not read the whole thread) is subjective, you simply don't like it. Your opinion does not override the rights of the individuals involved, at least I would hope not. I need not point out why, I hope (as well). It's not your life, not your decision to end it or not.

edits: nothing major, I think

wiegraf:

You've not shown how this is detrimental to humanity, if there is a way of achieving it that is impervious to abuse, ie, so the bolded is moot.


If these are your arguments then;



And who says this is the what's happening? Abandoning people and killing them? Killing them? Yes. Murder? Definitely not. That's a salient distinction.

What exactly does philosophy have to do with this per say anyhow? It's an issue of individual rights, that's also important 'philosophically', no?



And the whole point is to put rigorous checks in place to make sure it's only applied in cases in which the patients involved have their full mental capacities and virtually no chance of survival.



And I'm not sure how you make this leap. Why in the world does legalizing euthenasia or (assisted suicide, better term which I would use) lead to less investment in medical research? That's silly, what of future generations?



And what of organ failures and such? What exactly is to be learned in these situations? And a patient that is dying is supposed to pass on his already failed genes? If his genes were any good or resistant, he wouldn't be dying now, would he? Also, are the patients now required to submit, against their will, to experimentation? (If you argue that abortion is an issue of the woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body (which is a valid argument as well imo), can you see how silly/hypocritical this stance is?)


So far, all I've read (granted I've not read the whole thread) is subjective, you simply don't like it. Your opinion does not override the rights of the individuals involved, at least I would hope not. I need not point out why, I hope. It's not your life, not your decision to end it.

Epic, sir, epic!


My thoughts exactly!

Logicboy03:



Epic, sir, epic!


My thoughts exactly!

It would be good if you could actually express your thoughts yourself instead of copying and pasting other people's own and claiming them as yours.

@wiegraf, I'll get back to you later.

Alfa Seltzer:

It would be good if you could actually express your thoughts yourself instead of copying and pasting other people's own and claiming them as yours.

@wiegraf, I'll get back to you later.

What happened to all my comments on this thread before Weigraff?Are you this butthurt that you cant reason well?

Guy, my thoughts on euthanasia have been well stated long before Weigraff arrived.

Logicboy03:


What happened to all my comments on this thread before Weigraff?Are you this butthurt that you cant reason well?

Guy, my thoughts on euthanasia have been well stated long before Weigraff arrived.

Your previous ramblings didn't make much sense. Now you see a near sensible post by someone else and shamelessly jumped in to claim them as your exact thoughts.

Alfa Seltzer:

Your previous ramblings didn't make much sense. Now you see a near sensible post by someone else and shamelessly jumped in to claim them as your exact thoughts.

Why are you just being silly?

Did wiegraff not mention the mental stability of the patient which I had already mentioned?
Did Weigraff not talk about checks and balances on euthanasia which I listed out previously?


Guy, go siddon.

Logicboy03:


Why are you just being silly?

Did wiegraff not mention the mental stability of the patient which I had already mentioned?
Did Weigraff not talk about checks and balances on euthanasia which I listed out previously?


Guy, go siddon.

ok

wiegraf:

You've not shown how this is detrimental to humanity, if there is a way of achieving it that is impervious to abuse, ie, so the bolded is moot.

Maybe I should have said would instead of will. In any case, one could also argue that euthanasia proponents also haven't shown how it would be beneficial to humanity. In which case we ask, why do it?

wiegraf:
If these are your arguments then;



And who says this is the what's happening? Abandoning people and killing them? Killing them? Yes. Murder? Definitely not. That's a salient distinction.

What exactly does philosophy have to do with this per say anyhow? It's an issue of individual rights, that's also important 'philosophically', no?

As they say, "all die be die". Whether killed humanely or in cold blood, one is dead. The definition is what the living tell themselves. Is killing an armed robber murder? If a mentally deranged man that is not responsible for his action rapes your daughter, kills your wife and you kill him in rage, is it murder? So where is the distinction? Also note that euthanasia is classified as murder in many countries.

Yes individual right is philosophical as well and very important. But more important is the collective well being. In the case of euthanasia, it is not eternal suffering like hell. The death the patient is praying for will surely come. He just have to exercise some patience. I would rather that single patient suffer for some time than to legally allow his murder, which, given the eventual abuse that will follow, will allow the legal murder of those that do not wish to die.

wiegraf: And the whole point is to put rigorous checks in place to make sure it's only applied in cases in which the patients involved have their full mental capacities and virtually no chance of survival.

Well, if they had no chance of survival, they would already be dead. I believe in the saying that where there is life, there is hope. Succumbing to euthanasia means that humans have abandoned all hope and would rather kill themselves.

wiegraf:
And I'm not sure how you make this leap. Why in the world does legalizing euthenasia or (assisted suicide, better term which I would use) lead to less investment in medical research? That would be silly, what of future generations, or even cases of those similarly inflicted but who choose to fight on despite their poor prognosis?

That's exactly my point!
If it's easier to kill people off when they ask to be killed or when they are sick, why would one invest in research that keeps people alive? People will start investing in pro-euthanasia undertakings. It is not a leap. It is how capitalism works. Remember Romney with his anti-abortion stance but is a major stake-holder in an aborted foetus disposal company.

Assisted suicide is one of those oxymorons that actually make no sense. If it is assisted, then it is not suicide. Especially as the person dying is totally passive in the act.

wiegraf: And what of organ failures and such? What exactly is to be learned in these situations? And a patient that is dying is supposed to pass on his already failed genes? If his genes were any good or resistant, he wouldn't be dying now, would he? Also, are the patients now required to submit, against their will, to experimentation? (If you argue that abortion is an issue of the woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body (which is a valid argument as well imo), can you see how weak/hypocritical this stance is?)

This argument is flawed on many levels and quite scary that one should think in those terms. Are you saying that people with some genetic 'flaws' should be disposed of? What do you mean by "already failed genes"?
Also, nobody is being forced to submit against one's will. If you are sick, a doctor's responsibility should be how to cure you. If you can't be cured, society has a duty to learn what caused your illness, try harder to find a cure, research it and see how to prevent others going through the same. Their duty is not to kill you off, whatever fancy name they choose to call your murder.

wiegraf: So far, all I've read (granted I've not read the whole thread) is subjective, you simply don't like it. Your opinion does not override the rights of the individuals involved, at least I would hope not. I need not point out why, I hope (as well). It's not your life, not your decision to end it or not.

edits: nothing major, I think

What I don't like is the message it gives: humans have reached their medical limit.

The individuals still have all their rights. If I had a disease that caused my arms to be cut off, it doesn't grant me the right to be wanked-off by someone else whenever I wish.

Alfa Seltzer:

Maybe I should have said would instead of will. In any case, one could also argue that euthanasia proponents also haven't shown how it would be beneficial to humanity. In which case we ask, why do it?

How exactly is playing say golf beneficial to humanity? I don't see you denying golfers their rights when they indulge in an activity that does not infringe on your rights in any way, yes?

Again, it is about individual rights, the right of one to die with dignity. There is virtually no benefit to humanity when they are forced to live on despite their wishes, so this is a gross infringement of rights. Again, think of mothers and their rights to do as they wish with their bodies, and this isn't even nearly as contentious. No fetuses (or human beings/babies as they'd have us believe) involved here.

Alfa Seltzer:
As they say, "all die be die". Whether killed humanely or in cold blood, one is dead. The definition is what the living tell themselves. Is killing an armed robber murder? If a mentally deranged man that is not responsible for his action rapes your daughter, kills your wife and you kill him in rage, is it murder? So where is the distinction? Also note that euthanasia is classified as murder in many countries.

We don't need to get into relativity atm. It isn't a murder in the sense that no one's rights are being infringed on, that's all.

Alfa Seltzer:
Yes individual right is philosophical as well and very important. But more important is the collective well being. In the case of euthanasia, it is not eternal suffering like hell. The death the patient is praying for will surely come. He just have to exercise some patience. I would rather that single patient suffer for some time than to legally allow his murder, which, given the eventual abuse that will follow, will allow the legal murder of those that do not wish to die.

Again, this is about situations where it can be applied judiciously. Certainly NOT the 3rd world.

Alfa Seltzer:
Well, if they had no chance of survival, they would already be dead. I believe in the saying that where there is life, there is hope. Succumbing to euthanasia means that humans have abandoned all hope and would rather kill themselves.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. There are always 'miracles', but miracles are supposedly special because they very, very, very rarely occur, yes?

The italicized is your belief. Good and fine, but I can't see why you should force it onto others, see?

The bolded, their choice. They aren't infringing on the rights of others, so what exactly is the problem again?

Alfa Seltzer:
That's exactly my point!
If it's easier to kill people off when they ask to be killed or when they are sick, why would one invest in research that keeps people alive? People will start investing in pro-euthanasia undertakings. It is not a leap. It is how capitalism works. Remember Romney with his anti-abortion stance but is a major stake-holder in an aborted foetus disposal company.

And you're also well aware that for the few who would rather die gracefully, myriad others are well willing to fight on. I highly doubt they would be ignored. Where exactly do you think most profit would be made? Living patients, week in week out paying for treatments, or those that choose the one stop solution? Dead clients usually can't pay for any further medical services, yes?

Alfa Seltzer:
Assisted suicide is one of those oxymorons that actually make no sense. If it is assisted, then it is not suicide. Especially as the person dying is totally passive in the act.

Passive in what way? This would occur only with the approval of the person committing suicide, yes? Actually, not with his consent, but at his very own behest, so was he passive when he went out of his way to seek out the procedure?

Alfa Seltzer:
This argument is flawed on many levels and quite scary that one should think in those terms. Are you saying that people with some genetic 'flaws' should be disposed of? What do you mean by "already failed genes"?

This here is senseless 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!'. Were in the world do I mention that they should be disposed of?

Alfa Seltzer:
Also, nobody is being forced to submit against one's will. If you are sick, a doctor's responsibility should be how to cure you. If you can't be cured, society has a duty to learn what caused your illness, try harder to find a cure, research it and see how to prevent others going through the same. Their duty is not to kill you off, whatever fancy name they choose to call your murder.

The bolded is clearly false. You are preventing one from receiving his preferred form of treatment simply because you don't like it. The patient has rights too, yes?

The italicized, not at the expense of individual rights when it clearly does not profit us.

The green, their duty also entails a lot of other things including helping society as a whole and helping patients and their... rights.

Alfa Seltzer:
What I don't like is the message it gives: humans have reached their medical limit.

The individuals still have all their rights. If I had a disease that caused my arms to be cut off, it doesn't grant me the right to be wanked-off by someone else whenever I wish.

The bolded, again, I wonder where you draw these conclusions from. And, that is your opinion. You should well understand how silly it is for one to force others to subscribe to his beliefs simply because.

The italicized, it grants YOU the right to cut off YOUR arm so long as YOU wish to. Someone else doing it for you is simply acting on YOUR behalf, as YOU requested, following YOUR explicit instruction. Actually, ill or not, you should have that right, depending..

wiegraf:

How exactly is playing say golf beneficial to humanity? I don't see you denying golfers their rights when they indulge in an activity that does not infringe on your rights in any way, yes?

Again, it is about individual rights, the right of one to die with dignity. There is virtually no benefit to humanity when they are forced to live on despite their wishes, so this is a gross infringement of rights. Again, think of mothers and their rights to do as they wish with their bodies, and this isn't even nearly as contentious. No fetuses (or human beings/babies as they'd have us believe) involved here.

If the right to play golf for some could mean that one day, somebody could legally force me to play golf, then golf becomes bad for humanity.

My worry is not about those that have a death wish, it is about the ripple effect the legalisation of actualisation of the said death wish would have that I'm concerned about.

wiegraf:
We don't need to get into relativity atm. It isn't a murder in the sense that no one's rights are being infringed on, that's all.

Again, this is about situations where it can be applied judiciously. Certainly NOT the 3rd world.

You should know that 3rd world countries are copy copy, follow follow countries. As soon as the western world legalises it, they will start clamouring for it and some can even be pressured into adopting them. In any case, it is not about who is doing it but about whether it is right or wrong to do.

wiegraf:
I'm not sure where you're going with this. There are always 'miracles', but miracles are supposedly special because they very, very, very rarely occur, yes?

The italicized is your belief. Good and fine, but I can't see why you should force it onto others, see?

The bolded, their choice. They aren't infringing on the rights of others, so what exactly is the problem again?

Finding a cure for AIDS is not miracle. It is science. 'Incurable' diseases someday may become curable through research, not miracles.

Concerning rights infringement, again, my worry is about the ripple effect, not the actual act.

wiegraf: And you're also well aware that for the few who would rather die gracefully, myriad others are well willing to fight on. I highly doubt they would be ignored. Where exactly do you think most profit would be made? Living patients, week in week out paying for treatments, or those that choose the one stop solution? Dead clients usually can't pay for any further medical services, yes?



Passive in what way? This would occur only with the approval of the person committing suicide, yes? Actually, not with his consent, but at his very own behest, so was he passive when he went out of his way to seek out the procedure?

Passive in the actual act of the killing.

wiegraf: This here is senseless 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!'. Were in the world do I mention that they should be disposed of?

Unless I misunderstand what euthanasia means, I think "disposing of" the sick is a well suited classification.

wiegraf: The bolded is clearly false. You are preventing one from receiving his preferred form of treatment simply because you don't like it. The patient has rights too, yes?

Killing sick people is not a form of treatment.

wiegraf: The italicized, not at the expense of individual rights when it clearly does not profit us.

Collective rights trumps individual rights especially where the granting of the said individual right is clearly not beneficial to the community.

wiegraf: The green, their duty also entails a lot of other things including helping society as a whole and helping patients and their... rights.

GBAM!

wiegraf:
The bolded, again, I wonder where you draw these conclusions from. And, that is your opinion. You should well understand how silly it is for one to force others to subscribe to his beliefs simply because.

The italicized, it grants YOU the right to cut off YOUR arm so long as YOU wish to. Someone else doing it for you is simply acting on YOUR behalf, as YOU requested, following YOUR explicit instruction. Actually, ill or not, you should have that right, depending..

I think you may have confused the word wanked-off with whacked-off.

Alfa Seltzer:

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between vegetative state people wishing to die and people in pain wishing to die. For me, they all fall under euthanasia as they are all people looking for other people to kill them.

I do not agree that a burden placed on the family of extremely sick people is greater than the burden placed on the family of extremely lazy ones. Infact, for the sake of humanity, extremely lazy people should be euthanised. But that's another debate.

There may be theoritical ways of avoiding the pitfalls but in practice, once the pandora box opens and the cat is out of the bag, the system would be abused. That's human. There is no human system that is immune to abuse. The real question then becomes, "is it worth it?".

If the abuse can be curtailed, IT IS WORTH IT. I have tried to avoid being personal about it but when an individual(like me and you) decides to end his precious life( due to conditions mentioned earlier) then, so be it.

I will follow the individual rights on this one. I think,infact, we as a group owe him that.

In addition, I am surprised that you do not see any difference between the two burdens. Extremely sick and extremely lazy. ( note that by extremely sick, i mean patient suffering from painful, debilitating incurable diseases and conditions.) Regretfully, Wiegraff would have been euthanized long ago

wiegraf:

You've not shown how this is detrimental to humanity, if there is a way of achieving it that is impervious to abuse, ie, so the bolded is moot.


If these are your arguments then;



And who says this is the what's happening? Abandoning people and killing them? Killing them? Yes. Murder? Definitely not. That's a salient distinction.

What exactly does philosophy have to do with this per say anyhow? It's an issue of individual rights, that's also important 'philosophically', no?



And the whole point is to put rigorous checks in place to make sure it's only applied in cases in which the patients involved have their full mental capacities and virtually no chance of survival.



And I'm not sure how you make this leap. Why in the world does legalizing euthenasia or (assisted suicide, better term which I would use) lead to less investment in medical research? That would be silly, what of future generations, or even cases of those similarly inflicted but who choose to fight on despite their poor prognosis?



And what of organ failures and such? What exactly is to be learned in these situations? And a patient that is dying is supposed to pass on his already failed genes? If his genes were any good or resistant, he wouldn't be dying now, would he? Also, are the patients now required to submit, against their will, to experimentation? (If you argue that abortion is an issue of the woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body (which is a valid argument as well imo), can you see how weak/hypocritical this stance is?)


So far, all I've read (granted I've not read the whole thread) is subjective, you simply don't like it. Your opinion does not override the rights of the individuals involved, at least I would hope not. I need not point out why, I hope (as well). It's not your life, not your decision to end it or not.

edits: nothing major, I think

Wiegraff, hw u dey bro? abi na girl u b?

thanks to you, i realized something. i have been thinking locally.
In Nigeria, It won't work because we don't have quality alternatives. I have witnessed patient's tenacity to survive as long as there's hope(treatment,cure,family) in the horizon.
What if there's no hope? In Nigeria, our facilities are fair( ) , hope dies too quickly. And Euthanasia becomes a real alternative. Babalawo treatment is a form of Euthanasia, i tell you.

it is afterall a case of when we are developed enough. Not a morally unacceptable one.

Alfa Seltzer:

If the right to play golf for some could mean that one day, somebody could legally force me to play golf, then golf becomes bad for humanity.

My worry is not about those that have a death wish, it is about the ripple effect the legalisation of actualisation of the said death wish would have that I'm concerned about.




You should know that 3rd world countries are copy copy, follow follow countries. As soon as the western world legalises it, they will start clamouring for it and some can even be pressured into adopting them. In any case, it is not about who is doing it but about whether it is right or wrong to do.




Finding a cure for AIDS is not miracle. It is science. 'Incurable' diseases someday may become curable through research, not miracles.

Concerning rights infringement, again, my worry is about the ripple effect, not the actual act.





Passive in the actual act of the killing.



Unless I misunderstand what euthanasia means, I think "disposing of" the sick is a well suited classification.





Killing sick people is not a form of treatment.



Collective rights trumps individual rights especially where the granting of the said individual right is clearly not beneficial to the community.



GBAM!




I think you may have confused the word wanked-off with whacked-off.

Alfa Seltzer: Unless I misunderstand what euthanasia means, I think "disposing of" the sick is a well suited classification.

No, It is not.
We are not disposing off the sick. we are to treat them.
But on the request of a terminally sick person, we should do as he wish.
You say, he should wait patiently because of the implication of euthanizing him, I COMPLETELY disagree with that.
Wait patiently for death without dignity, in pain, hopeless, agonizing death.
We owe him as a society to end him.

Keeping him alive does not benefit humanity either. You say we need research to progress, Not everyone will be used in research. reminds me of the battles fought to get into cancer treatment trials. Most are hopeless(the trials,I mean) from the get go but desperate people still enter it hoping for a miracle.
what about those that could not get into the trials? just ignore them? I disagree.

Note that, I do not support Euthanasia for all cancer patients ooooooooooooooo. infact, if your disease is terminal but you are not in pain(pain is manageable), you should not be a candidate for euthanasia(checks and balances).

Avicenna:
Regretfully, Wiegraff would have been euthanized long ago

They would celebrate. I'm not just lazy, I'm apparently unlikable as well. I really cannot tell why. I'm all sunshine for fu*&& sake.

Avicenna:
Note that, I do not support Euthanasia for all cancer patients ooooooooooooooo. infact, if your disease is terminal but you are not in pain(pain is manageable), you should not be a candidate for euthanasia(checks and balances).

This so much even if it isn't (ostensibly) strictly logical. A similar situation, where 'discretion' (for lack of a better term) is important would be the dreaded and nasty.... torture.

Sam Harris' views on this are a source of infamy in a lot of quarters, however

sam harris:

In The End of Faith, I argue that competing religious doctrines have divided our world into separate moral communities and that these divisions have become a continual source of human violence. My purpose in writing the book was to offer a way of thinking about our world that would render certain forms of conflict quite literally unthinkable.

In one section of the book (pp. 192−199), I briefly discuss the ethics of torture and collateral damage in times of war, arguing that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board. Rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, some readers have mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. Nevertheless, there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like “water-boarding” may be not only ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary. This is not the same as saying that they should be legal (Crimes such as trespassing and theft may sometimes be ethically necessary, though everyone has an interest in keeping them illegal).

I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. The liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of these thought experiments. The point is that unless your argument rules out torture in idealized cases, you don’t have a categorical argument against torture. As nuclear and biological terrorism become increasingly possible, it is in everyone’s interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done if a person appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won’t otherwise talk about it.

My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: If you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to water-board a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like him). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of water-boarding high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, most people tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make a travesty like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I consider our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney—the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” etc.—to be a terrible stain upon our nation.

Some people believe that while collateral damage may be worse than torture, they are independent evils, and one problem sheds no light upon the other. However, they are not independent in principle. In fact, it is easy to see how information gained through torture might mitigate the risk of collateral damage. If one found oneself with an apparent choice between torturing a known terrorist and bombing civilians, torturing the terrorist should seem like the more ethical option. But most people’s intuitions seem to run the other way. In fact, very few critics of my collateral-damage argument even acknowledge how strangely asymmetrical our worries about torture and collateral damage are. A conversation about the ethics of torture can scarcely be had, and yet collateral damage is often reported in the context of a “successful” military operation as though it posed no ethical problem whatsoever. The case of Baitullah Mehsud, killed along with 12 others (including his wife and mother-in-law), is a perfect example: Had his wife been water-boarded in order to obtain the relevant intelligence, rather than merely annihilated by a missile, we can be sure that torrents of outrage would have ensued.

It seems, in fact, that many people do not understand what the phrase “collateral damage” signifies, and thus they imagine that I have drawn a false analogy. Most assume that my analogy fails because torture is the intentional infliction of guaranteed suffering, whereas collateral damage is the unintentional imposition of possible suffering (or death). Apples and oranges.

But this isn’t true. We often drop bombs knowing that innocent people will be killed or horribly injured by them. We target buildings in which combatants are hiding, knowing that noncombatants are also in those buildings, or standing too close to escape destruction. And when innocent people are killed or injured—when children are burned over most of their bodies and live to suffer interminable pain and horrible disfigurement—our leaders accept this as the cost of doing business in a time of war. Many people oppose specific wars, of course—such as the war in Iraq—but no public figure has been vilified for accepting collateral damage in a war that is deemed just. And yet, anyone who would defend the water-boarding of a terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad will reap a whirlwind of public criticism. This makes no moral sense.

Again, which is worse: water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him? Which is worse, water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him? There are journalists who have volunteered to be water-boarded. Where are the journalists who have volunteered to have a 5000-pound bomb dropped on their homes with their families inside?


It is widely claimed that torture “does not work”—that it produces unreliable information, implicates innocent people, etc. As I argue in The End of Faith, this line of defense does not resolve the underlying ethical dilemma. Clearly, the claim that torture never works, or that it always produces bad information, is incredible (and well known to be false). There are cases in which the mere threat of torture has worked. One can easily imagine situations in which even a very low probability of getting useful information through torture would seem to justify it—the looming threat of nuclear terrorism being the most obvious case. It is decidedly unhelpful that those who claim to know that torture is “always wrong” never seem to envision the circumstances in which good people would be tempted to use it. Critics of my collateral-damage argument always ignore the hard case: when the person in custody is known to have been involved in terrible acts of violence and when the threat of further atrocities is imminent. If you think such situations never arise, consider what it might be like to capture a high-ranking member of al Qaeda along with several accomplices and their computers. The possibility that such a person might really be “innocent” or that he could “just say anything” to mislead his interrogators begins to seem less of a concern. Such captures bring us closer to a “ticking-bomb” scenario than many people are willing to admit.

Although I think that torture should remain illegal, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine. We have a capital punishment provision, but it has not led to our killing prisoners at random because we can’t control ourselves. While I am strongly opposed to capital punishment, I can readily concede that our executing about five people every month hasn’t led to total moral chaos. Perhaps a rule regarding torture could be applied with equal restraint.

It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences. In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article “The Dark Art of Interrogation.” Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason—but our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it would be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator found himself in such a circumstance and broke the law, there would be little will to prosecute him (and interrogators would know this). If he broke the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to prison for a very long time (and interrogators would know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me.

The best case against “ticking-bomb” arguments appears in David Luban’s article, “Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb,” published in the Virginia Law Review. (I have posted a PDF here.) Luban relies on a few questionable assumptions, however. And he does not actually provide an ethical argument against torture in the ticking-bomb case; he offers a pragmatic argument against our instituting a policy allowing torture in such cases. There is absolutely nothing in Luban’s argument that rules out the following law:

We will not torture anyone under any circumstances unless we are certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the person in our custody has operational knowledge of an imminent act of nuclear terrorism.

It seems to me that unless one can produce an ethical argument against torturing such a person, one does not have an argument against the use of torture in principle. Of course, my discussion of torture in The End of Faith (and on this page) addresses only the ethics of torture—not the practical difficulties of implementing a policy based on the ethics.

Many readers have found my views on this topic deeply unsettling. (For what it’s worth, I do too. It would be much easier to simply be “against torture” across the board and end the discussion.) I have invited readers, both publicly and privately, to produce an ethical argument that takes into account the realities of our world—our daily acceptance of collateral damage, the real possibility of nuclear terrorism, etc.—and yet rules out a practice like water-boarding in all conceivable circumstances. No one, to my knowledge, has done this. And yet, most people continue to speak and write as though a knockdown argument against torture in all circumstances were readily available. I consider it to be one of the more dangerous ironies of liberal discourse that merely discussing the possibility of torturing a man like Osama bin Laden provokes more outrage than the maiming and murder of children ever does. Until someone actually points out what is wrong with the collateral-damage argument presented in The End of Faith, I will continue to believe that its critics are just not thinking clearly about the reality of human suffering.

(For what it’s worth, I have since discovered that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy basically takes the same view.)

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#torture

The whole damned thing has to be read for context, but perhaps just the italicized is necessary. ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing, but see the parallels? It's rather tricky.

Nevertheless, there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like “water-boarding” may be not only ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary. This is not the same as saying that they should be legal (Crimes such as trespassing and theft may sometimes be ethically necessary, though everyone has an interest in keeping them illegal).

I completely agree here and this is my stance on euthanasia as well.
I concede that there may be extreme circumstances where euthanasia may be ethically justifiable or necessary but everyone has an interest in keeping it illegal.

wiegraf:

This so much even if it isn't (ostensibly) strictly logical. A similar situation, where 'discretion' (for lack of a better term) is important would be the dreaded and nasty.... torture.

Sam Harris' views on this are a source of infamy in a lot of quarters, however



http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#torture

The whole damned thing has to be read for context, but perhaps just the italicized is necessary. ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing, but see the parallels? It's rather tricky.

Yeah, I see them.
You particularly like this Sam.
Can't get his books tho, hate to read from soft copies. they damage my eyes

when I get any of his books, You are prolly going to do a line by line dissection

PS- his second to last submission- investigator's discretion- is postponing the evil day. The moral battle will be fought when the UNREALISTIC scenario pops up somewhere

Great work, Wiegraff.

Alfa Seltzer:

When people see a thief being lynched, most of them would urge people on, thank their gods and some would even participate in the lynching. Would they have the same reaction if it was their own brother that is being lynched? So there you have the answer to your question. Points of view change when things become personal.

You know, this comment is how I discovered that almost everything should be examined on a personal level.
If you would not allow your criminal brother to be lynched, Why would you allow/support the lynching of anyone?
Points of view like this,i believe, should emanate first from a personal level.

I do agree that in some cases, Society must come first- my brother is a criminal, he should go to jail as punishment and for reform- for the sake of society.

I clearly get your concerns though( the slippery slopes, the implication for mankind,risks etc).

Alfa Seltzer:

I completely agree here and this is my stance on euthanasia as well.
I concede that there may be extreme circumstances where euthanasia may be ethically justifiable or necessary but everyone has an interest in keeping it illegal.

We sort of have a middle ground, but not really. The situations are very similar, but also very different. Especially when it comes to victims. Hypothetically, no victims when assisted suicide is done right, not so with torture (even when done right). You're still harming someone, even if he oh so very clearly deserves it. The practical considerations are also rather different, would the torturers have to fill forms before they begin to water board you? What if it's a ticking bomb situation, like they mention?

Torture of course has to remain illegal, around the world no group could be trusted with this sort of power frankly. With assisted suicide, the more 'mature' societies should at least (vigorously) examine special cases. For those in torment with little chance of survival it's cruel in the extreme to have them live on, ie provided they make it clear they'd rather die with some dignity, more peacefully (consider, if of the wrong religion, they also have an eternity in some hell or the other waiting for them, no need to worsen their situation with more pointless suffering). Again, there are still practical considerations of course, but feasible in more 'advanced' countries.

Avicenna:

Yeah, I see them.
You particularly like this Sam.
Can't get his books tho, hate to read from soft copies. they damage my eyes

when I get any of his books, You are prolly going to do a line by line dissection

PS- his second to last submission- investigator's discretion- is postponing the evil day. The moral battle will be fought when the UNREALISTIC scenario pops up somewhere

I love am. But I still haven't finished his book...how many years.. probably to do with that lazyness thing...

Have you tried epubs? I love those too. But you still need a device with a fairly big screen, most androids would suffice though. They're obviously much more superior to say pdfs when reading on mobile devices

Logicboy03: Great work, Wiegraff.

Heheh thanks brah..

But we've not fought in a while now. We need to disagree on something, just for kicks...

wiegraf:

Heheh thanks brah..

But we've not fought in a while now. We need to disagree on something, just for kicks...

He's been fighting with me.. Would gladly have you take him off my back..

#goingThroughThreadNow

Hello Avi.. how you dey?

musKeeto:

He's been fighting with me.. Would gladly have you take him off my back..

#goingThroughThreadNow

Hello Avi.. how you dey?

I dey fine ooo, oga muskeeto(this tin cracks me up anytime

I'd like you to confirm this; is the hindu caste system truly(practically in reality) based on colour? Seeing that you are in India and all.

Avicenna:

I dey fine ooo, oga muskeeto(this tin cracks me up anytime

I'd like you to confirm this; is the hindu caste system truly(practically in reality) based on colour? Seeing that you are in India and all.

A friend I had the discussion with claims it isn't. Rather, it was based on occupation. Merchants, tailors, farmers.. all divided along these lines..

Personally, after having lived here for over 3 years now, I've noticed that those of darker skin are usually from lower castes. Most Indians would quickly deny it, but skin color's a real issue here. Most of the clerks, security men and cleaners are dark skinned. The 'ogas at the top' are usually light skinned..

No dey laff my username joor...

musKeeto:
A friend I had the discussion with claims it isn't. Rather, it was based on occupation. Merchants, tailors, farmers.. all divided along these lines..

Personally, after having lived here for over 3 years now, I've noticed that those of darker skin are usually from lower castes. Most Indians would quickly deny it, but skin color's a real issue here. Most of the clerks, security men and cleaners are dark skinned. The 'ogas at the top' are usually light skinned..

No dey laff my username joor...

Did you also notice the bleaching creams? Gaddem....indians dey bleach....it is now even normal for brides to go through bleaching process before the wedding.

Also an indian/asian mag came under fire for using only light skinned indian models

Logicboy03:
Did you also notice the bleaching creams? Gaddem....indians dey bleach....it is now even normal for brides to go through bleaching process before the wedding.

Also an indian/asian mag came under fire for using only light skinned indian models

I can't believe I forgot to mention that.. You should see some of the beauty ads here.. It's like bleaching is socially justifiable here. I no blame them sha, if you see wetin our brothers dey suffer for places like Goa, who would want to be black?


Funny thing is some of them black pass us..

wiegraf:

We sort of have a middle ground, but not really. The situations are very similar, but also very different. Especially when it comes to victims. Hypothetically, no victims when assisted suicide is done right, not so with torture (even when done right). You're still harming someone, even if he oh so very clearly deserves it. The practical considerations are also rather different, would the torturers have to fill forms before they begin to water board you? What if it's a ticking bomb situation, like they mention?

Torture of course has to remain illegal, around the world no group could be trusted with this sort of power frankly. With assisted suicide, the more 'mature' societies should at least (vigorously) examine special cases. For those in torment with little chance of survival it's cruel in the extreme to have them live on, ie provided they make it clear they'd rather die with some dignity, more peacefully (consider, if of the wrong religion, they also have an eternity in some hell or the other waiting for them, no need to worsen their situation with more pointless suffering). Again, there are still practical considerations of course, but feasible in more 'advanced' countries.

There is a direct victim in euthanasia, albeit a willing one. But still a victim. If a terrorist knows that he would be tortured if captured, but still puts himself in a situation where he is captured and tortured, would you say he is not a victim as he brought it upon himself? I don't think so. There are also many collateral victims of euthanasia.

Not withstanding, my argument was more about human interests in euthanasia staying illegal despite its necessity in extremely rare occasions.