David

I agree with you that we need to justify our foundational beliefs as best as possible in order to be able to justifiably build further beliefs that are based upon those foundations.

This requirement however must apply to everyone.

I therefore find it odd that you are saying that I must do this “before we move on” while you seem to think you are exempt from having to do so.

To go back to the absolute basics, we must make one of two choices in deciding how this universe and everything in it came into being – either it was deliberately brought into existence by a greater being than the universe itself or it just unintentionally happened into being.

When I look at the world about me I have no trouble in seeing evidence for incredible design in the fantastic complexity of things right down to the molecular level. Design points to a designer.

The alternative is to say that a secular miracle took place with everything having come from nothing: “ . . . the universe evolved out of literally nothing” Richard Dawkins. Then further secular miracles took place as life, consciousness and intelligence allegedly arose spontaneously from dead matter.

Even if you want to assert that that is what happened that still does not help you when it comes to morality. If the universe just happened into being, then it follows that there is no intended purpose for its existence and that there is no particular state that it is meant to be in. A universe with whales is no “better” or “worse” than one without whales. The same would be true for humans. Words like better, worse, right and wrong would be meaningless.

Of course anyone can say that they prefer a universe with whales or where people can receive VAD but that preference does not make them “right”. Dawkins again: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Please justify your foundational position.

Banjo

I continue to be confused by what you write, In your last post, in response to my earlier comment, “You say that you agree that a grandfather has a responsibility to protect their grandchild from harm”, you replied, “No, I didn’t say that JP”. However, if you look back to I think your fourth comment you did in fact write, “That’s correct, JP. As soon as I discovered she had attempted to commit suicide, I called the ambulance and the fire brigade and they rushed her off to hospital.”

Then at point 2 in your last post you said, “For me too, “the issue is not whether suicide is neat or messy” but your last paragraph seems to contradict that: “I would like them to have a “good death” rather than an atrocious one by employing whatever means they can lay their hands on in a terrible state of despair”.

Anyway, I think that any adult, especially a close relative, should take deadly poison away from a child, not simply stand there and watch them take it (regardless of how congenial the circumstances of the situation may be).

JP

You have not addressed my question to demonstrate that your god called God exists, which is a key element of your argument against VAD. You are now avoiding answering that question and raising issues unrelated to VAD (the origin of the universe). This is an example of the red herring fallacy.

I don’t want to be deceived and I hope you don’t want to deceive me. So could you please give me the courtesy of providing a sound or cogent argument for the existence of your god called God? You are now avoiding developing any such arguments by fallaciously throwing red herrings.

Alternatively, could you be so kind and honest to acknowledge that (a) you misrepresented my position on issues, and (b) cannot justify the existence of your god called God and so cannot justify your opposition to VAD?

Or, can you say why you are avoiding the question, why you are not acknowledging that you cannot provide such an argument, or whether I can assist you if there is something about demonstrating the existence of your god called God that you don’t understand.

I can’t address your issues until you provide an acceptable response to mine

.

Dear JP,

.

You wrote :

1. « I continue to be confused by what you write, In your last post, in response to my earlier comment, “You say that you agree that a grandfather has a responsibility to protect their grandchild from harm”, you replied, “No, I didn’t say that JP”. »

The responsibility to protect from harm you were referring to in the first instance, JP, was “not to aid and abet their suicide”. That is what I agreed to.

Whereas, it is impossible for grandfathers to assume general responsibility for protection from harm to their grandchildren, especially when they don’t live together, which happens to be my case.

That is why when you wrote in your next post « You say that you agree that a grandfather has a responsibility to protect their grandchild from harm », I replied :

« No, I didn’t say that JP, but, naturally, I do consider that a grandfather should and would undoubtedly do whatever he could to protect his grandchild from harm if he were in a position to do so ».

I hope that clarifies matters for you.

2. « Then at point 2 in your last post you said, “For me too, “the issue is not whether suicide is neat or messy” but your last paragraph seems to contradict that: “I would like them to have a “good death” rather than an atrocious one by employing whatever means they can lay their hands on in a terrible state of despair”. »

For me, JP, the distinguishing feature of a “good death” versus an “atrocious death”, is not that of order versus disorder, but of pleasure versus pain and kindness versus cruelty.

To me, your criterion of "order versus disorder" is cold and rigid. It is administrative. It lacks sensitivity. It lacks the human touch. It lacks humanity. It reveals a vision that is completely different from mine.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

3. « Anyway, I think that any adult, especially a close relative, should take deadly poison away from a child, not simply stand there and watch them take it (regardless of how congenial the circumstances of the situation may be). »

That is an opinion that is shared by many if not most people in this day and age, JP. Mine is more nuanced. I am inclined to consider that it depends on the child. Some are more mature than others at the same age, some are even much more mature. My granddaughter is one of the latter. Her judgement of the guy she fell in love with on the internet proved to be better than that of her mother and her grandfather. She was right and we were wrong.

We inadvertently provoked her attempt to commit suicide by trying to protect her from what we perceived as a danger.

That is why, despite her young age at the time, I consider, in hindsight, that if, when all was said and done, she had calmly decided that she still wanted to end her life. I should have liked her to have had the possibility of carrying out legal euthanasia.

Having given this a lot of thought, it also occurred to me that if we had happened to be together in a skyscraper on fire and I decided it was best to jump out the window, I doubt that she would want to stay. I would not have left her alone to burn to death. I would have taken her in my arms and jumped out the window.

The fact that she was only 13 years old would not have been a consideration. Nor would I have sought to apply your criterion of utmost respect for good order.

But, not to worry, JP, I respect your preference for good order.

Most people remained in the Twin Towers in New York and perished in the flames - but, who knows, perhaps they were not able to do otherwise.

.

David

You are an “ethicist” and yet you say that you “cannot” independently show what is the foundation for your own ethical pronouncements.

Certainly you can say that I have not justified my position but why would that failure on my part prevent you from being able to demonstrate that your own position is valid and sound? That does not logically follow.

You want to claim that my reference to our origins is a red herring. Not at all. If you have a materialist view of the universe then ethically speaking moral relativism is as far as you can get. If moral relativism is all we have then one moral position is no more “right” or “wrong” than the opposite moral viewpoint. Effectively, moral talk is meaningless. Please show me where that is wrong. Please do not use my apparent failure as an excuse to hold you back.

If you refuse to defend your position then it makes it look like your position is indefensible.

I have reread your article and there can be no dispute that your categorical statements, “No suffering person should be excluded from VAD. . . all people should be able to determine what is right for their own bodies” are made without any qualifications whatsoever.

So when I paraphrased those statements as, “anyone, whether they are suffering in any respect or not, should be assisted to be killed upon their request” there is no misrepresentation of what you wrote in the article: “all people” cannot mean anything other than “all people”.