Is this life worth living? Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo9QecE40-c&t=1s

Im curious if anyone can explain why everyone in this situation wouldn't be better off by just popping this kid with with a syringe full of morphine and letting letting him drift away peacefully. Why is keeping him alive and taking care of him the better or more loving thing to do?

EDIT: now that i think of it, im interested in both the “yea’s” and the ”nay’s”. I know theres got to be someone who thinks it really would be better to put the boy out of his misery. What do you guys think?

Short version: Because murder is murder, no matter how you dress it up. A clear conscience is worth it, to the compassionate.

I find the question deeply troubling, but rather than rant and sling moral condemnations at you, I'll offer, instead, better thought out moral answers. Though it pains me to dignify the proposal by responding, you're also one that I think would seriously consider what I have to say on the matter (especially since you've all but said you want dissenting opinions as well), so, here you go.

Because eons ago, a certain tribe of apes was being pursued, yet again, by a large cat. They made for the trees, knowing the cat couldn't climb after them. An infant had a limp, and was going to be yet another casualty that allowed the rest to make it. one of them decided they were tired of seeing the cat kill more of their number- began throwing rocks, sticks, making lots of noise. The rest soon joined in, and they drove off the cat, successfully saving the lame one. The decision that all were worth fighting for was effectively the dawn of our species.

Because current fossil evidence shows that even Neanderthal cared for their sick, their elderly, their lame/"weak".

Because we did not get this far by abandoning concepts like "love", "kindness", "compassion", just as soon as they're inconvenient. We do not kill each other simply for being "wrong". We are not pigeons; we do not scatter in order to minimize casualties, we fight to prevent them.

Because despite what modern life and capitalism has convinced us of, that is not who we are as a people, as a species. We are a social species, and what you propose runs counter to our strongest instincts, and despite what ills exist within our society, the fact remains that this still guides much of our better efforts.

Our very nature, our TRUE nature, runs counter to such a proposal.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- and again, as necessary- We did not get this far by throwing our own to the wolves, or eating each other.

You ask how they wouldn't be better off, I counter: How would they? How would they actually be better off? Your phrasing implies some benefit to be had, and frankly, I don't see any. None of the people in this story stand to gain anything by willfully ending the kid; His family very much appears to be managing just fine, even happily. Whatever it costs them to take care of him, they're clearly fine with it, and don't consider him a burden. For them, their love for their own child outweighs any material gain to be had by his death. You say, "put him out of his misery"... I don't see it. He is not suffering, and in fact seems pretty happy in his families care, and indeed they do take very good care of him. Who's "misery" does his death end, than?


(I begin to question if I'm even capable of short posts???)

I can't see the video at the moment, but I'll take a punt at the overall theme -

Currently in Australia "assisted dying" is mostly illegal*.

It has been raised multiple times in parliament, and (narrowly) rejected each time.

I am hoping it gets through in an accessible fashion sooner rather than later, as I am rather tired of watching people die (or rather, live) with no quality of life whatsoever.


*The rules vary by state and change from time to time, but by and large, it's not an option.

If I have incorrectly guessed the theme of the discussion - someone please give me a cliff-notes version of the video.

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: Short version: Because murder is murder, no matter how you dress it up. A clear conscience is worth it, to the compassionate.

In anticipation of the length of what follows im going to skip the exploration into you insistence on clear-cut, black-and white morality (though i have a bit of the same tendency) and forgo the topic of when compassion itself motivates euthanasia....as it sometimes does. I will concede the child himself may not want to die and as long as this is the case, it would be murder to take that choice away. Since he's no longer in the womb, we cant allow him to be murdered by his parents; that would be wrong. Oh and im not denouncing abortion btw, im cool with abortion. I actually think it should be legal until the child has started paying his or her own bills.

I find the question deeply troubling,

Camu found it to be the only question left unanswered, philosophically speaking.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/#SuiResAbs

but rather than rant and sling moral condemnations at you,

Hmmmmm, lets see how long that lasts...

I'll offer, instead, better thought out moral answers. Though it pains me to dignify the proposal by responding,

One sentence! Lol.. You clearly stated your intention to withhold moral condemnation of me and then managed all of one sentence before underhandedly (which is different from “subtly”) impinging my moral character... or the lack of morality in my “proposal”. I admit thats substantial progress compared to the you who singed up a year or so ago (he would not have even been aware that he was placing himself on a moral pedestal) so please believe that im only being partly sarcastic when i say “good job!” In a couple more years you might be able to have a conversation with someone who never has a clue how much better than them you are. Why, they might even think youre just another cool, friendly person exploring ideas with them here at TOTJO.

you're also one that I think would seriously consider what I have to say on the matter (especially since you've all but said you want dissenting opinions as well), so, here you go.

On this we can agree, yes. Im genuinely here to ask what i think is one of the most important questions of the human experience and im hoping for serious, useful answers.
While i wouldnt say theres anything to worry about in my particular case, id like to encourage you to be especially careful and thoughtful with people who broach the topic of suicide: their motives may run deeper than you realize.

Because eons ago, a certain tribe of apes was being pursued, yet again, by a large cat. They made for the trees, knowing the cat couldn't climb after them. An infant had a limp, and was going to be yet another casualty that allowed the rest to make it. one of them decided they were tired of seeing the cat kill more of their number- began throwing rocks, sticks, making lots of noise. The rest soon joined in, and they drove off the cat, successfully saving the lame one. The decision that all were worth fighting for was effectively the dawn of our species.

I have been interested in both human evolution and general primate behavior for years and your hypothesis on the crucial step in the development - no, the very dawn of the human species
is..... completely new to me. If im being honest it sounds like a story you just made up to make a point. Can you cite a source, please?

Because current fossil evidence shows that even Neanderthal cared for their sick, their elderly, their lame/"weak".

Fossil evidence show us a few cases of neanderthals with injuries being supported by others, true. There is not nearly enough evidence to make the sweeping pronouncement that “Neanderthal cared for their sick, their elderly, their lame/"weak"” in this context. We dont know what percentage of “elderly, lame/weak” they “cared for” or why or to what extent. Maybe neanderthals invented the first hospital and just took in everyone who wasn't feeling well.... but maybe it was only that on group and maybe they only looked after the chieftains family that one single time and maybe that was only because he was going to kill them if they didnt?

Because we did not get this far by abandoning concepts like "love", "kindness", "compassion", just as soon as they're inconvenient.

Respectfully, you dont come across as any of these things when you speak to me so maybe....yea, we did?

We do not kill each other simply for being "wrong".

We dont? Are you telling me how the world is or how you think it should be? I seem to have the impression humans do and always have killed each other in droves for all kinds of (what i consider to be) stupid reasons, most of them some or other variation of being “wrong”.

We are not pigeons; we do not scatter in order to minimize casualties, we fight to prevent them.

I can also agree that we are not pigeons. I reckon that other bit is pretty contextual.

Because despite what modern life and capitalism has convinced us of,

He typed on his own personal technological marvel from the security of a modern, capitalist society replete with the rule of law (so safe that he insists theres no reason for people to own guns!) medicine, electricity, running water, automobiles, roads, and highways, and a coffee shop on every other corner where he can meet up to spend money, share memes, and enjoy the luxury of the modern world with his radical anti-capitalist, latte-loving friends!

that is not who we are as a people, as a species.

What “we are as a people, as a species” is COMPLICATED.

We are a social species, and what you propose

This is important for you, personally; i havent proposed anything. I have asked a philosophical question. You assumed a proposal and have been talking down to me based on your assumption. Why might this bit of information be important to you, personally? Hmmmm

....runs counter to our strongest instincts, and despite what ills exist within our society, the fact remains that this still guides much of our better efforts.

If those “ills” still exist in our society then maybe theyre somehow related to those “strongest instincts” you mentioned?

Our very nature, our TRUE nature, runs counter to such a proposal.

It seems youre picking the happy, fluffy part (the part that you like) of our “TRUE nature” and claiming thats all there is. Like all that mean, icky part is just... i dunno, capitalist brainwashing or something lol. If you can gloss over the darkness of “human nature” then you can gloss over the darkness of your own nature. This is useful, though, as it will allow you to always feel superior to those around you....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- and again, as necessary- We did not get this far by throwing our own to the wolves, or eating each other.

Maybe not literal wolves but now that you mention it, both cannibalism and human sacrifice have a pretty solid place in our history. They dont happen in capitalist societies so it feels like they never happened anywhere but a serious internet query will reveal a world of hard truths for you...maybe start with the Mayans - i know they weren't the evil white cis hetero-patriarchal capitalists that constitutes all the worlds “true evil” but MAN did they really get into the human sacrifice gig.
As for cannibalism...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/02/cannibalism-common-natural-history-bill-schutt/

You ask how they wouldn't be better off,

I did ask, and you are apparently trying to both to present an answer and also refuse to answer lol

I counter: How would they? How would they actually be better off? Your phrasing implies some benefit to be had, and frankly, I don't see any. None of the people in this story stand to gain anything by willfully ending the kid; His family very much appears to be managing just fine, even happily. Whatever it costs them to take care of him, they're clearly fine with it, and don't consider him a burden. For them, their love for their own child outweighs any material gain to be had by his death. You say, "put him out of his misery"... I don't see it. He is not suffering, and in fact seems pretty happy in his families care, and indeed they do take very good care of him. Who's "misery" does his death end, than?

I see the world through the biases of my own cognitive filters so please dont think im trying to say i am above biases when i say this but your assessment is another example of that desire you have to embrace the “fluffy” parts of out “TRUE nature” while disregarding those other, darker aspects. In the video that i watched, the father said multiple times how disappointed he was that his son would never be able to play football... or anything, for that matter.
In the video that i saw, the dad explained right off the bat how much it hurt him that he had a boy he could never see achieve anything. He spoke of football games or school plays but the larger point is basic life accomplishment. He told us the child is constantly self-harming: bashing his own face into the floor and banging his legs into his wheel chair. He beats himself bloody and bruised on a regular basis. He has normal intelligence but inhabits a totally helpless body. He sees and understands what “normal” life is and that he will forever be denied access to it. Maybe im making unjustified assumptions about myself but i am seriously struggling with whether i would want to continue living if i were in that situation. Maybe i would be grateful for whatever life i had.... but maybe i would rather the nothingness of oblivion.

Also, *then, not “than”. And youre a writer, right? So, wouldn’t it benefit you to be able to imagine a wide range of motives, emotions, and backstories for your characters? How will you villains ever be compelling or frightening? How will your heroes ever be truly heroic if all they ever defeat are one dimensional cliches?



(I begin to question if I'm even capable of short posts???
)[/quote]

I can relate to this.

JamesSand wrote: I can't see the video at the moment, but I'll take a punt at the overall theme -

Currently in Australia "assisted dying" is mostly illegal*.

It has been raised multiple times in parliament, and (narrowly) rejected each time.

I am hoping it gets through in an accessible fashion sooner rather than later, as I am rather tired of watching people die (or rather, live) with no quality of life whatsoever.


*The rules vary by state and change from time to time, but by and large, it's not an option.

If I have incorrectly guessed the theme of the discussion - someone please give me a cliff-notes version of the video.

Close enough. In other words, its against the law so just deal with it lol
Looks like thats as good an answer as im going to get.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: Short version: Because murder is murder, no matter how you dress it up. A clear conscience is worth it, to the compassionate.

In anticipation of the length of what follows im going to skip the exploration into you insistence on clear-cut, black-and white morality (though i have a bit of the same tendency) and forgo the topic of when compassion itself motivates euthanasia....as it sometimes does. I will concede the child himself may not want to die and as long as this is the case, it would be murder to take that choice away. Since he's no longer in the womb, we cant allow him to be murdered by his parents; that would be wrong. Oh and im not denouncing abortion btw, im cool with abortion. I actually think it should be legal until the child has started paying his or her own bills.

I find the question deeply troubling,

Camu found it to be the only question left unanswered, philosophically speaking.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/#SuiResAbs

but rather than rant and sling moral condemnations at you,

Hmmmmm, lets see how long that lasts...

I'll offer, instead, better thought out moral answers. Though it pains me to dignify the proposal by responding,

One sentence! Lol.. You clearly stated your intention to withhold moral condemnation of me and then managed all of one sentence before underhandedly (which is different from “subtly”) impinging my moral character... or the lack of morality in my “proposal”. I admit thats substantial progress compared to the you who singed up a year or so ago (he would not have even been aware that he was placing himself on a moral pedestal) so please believe that im only being partly sarcastic when i say “good job!” In a couple more years you might be able to have a conversation with someone who never has a clue how much better than them you are. Why, they might even think youre just another cool, friendly person exploring ideas with them here at TOTJO.

you're also one that I think would seriously consider what I have to say on the matter (especially since you've all but said you want dissenting opinions as well), so, here you go.

On this we can agree, yes. Im genuinely here to ask what i think is one of the most important questions of the human experience and im hoping for serious, useful answers.
While i wouldnt say theres anything to worry about in my particular case, id like to encourage you to be especially careful and thoughtful with people who broach the topic of suicide: their motives may run deeper than you realize.

Because eons ago, a certain tribe of apes was being pursued, yet again, by a large cat. They made for the trees, knowing the cat couldn't climb after them. An infant had a limp, and was going to be yet another casualty that allowed the rest to make it. one of them decided they were tired of seeing the cat kill more of their number- began throwing rocks, sticks, making lots of noise. The rest soon joined in, and they drove off the cat, successfully saving the lame one. The decision that all were worth fighting for was effectively the dawn of our species.

I have been interested in both human evolution and general primate behavior for years and your hypothesis on the crucial step in the development - no, the very dawn of the human species
is..... completely new to me. If im being honest it sounds like a story you just made up to make a point. Can you cite a source, please?

Because current fossil evidence shows that even Neanderthal cared for their sick, their elderly, their lame/"weak".

Fossil evidence show us a few cases of neanderthals with injuries being supported by others, true. There is not nearly enough evidence to make the sweeping pronouncement that “Neanderthal cared for their sick, their elderly, their lame/"weak"” in this context. We dont know what percentage of “elderly, lame/weak” they “cared for” or why or to what extent. Maybe neanderthals invented the first hospital and just took in everyone who wasn't feeling well.... but maybe it was only that on group and maybe they only looked after the chieftains family that one single time and maybe that was only because he was going to kill them if they didnt?

Because we did not get this far by abandoning concepts like "love", "kindness", "compassion", just as soon as they're inconvenient.

Respectfully, you dont come across as any of these things when you speak to me so maybe....yea, we did?

We do not kill each other simply for being "wrong".

We dont? Are you telling me how the world is or how you think it should be? Seem to have this impression humans have killed each other for all kinds of (what i consider to be) stupid reasons, most of them some or other variation of being “wrong”.

We are not pigeons; we do not scatter in order to minimize casualties, we fight to prevent them.

I can also agree that we are not pigeons. I reckon that other bit is pretty contextual.

Because despite what modern life and capitalism has convinced us of,

He typed on his own personal technological marvel from the security of a modern, capitalist society replete with the rule of law (so safe that he insists theres no reason for people to own guns!) medicine, electricity, running water, automobiles, roads, and highways, and a coffee shop on every other corner where he can meet up to spend money, share memes, and enjoy the luxury of the modern world with his radical anti-capitalist, latte-loving friends!

that is not who we are as a people, as a species.

What “we are as a people, as a species” is COMPLICATED.

We are a social species, and what you propose

This is important for you, personally; i havent proposed anything. I have asked a philosophical question. You assumed a proposal and have been talking down to me based on your assumption. Why might this bit of information be important to you, personally? Hmmmm

....runs counter to our strongest instincts, and despite what ills exist within our society, the fact remains that this still guides much of our better efforts.

If those “ills” still exist in our society then maybe theyre somehow related to those “strongest instincts” you mentioned?

Our very nature, our TRUE nature, runs counter to such a proposal.

It seems youre picking the happy, fluffy part (the part that you like) of our “TRUE nature” and claiming thats all there is. Like all that mean, icky part is just... i dunno, capitalist brainwashing or something lol. If you can gloss over the darkness of “human nature” then you can gloss over the darkness of your own nature. This is useful, though, as it will allow you to always feel superior to those around you....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- and again, as necessary- We did not get this far by throwing our own to the wolves, or eating each other.

Maybe not literal wolves but now that you mention it, both cannibalism and human sacrifice have a pretty solid place in our history. They dont happen in capitalist societies so it feels like they never happened anywhere but a serious internet query will reveal a world of hard truths for you...maybe start with the Mayans - i know they weren't the evil white cis hetero-patriarchal capitalists that constitutes all the worlds “true evil” but MAN did they really get into the human sacrifice gig.
As for cannibalism...
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/02/cannibalism-common-natural-history-bill-schutt/

You ask how they wouldn't be better off,

I did ask, and you are apparently trying to both to present an answer and also refuse to answer lol

I counter: How would they? How would they actually be better off? Your phrasing implies some benefit to be had, and frankly, I don't see any. None of the people in this story stand to gain anything by willfully ending the kid; His family very much appears to be managing just fine, even happily. Whatever it costs them to take care of him, they're clearly fine with it, and don't consider him a burden. For them, their love for their own child outweighs any material gain to be had by his death. You say, "put him out of his misery"... I don't see it. He is not suffering, and in fact seems pretty happy in his families care, and indeed they do take very good care of him. Who's "misery" does his death end, than?

I see the world through the biases of my own cognitive filters so please dont think im trying to say i am above biases when i say this but your assessment is another example of that desire you have to embrace the “fluffy” parts of out “TRUE nature” while disregarding those other, darker aspects. In the video that i watched, the father said multiple times how disappointed he was that his son would never be able to play football... or anything, for that matter.
In the video that i saw, the dad explained right off the bat how much it hurt him that he had a boy he could never see achieve anything. He spoke of football games or school plays but the larger point is basic life accomplishment. He told us the child is constantly self-harming: bashing his own face into the floor and banging his legs into his wheel chair. He beats himself bloody and bruised on a regular basis. He has normal intelligence but inhabits a totally helpless body. He sees and understands what “normal” life is and that he will forever be denied access to it. Maybe im making unjustified assumptions about myself but i am seriously struggling with whether i would want to continue living if i were in that situation. Maybe i would be grateful for whatever life i had.... but maybe i would rather the nothingness of oblivion.

Also, *then, not “than”. And youre a writer, right? So, wouldn’t it benefit you to be able to imagine a wide range of motives, emotions, and backstories for your characters? How will you villains ever be compelling or frightening? How will your heroes ever be truly heroic if all they ever defeat are one dimensional cliches?



(I begin to question if I'm even capable of short posts???
)

I can relate to this.[/quote]

well, thanks for taking the time to read my response, anyway. There, short post, see, I can do that.

in light of your response, I feel I should apologize- I still don't agree with the question itself, but I mis-characterized the context and intent of it, and in my own misunderstanding, came across as hostile, despite not wanting to do that.

I'm also sorry nobody else got involved, I'm rather surprised at that. More responses would have been much better for the discussion, I'm sure.

I tend not to think like a writer, when I'm here, but you're suggestion regarding writing isn't wrong! Perhaps my debate/discussion skills here would benefit by not leaning so hard into moralistic thinking, and thinking more creatively?

That was a mature and classy reply. Lets agree to this: when we inevitably disagree on topics lets both do our best not to be a smug assholes - with the understanding that “do our best” doesnt mean we’ll always succeed, lol.

You were making a point about morality being linked to evolution and i while don't feel that addresses this specific topic, i do agree with the basic thesis that morality has played a significant role in our evolution. I tend to think the underpinnings of morality are universal among humans (not so much for quasars or asteroids or even boa-constrictors) and indispensable to human society, even if the specific cultural expressions of morality vary with time and geography. So, i think youre on to something important, there.

Edit again - as for what you “should” do as a writer or thinker: not my place to tell anyone that lol i will say i use the game “if i had to make up as good a story as i can to justify or explain this, what would it be?” a lot and it has helped me see angles and perspectives over the years that i never would have thought of, otherwise.

From a personal point of view if I had the choice I would not like to live with intelligence but no way of communicating outside of what seems as hurting myself because I had no control as such over a body I was trapped in.
Thats one way of looking at such a life.
I dont see it as living but existing.
That may seem harsh

Some may see value in life no matter how it is lived. I guess I have a hard time understanding the value in life when its lived without growth, without the ability to communicate, maybe you can feel, understand but part of me would hope not because from personal opinion that would seem a really hard unfair option.

I have known someone raise a child who was trapped inside a body and thats kind of how it seemed to me. They knew the child would die young and it raises so many questions. They couldnt communicate, eat without assistance (feeding tube) they never walked, talked, could barely see .
Is that life? I mean a parent fights for their child no matter what, but do you fight for the child or for your own personal ideas?
Is it worth fighting for a few years?
And your gonna shout yes of cause it is...
But those years are they for you to give?
Its hard because morally everyone has a right to live and there is value in each life, isnt that what we fight for?
But, I dont want my life prolonged if I am unable to communicate and thats okay, my life my choice to fight for a while longer or die with dignity.
Does anyone have the right to make it for another?
Well, I agree with abortion and I would accept the doctors words if I was pregnant and they advised me to abort because the life of the child was not feasible.. No quality of life.
But then you have others who would have the child no matter what.

There are nowadays children, healthy ones that have no quality life... And what do we judge that on anyway? The ability to grow? To maybe self improve, to walk, talk, have friends, to love and be loved?

You touched on assisted suicide and for all that it may go against the Jedi ideal.. It is something I see as a choice that should be open for individuals.
Again to me its quality of life and dying with dignity.

Its a hard question that raises other questions

Now, see, I don't see it that way.

It seems like it's being presented as a discussion on the pros/cons of "death with dignity ", but I just didn't find any such connection between that discussion and the content of the video.

I think it's also, perhaps unavoidably, a forced perspective- the pro side thus far speaks as though the situation was having come to that state, previously knowing a different life, but that's not what happened, one can't suffer the loss of something they've never known. In the case of the film, here, that's everything he's ever known, likely ever will know.

Furthermore, though he does suffer frustration in his efforts to communicate, that's true of most people, especially in our teen years and is not a reliable sign of qol. Not to mention, his ability to communicate and express over time has improved; his family has, with some success, taught him to sign, as an example, and his ability to recognize and interact with his environment improved, even if not radically so. He seems pretty happy, overall, and I think that should be taken into consideration; is he actually suffering?

The care he receives, as well, I think is overlooked, yet very much relevant to assessing his qol.

I think I'll conclude bye admitting maybe I'm also forcing a perspective? I wouldn't want to die, simply for someone else finding the prospect of living, as I do, unacceptable.