Euthanasia
< Return to subforum
Why don't we forcibly euthanize the mentally handicapped? Those people cost society more than they benefit society.
(No, I don't actually believe this. I'm just asking for the reason that we don't do this.)
By
18Karl |
Dec 23 2014 1:55 PM Dassault Papillon:
cos immoral. Then we should do so to the elderly, and the rich.
"Oi you! Yeah you! How many commies have you shot today"
Dassault Papillon:
Because killing people is pretty much unanimously regarded as a negative thing.
nzlockie:
According to what standard is killing "wrong"?
18Karl:
According to what standard is it "immoral"?
By
admin |
Dec 24 2014 3:42 AM Dassault Papillon:
I can answer this. The standard held by people generally. A species that seeks to destroy itself tends not to survive long, so we kind of end up with creatures that don't ordinarily kill their own species.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin:
True, but overall it is beneficial to the species to eliminate this surplus population.
By
admin |
Dec 24 2014 3:59 AM Dassault Papillon:
It further so happens that most of us don't consider the mentally handicapped to be "surplus population". Of course you are entitled to that opinion though.
Remember when Hitler thought it was beneficial to the species to eliminate the surplus population of Jews he had? That's the sort of line of thinking that most people avoid.
There are very few circumstances in which killing is sometimes viewed as for the greater good that I know of, and all are hot debate topics: when somebody is in major pain and cannot be cured and will die soon, when somebody is a soldier in a war, when it's an unborn infant etc etc. As to why these situations and not mentally disabled, these are somewhat more justifiable and frankly people draw different somewhat-arbitrary lines. But as nzlockie said, it's pretty much unanimous that the mentally handicapped are not merely surplus population.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin:
I do not question their right to exist either. However, I'm saying that there is no societal benefit to their continued existence. Would you agree with this statement?
By
admin |
Dec 24 2014 4:31 AM Dassault Papillon:
Me personally? Of course not. Lots of autistic people, for example, have done amazing things.
It's like saying there's no societal benefit to keeping people in a wheelchair alive since they can't move unaided. One feature being a little bit different or handicapped about a person does not mean they are of no societal benefit. Nobody's perfect.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin:
(Keep in mind I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.)
So do you deny that the cost of supporting mentally disabled people is higher than what they contribute to society?
By
admin |
Dec 24 2014 4:36 AM Dassault Papillon:
I honestly don't know. It's not important to me.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
By
1-up |
Dec 24 2014 10:36 AM Dassault Papillon:
You make your stance from cost-benefit analysis to one of utility; it's slightly confusing. After all are they a commodity/object? If so, what do they offer? Although, ultimately you are placing society against the mentally disabled, and saying they (mentally disabled) offended society in some way since they don't have the mental capacity to not non-agress i.e. they didn't ask to be taken care of. I do submit the objectification and predation of mentally disabled is not uncommon though.
Dunning-Kruger effect.
By
18Karl |
Dec 24 2014 10:40 AM Dassault Papillon:
Immoral to categorical imperatives that evolution put in you for the sake of the survival of your own species.
"Oi you! Yeah you! How many commies have you shot today"
By
1-up |
Dec 24 2014 10:44 AM 18Karl:
Mind rephrasing a bit?
Dunning-Kruger effect.
By
18Karl |
Dec 24 2014 10:48 AM 1-up:
How so? That was clear.
"Oi you! Yeah you! How many commies have you shot today"
By
1-up |
Dec 24 2014 10:57 AM 18Karl:
It was clear insofar as evolution putting something in you. You go from Morality to Evolution being the basis of it to Social Darwinism. Your assertion is a bit preachy speaking to your world view, and not the issue at hand. I do admit I'm fairly lousy at reading between the lines though.
Dunning-Kruger effect.
By
18Karl |
Dec 24 2014 11:00 AM 1-up:
Actually, no. There is a huge difference between believing in Social Darwinism and believing in evolution. And apart from that, my whole comment was not wholly based on evolution, but rather the Kantian Categorical Imperative theory.
"Oi you! Yeah you! How many commies have you shot today"
By
18Karl |
Dec 24 2014 11:02 AM 1-up:
And apart from that, I was asked to "what standards" of morality do I appeal to, and I think I have supported my view that "do not kill" is a categorical imperative in many, if not all.
"Oi you! Yeah you! How many commies have you shot today"
By
1-up |
Dec 24 2014 11:13 AM 18Karl:
I agree, hence my confusion. I can never understand half the things Kant is saying. Mind summing it up for me (his theory)?
Dunning-Kruger effect.