RomanJoe wrote:

What do you think about the possibility of euthanizing oneself to give a full body organ donation? This could potentially save several lives but would, of course, result in your death.

As far as I know, in natural law conception of morality, taking innocent lives (e.g. euthanasia) is an intrinsically evil action which cannot be justified under any circumstances (e.g. saving others' lives).

I also think that Christians are meant to put God above all things which makes the case even more tricky.

(Personally, I don't really find Natural law convincing in this and other similar cases)

Last edited by nojoum (8/10/2017 2:14 pm)

RomanJoe wrote:

I'm wondering, would deliberately taking your own life in order to donate all your organs imply a consequentialist view of morality? If taking innocent human life is intrinsically wrong then no positive consequences can morally justify suicide. But if we admit the consequentialist view then would we have to forego the intrinsic view?

Let's assume that taking innocent human life is intrinsically wrong. In that case the only reason that you would want to commit this immorality is to do it for a greater good (assuming that you have good intention) which seems to suggest consequentialism. However, I'm not sure about the position of Kantian ethics on this special case. I hope there is someone who can respond from a Kantian point of view.

I think a consequentialist can still condemn taking innocent lives but would say that it is better to kill oneself and to save more people than to let oneself die and not save others. So in this sense, I think a consequentialist can believe in intrinsically evil actions but that does not lead to the consquentialist  avoiding intrinsically evil action in every situation.

Note: I'm not sure if we can say that taking our own life intrinsically is evil. To get from taking the innocent lifes of other human beings being intrinsically evil to taking our own's life being evil is unjustified to me.
Also note that you must address God's rule in human's life to get a satisfactory (if you are a religious person) account of morality. Maybe you should take a look at Divine command theory. I think Craig is a proponent of that conception of morality.
 

Last edited by nojoum (8/10/2017 4:27 pm)

RomanJoe wrote:

Wouldn't this entail, by virtue of the consequentialist moral standard, the tolerance of absolutely horrible actions? For instance, a society that has become normalized to the raising, reproduction, and killing of a small minority people to harvest organs in order to maximize the help and save thousands of others. I think this is the true issue of permitting any form of consequentialist thinking, it permits a standard of morality that is--in its total analysis--blatantly abhorrent (a sort of argument ad absurdum can easily be made against it).  

I agree with you in that we don't know where to draw line which shows if the good is worth committing immoral acts. However, I don't think your reasons are convincing enough to completely disregard Consequentialism. It seems to me that in general cases and as a long-term solution, it is appropriate to follow natural law. But in certain special cases, natural law seems unconvincing and consequentialist arguments seems more appealing. (e.g. killing one person to save 20 other people ). I have to study more about Consequentialism, I guess there should be philosophers working on this important issue that you mentioned.

RomanJoe wrote:

That's a good question and I've been thinking about it a lot. If the deliberate taking of innocent human life (innocent in the sense of not immediately hostile--i.e. you aren't taking human life to defend your own) is intrinsically evil, then why should this only apply to lives other than ourselves? Do we not qualify as innocent human beings? Is not suicide a deliberate taking of a human life? I guess one could argue that the difference between suicide and the murder of an innocent other is that the former involves a degree of consent while the latter does not. But surely we can't throw morality underneath the consent standard. If this was the end-story of a moral worldview then suicide cults and cases like consensual cannibalism (a la Armin Miewes) would not really be wrong. But perhaps, one could argue, such cases are wrong because they don't result in a greater good, a positive consequence. However, this would just bring us back to consequentialism, a moral system that casts the net too large, that can easily entail the absurd and the horrid. 

 

I think we should not conflate issues by adding cannibalism to murder. I think your question can be stated better in this way: If consent are given, is it permissible to take life of an innocent human being?
I think the problem with suicide (ignoring a person's duty to his family, friends and society) is that we value both autonomy and life with all its pleasures and happiness. When someone commits suicide we are deeply affected because we believe that they are missing the goodness of life. 
In the case of mass suicide or the murder by Armin Miewes, I think we need to be more careful. I recently watched a video on suicide and it was saying that  most people who commit suicide actually are suffering from mental issues so that the time of suicide they unknowingly think they want to end their life where in fact if provided with appropriate mental help, they would change their mind. So in the case of mass suicide or the victim of Armin Miewes, we are not sure if they actually wanted to die. 

Having said that, if someone have sound and valid reasons to end their life, they are not committing an immoral act against themselves. They might be doing wrong to society and their family but nothing beyond these. In this way it does not seem that they are committing a grave immoral act and therefore they should be given the permission to end their life. (Although I have to add it is truly heart-breaking to see someone in such a terrible condition that made him/her want to end his/her life) 

Note: You can watch the video here.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uIdZGvUXc58

Last edited by nojoum (8/11/2017 7:22 am)

RomanJoe wrote:

[
Wouldn't this just be a non-consequentialist approach though? I mean the consequentialist's standard of good and bad is governed, ultimately, by the consequences that follow an action. But, if the consequentialist admits that certain acts are just so wrong that no positive consequences could justify them (e.g. euthanizing the disabled and diseased to increase the overall healthiness of the human race for generations to come) then he is operating with the non-consequentialist's conception of good and bad--namely, one that says consequences don't necessarily determine the moral status of an action, that some things are wrong (and I suppose we could say right) regardless of their consequences.

Well regardless of what you want to call them, I'm not simply buying a pure natural law or a pure consequentialism conception of morality. To me both of them have limitations. Besides, having a few exceptions does not seem to entail pure non-consequentialism. (considering you can apply consequentialist approach in certain other cases)

RomanJoe wrote:

 
And I guess this is the heart of the issue: can there be valid reasons to kill oneself? This is why I bring up consequentialism--it applies to the organ donor case as well as the typical euthanasia patient. Do the positive consequences justify the killing oneself? What would these consequences be? Perhaps alleviation of pain, both psychological and/or physical. Right now, with the current debate over euthanasia, is whether or not physical suffering can justify euthanasia/assisted suicide. Of course you can alleviate suffering with the use of painkillers and prolonged treatment. So we need to ask ourselves, is suicide an acceptable alternative to basic pain relievers? 
 

 I think you are right in stating this to be the heart of issue. I think the issue of suicide is a bit complicated because it is hard to know beforehand if the reasons are justified. But in the case of Euthanasia for terminally-ill patients, I dont see why we should not have euthanasia. I don't see why a human being should go through prolonged suffering and pain. What's the point? What are you trying to achieve? What are you trying to save?

In the case of euthanasia, I would say no offense is committed. The only offenses that might be committed are minor offenses to your family and the society. However, if you are terminally ill, you are probably far from the suitable shape to serve your family and society.
 
With regards to eugenics, I share your view. It does not seem justified because unlike euthanasia you might be ignoring people’s autonomy and this issue seems more sever to me than having disabled people. It is not for granted that disabled people have extremely unsatisfying life. Even if we want to somehow refine the genes, there are more moral and humane ways to do this. You have far better alternatives to achieve same results. These are some of the possibilities; preventing them from marrying, preventing them having children, allowing them to procreate but aborting the defected fetus and maybe some other options which I could not think of or technology advancement would allow in future (for example being able to modify the sperms and eggs so that the child does not inherit the disabilities). As you see we have a range of less problematic choices and we don’t need to resort killing them. But this is not the end of story, to me it seems that unlike euthanasia, it’s not clear that the lives of disabled people are less valuable. At least we need some statistics to see which kind of disabilities result in overwhelmingly unsatisfying life. I also think that in this case if these people are willing to live through their difficult life, they would be extremely doubtful to have children who go through the same misery as them. So maybe we do not even need to interfere or maybe only interfere in the very extreme cases which I think should statistically small. I think through the example we somehow recovered two standards to regulate consequentialism, necessity (or in another words the choices available) and value. We need to be extremely careful and correctly evaluate the gravity of situation, the possible choices, and how much value we would recover by resorting to consequentialism. I think to abuse consequentialism in every small case is a recipe for disaster.


BTW: I'm really a noobie here (just casually interested in practical philosophy). I think people with background in philosophy are far more qualified than me to discuss these crucial, sensitive and complex issues.

Last edited by nojoum (8/12/2017 1:15 pm)