UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> Your Thoughs on Euthanasia & Gay W


10/12/05 3:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HOLLYWOOD-MO
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Oct-05
Member Since: 05/30/2003
Posts: 17652
 
Im taking a Philosophy-Ethics course for fun. This isn't really my gig, but I thought it would be interesting so I signed up. What are your thoughts on Gay Williams writings, and his beliefs on Euthanasia?
10/13/05 10:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 13-Oct-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12586
I´m not familiar with it. care to expand abit on his thoughts?
10/15/05 7:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HOLLYWOOD-MO
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 15-Oct-05
Member Since: 05/30/2003
Posts: 17698
Thirdleg, yes that is it. Now he says a lot more as well, that I will put up in a bit. But what do you guys think of this? First let me say, this is my second Philo class I have ever taken, and Philosophy isn't my thing, so obviously you guys can tap me 6 ways to Sunday in an argument. Anyway, I would like to discuss this if possible with all of you. The first error I see is that he makes the assumption that "living" is defined as "good." How can one make such an assumption? Why is living good, any more than dying? This also means that he would define dying as bad, but dying is just as natural as any part of living. Dying is just as natural as a blood clot, and the healing of a wound. If he wants to argue the fact that Euthanasia is "bad" because it is brought about by the assistance of doctors, through unnatural means; then he must also consider the fact that any type of assistance from a doctor, to assist in the prolonging, or healing of the life of a patient, is JUST as un-natural an act as euthanasia. When a doctor provides you with penicillin, or any type of drug, and medicine (especially life resuscitating measures)Gay Williams should consider these acts as un-natural as well, and they go against the grain of natures "intended" course. When a child is born with genetic defects, particularly down syndrome, the physicians are often forced to perform a simple surgery that allows the child to breathe properly, so that it can continue to live. How is this surgery natural in any way? They should allow the child to die, because it was the "intent" of nature, should they not? I want to post his other things too, and he makes some wild jumps and assumptions throughout his case. What do you guys think?
10/19/05 3:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Oct-05 03:23 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12597

I think all arguments that falls back on "nature" is problematic and in some cases even worthless, for the simple reason that you can support virtually anything, from murder to theft by saying "it happens in nature".

 

not to mention it´s a case of the is/ought-fallacy

11/12/05 5:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HOLLYWOOD-MO
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Nov-05
Member Since: 05/30/2003
Posts: 17947
Argh....Ill definitely bring this back...Ive been reluctant. thanks guys

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.