I live in Oregon. I have a disease that is not only INCREDIBLY painful, but is also going to cause me to lose my mind. The scary part for me isn't the pain, or the dementia. It's that the pain is gong to continue to get worse, and at some point I won't be able to ask for help or communicate with my family what is wrong. This doesn't mean I won't know what's going on. I'll be trapped in a failing body.
The problem is, emotions are a very human thing, and something people will react to, but Im pretty much on board with Euthanasia, I think Peters approach which was focused on facts and the direction that legislation will take, was right.
Tbh, I think Peter argued the debate quite well, as the debate was discussing voluntary euthanasia and it was probably unfair to ask the questions that were not in the scope of the debate. However, I believe his personal positions on euthanasia (which were hinted in his closing statement - and the questions asked) aligned with the Archbishops argument that a progressive view of euthanasia was one held by its proponents and one seen as problematic by past proponents. As to Archbishop Fisher, I think that his responses were quite adequate for the questions asked. Some did admittedly appeal to emotion, but I don't think we should immediately dismiss something for not being in the realms of pure logic. An emotional response that goes to the heart and perhaps expresses the deepest parts of our humanity can make perfectly good arguments, it is only when it borders on the realms of false compassion, that it becomes problematic. False compassion (just as an example), maybe an appeal to money over the joy of a human life or for a quality of life we feel we can judge from the outside rather than the inside.
My brother is facing a trial none of us can share, he has to be on dialysis since his kidneys are shot, and now has a brain tumor causing behavioral and memory changes, to the point he cant do many things independently anymore. Today he wanted to die, the strange thing is, Im not entirely against his wish to die, I keep thinking, if it were me wouldnt I want this too? then I think of all the reasons why I would support this. 1. I wouldnt want to be a burden 2. I would want to make that decision for myself not let a disease decide even though that disease impacted my decision. 3. It might not be a terminal illness, but the impact on my life is such, that it is unbearable for me, leading to a tortured existence that I would not want to endure for a moment longer, even being simply tired, weary of continuing with that condition is enough incentive for me to opt out. 4. If I make my resolutions as a planned commitment to die would allow, I could say goodbye without regret, and ease any guilt or blame, mitigate the grief that follows, and soften the burden my death would bring others by spending what time I had as effectively focused on what was important left to share. The burden is a huge point for me, financially it costs so much to treat the illness or bury someone, the stress of planning a funeral and so on, I wouldnt want that for my family to go through, I have allowed my sister to have access to my bank account in case something happened to me.
1:23:50 did she just show up to ask that one dumb question or was she present during the whole debate? was she even aware of what the topic of the debate was? lel
Waste of time though it may be, I am grateful for those who are willing to challenge the tyranny of religious nonsense. It's ridiculous that one of the debaters is a Catholic Bishop, instead of two fellow philosophy scholars having an intelligent discussion void of Bronze-Age superstition.
This guy is telling to the most vulneable people in society that they care about what happens to them. Maybe if your church pressure the Goverment to spend more money on them and less money on wars...
I can destroy this whole thing with one question: Whose morals? If that doesn't work, there are multiple logical fallacies. Namely, slippery slope and argumentum ad populum. Saving a drowning victim? Really?
I live in Oregon. I have a disease that is not only INCREDIBLY painful, but is also going to cause me to lose my mind. The scary part for me isn't the pain, or the dementia. It's that the pain is gong to continue to get worse, and at some point I won't be able to ask for help or communicate with my family what is wrong.
This doesn't mean I won't know what's going on. I'll be trapped in a failing body.
It's interesting how one's religious leanings in large part informs how one feels about this.
Peter Singer made logical, coherent arguments. The Bishop made appeals to emotion. Peter Singer clearly won this debate.
awww did you get confused by the logical arguments? Don't try too hard.
Udaat Mittu You are confused easily. I'm sure you'll grow out of it.
Agreed
The problem is, emotions are a very human thing, and something people will react to, but Im pretty much on board with Euthanasia, I think Peters approach which was focused on facts and the direction that legislation will take, was right.
Tbh, I think Peter argued the debate quite well, as the debate was discussing voluntary euthanasia and it was probably unfair to ask the questions that were not in the scope of the debate. However, I believe his personal positions on euthanasia (which were hinted in his closing statement - and the questions asked) aligned with the Archbishops argument that a progressive view of euthanasia was one held by its proponents and one seen as problematic by past proponents. As to Archbishop Fisher, I think that his responses were quite adequate for the questions asked. Some did admittedly appeal to emotion, but I don't think we should immediately dismiss something for not being in the realms of pure logic. An emotional response that goes to the heart and perhaps expresses the deepest parts of our humanity can make perfectly good arguments, it is only when it borders on the realms of false compassion, that it becomes problematic. False compassion (just as an example), maybe an appeal to money over the joy of a human life or for a quality of life we feel we can judge from the outside rather than the inside.
Great debate. The topic is now coming up in New Zealand so I thought I'd hear differing thoughts on the subject.
My brother is facing a trial none of us can share, he has to be on dialysis since his kidneys are shot, and now has a brain tumor causing behavioral and memory changes, to the point he cant do many things independently anymore.
Today he wanted to die, the strange thing is, Im not entirely against his wish to die, I keep thinking, if it were me wouldnt I want this too? then I think of all the reasons why I would support this.
1. I wouldnt want to be a burden
2. I would want to make that decision for myself not let a disease decide even though that disease impacted my decision.
3. It might not be a terminal illness, but the impact on my life is such, that it is unbearable for me, leading to a tortured existence that I would not want to endure for a moment longer, even being simply tired, weary of continuing with that condition is enough incentive for me to opt out.
4. If I make my resolutions as a planned commitment to die would allow, I could say goodbye without regret, and ease any guilt or blame, mitigate the grief that follows, and soften the burden my death would bring others by spending what time I had as effectively focused on what was important left to share.
The burden is a huge point for me, financially it costs so much to treat the illness or bury someone, the stress of planning a funeral and so on, I wouldnt want that for my family to go through, I have allowed my sister to have access to my bank account in case something happened to me.
1:23:50 did she just show up to ask that one dumb question or was she present during the whole debate? was she even aware of what the topic of the debate was? lel
OF COURSE it should be legal! this debate is a waste of singers time
greg chuchelo m
Waste of time though it may be, I am grateful for those who are willing to challenge the tyranny of religious nonsense. It's ridiculous that one of the debaters is a Catholic Bishop, instead of two fellow philosophy scholars having an intelligent discussion void of Bronze-Age superstition.
This guy is telling to the most vulneable people in society that they care about what happens to them. Maybe if your church pressure the Goverment to spend more money on them and less money on wars...
Ay Robert Haddad is here!
the audience's face at 14:20 LOL!!
that's also how my faced looked.
Dude at the beginning can't pick an accent, and he can't shut up.
I can destroy this whole thing with one question: Whose morals?
If that doesn't work, there are multiple logical fallacies. Namely, slippery slope and argumentum ad populum. Saving a drowning victim? Really?