The Discussion Corner

[Harmless]

Oh, I see.

Well of course some things could be wrong regardless of culture or time, but there are some things that should stay with us until the bitter end. For example, love and forgiveness. Might as well keep that around, it hasn't done any harm.

I feel like our current Government (before you ask me why I bring this up hear me out) is currently at a bad position because we are not expanding to new ideals and doctrines. All of the traditional people in Congress (aka 95% of them) all believe that 'guns are terribad and we shouldnt advance with new technology', when in reality you can't just pass strict gun control laws and just expect them to disappear. You've got way too many methods for people to lay their hands on one, legally or illegally. Personally I think we should adapt to the changes in technology rather than ban them. It will suit us much better in the long run.

As for how it will affect our mindset and morality, don't get me wrong, shooting someone is bad. Shooting someone in self defense is a very different story though.

[*Emelia K. Fletcher]

Sometimes I feel like we've purposely avoided clamping down on even defining morality just so we can debate it

[Doram]

Morality as a whole is something that humanity has struggled with since we came down from the trees. There is an eternal struggle between what we want, what is good for us, and what is good for everybody. Those things do not easily line up. As for the details, the differences comes down to a matter of perspective. In the case of capital punishment, from the perspective of someone who has lost a loved one to a serial killer, capital punishment is a good thing. From the perspective of a society that can see no successful way to cure these people, removing them from society in any way is a good thing. To someone who has been shot by random asshats, getting rid of all guns entirely is a good thing.

The worst part is when people confuse other things for morality. Congress, for example, is not acting morally. They are acting greedily. If they were acting morally, they would be trying to solve problems, because that is literally their job. Instead, they are divided between consolidating and growing their power, and a pissing match where they want to prove that one half of them is better than the other. There is a difference between "I am right" and "That action is right" and people confuse that ALL the time. Look at the ultra-crazy Christians. The majority of their arguments boil down to "Some guy wrote 1500 years ago, that my God said things 2000 years ago, and my God's right, thus I am right, thus you are wrong, and I will prove you are wrong by stopping you from doing anything, including possibly killing you, even though I was told twice by my God not to do that stuff." There are so many things wrong with that sentence that I could write about them forever.

Now, I mentioned that Religion needs to be a personal thing, mostly because of issues like this. As a group, we have clearly been led astray. Same goes for Morality. In fact, morality is the REASON that most religions have as much power as they do, much less the structure that they do. Religion has been hamfistedly used to deliver morality to the masses for millennia. We've only partially been successful at delivering morality with government, and that's a really recent thing. Until recently, most religion WAS the government, and in a lot of places it still is. Furthermore, the actual usefulness of religion - defining and guiding our connection to the larger universe and the mysteries of life - needs to be separated out from our morality - defining and guiding our interactions with each other.

Now, morality is valuable to humankind, as is religion, for similar reasons. We need SOME way to agree on how to live together peacefully, and that fairly sterilized form of such rules is called morality. The most important moral question, that NEEDS to be asked, is whether or not any given question is actually a question of morality, and even more importantly - if it is - are we approaching this moral problem with the tools of morality? The tools of morality are judging if something is good or bad. Is any given item or process doing more good than it is doing bad?

Finally, there are issues with dealing with morality. Most important amongst them is this billion year old hind-brain, that we still have, that tells us to do things with this stuff called emotion. Often, these feelings are considered immoral. I see something I want -> I take it = stealing. I don't like someone/something -> I hit them/it = assault and destruction of private property. My parents were nothing but mean to me, and so has everyone else I have met -> everyone I meet must die = serial killer. The real problem here is that we have a tendency to overreact to our emotions (that last one's a beauty). Until we can learn to process and deal properly with our emotions - and I mean every. single. last. one. of. us. - we will never be able to pin down a solid and mutually agreed upon code of morality. The reason I say that is because of concepts like revenge. Revenge is for the powerless. I cannot affect you any other way, so I will do to you what you have done to me. Revenge calls for an eye for an eye. Revenge calls for a lot of things, that ultimately and consistently make things worse. The Middle East, for example, has been carrying out a 5000+ year example of why revenge is stupid. "You took my holy city! I take it back from you!" "No, YOU took MY holy city! I take it back from you!" *grabs an Israeli and Palestinian head, and knocks them together stooge-style* Dumb-asses. Fine. The city is holy. You've been trading it back and forth for thousands of years. You both have equal claim to it. LEARN TO SHARE YOUR TOYS, CHILDREN. Oi.

Now, deciding if a situation or an item is a moral thing or not, can be really hard. Guns, for example. Using a gun to kill an animal for food -> good. Using a gun to kill someone who is trying to kill you -> good. Using a gun to force other people to give you their stuff -> bad. Using a gun to destroy something that isn't yours or kill people for fun -> bad. Thus far religion says killing = bad. Problem is cases 1 and 2 above. Government tries harder, and says using guns for bad actions = bad. Better, but all the conversation seems to be about whether guns themselves are good or bad, instead of whether the actions we take using them are good or bad. Ok, let's take a harder case: abortion. Aborting a baby because the mother will die otherwise -> good? Aborting a baby because you were raped -> good? Aborting a baby because it will make you fat -> bad? Wait. Let's look at that first one again. You are killing someone, right? A baby? that's bad, right? Yes, but the mother was going to die, otherwise, right? Isn't that still killing someone? Yes. Killing is bad, right? Yes, I think. Wait. I'm confused. Who's more important, the mother or the child? Who gets to make that decision? Well, how do you define important? The mother can have more babies, but the baby can't have more lives, I think. Yes, but the mother is going to die, so she can't have more babies. If we let her die, then we stop her from having more babies, so we have technically killed lots of people. Isn't killing lots of people worse than killing one? Yeah, I guess..........

The final problem is that some situations really don't have a wrong or right answer to them. Sometimes all the answers suck. What do we do then? We bomb abortion clinics? Wait. No. *swats Red back into the last paragraph* That isn't solving ANYTHING. *sigh*

So, yeah. There are lots of problems in trying to define a common moral code. What problems do you see?

[lordpat]

So a week has passed, and that was a nice little warm up. Let's start with the real discussions. Now that we got the basis, let's start debating some of problems with morality. And don't worry Doram, we will get there with abortion.

Is euthanasia morally justified? Should it be legal? Why/Why not?

[#4715]

For active euthanasia, I honestly feel that when life has gotten so bad for someone and there is not a single chance of them ever returning to a livable condition, they should be given the choice of euthanasia. I am more unsure what to think about passive euthanasia, because that could potentially make someone's suffering greater before they die.

[MessengerOfDreams]

Other people deciding to take euthanasia is not going to affect me in any way, and does not harm others if handled correctly

[~MP3 Amplifier~]

As soon as I saw the subtitle said "Euthanasia" I was like...oooooooohhh yes I can finally rant about this outside of school. As like basically every other topic out there, I am not decided on a full yes/no as for me it depends on the circumstances.

I'm not going to do a full-blown rant, at least not today anyways, because when I sat my RE exam how many years ago euthanasia was a topic. At this specific point in time, I was actively suicidal so I basically blanked out in the exam and ended up with a B instead of an A* like I was predicted. :/ The whole situation is dependent really on the state of the person. I do agree that it should be an option for people who have been diagnosed with terminal illness and are going to die a painful death over the course of 6 months anyway. To be able to have a quick, less painful option should be something available to them.

HOWEVER, that's taking into account whether or not the person is mentally or emotionally capable of making a decision like that. If they are physically disabled but also have an ill state of mind that might affect their answer, then they are not allowed to speak for themselves I don't think. Thing is, how would you know? And would it make any difference, if the person was predicted to die in 6 months anyway, wouldn't you want to free them of their additional pain as well?

These are the reasons why I think it's good.

But there are so many reasons why I think it's wrong.
For example, if you have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and you decide you don't want euthanasia, that can then make people question- why? Why do you want to continue with life if you're that ill, and you have the option to make things easier for you and potentially easier for your family as they won't have to watch you die slowly? A woman on the news who argued this point worded it much better than me. She was terminally ill, but had a healthy mental state, and she thought euthanasia was a bad thing; she personally wouldn't take that option, and then wondered how people would react. She said it's also, and I agree with this, normalising suicide, making it acceptable. I know I am suicidal, but that doesn't mean I think suicide is right and that it's an answer. And what's worse is, you're putting the responsibility of your death into the hands of someone else, which is a terrible thing in so many ways. As much as I don't want to make this sound like a murder mystery, it's also opening the doors to doctors potentially becoming murderers and being charged with manslaughter if just the slightest part of the process was to go wrong.

Another thing is, as rare as it happens, there are cases where people have been misdiagnosed as being terminally ill, and end up living for much longer than they expected. You wouldn't want to take away that opportunity, surely.

After listing out the good and the bad, I've come to realise I am definitely more against it than for it. I think if the UK was ever to make this legal I would be extremely worried.

[Raz]

I don't like long posts because I suck at them, so I'll make it short. I'm definitely for it. If you have a terminal illness you should be allowed to end it whenever you want. If you don't want to end it early, just enjoy the rest of the life that you have.

[Bogdan]

There was a debate about it in my school, and was horribly disappointed by it. There were supposed to be "pro" and "counter" side, except the "pro" side slightly "surenderred" to the pro one and the arguments weren't really equal, and knowing most people around and the organizers I think this was purely indended (as not only most people are "really religious" (even if they don't follow the basic rules they agree with it by default tsktsktsk), plus various priests being teacher in my school (the organiser also being the wife of a priest)).

OK now my arguments that I would also have loved to slap in those people's faces during that debate. I'm totally supporting euthanasia. Despite being considered "an assisted suicide", I think it does have it's reasons. Think about it, for most of you people probably it's hard to imagine, but I try...picture yourself. You're at a certain age (doesn't always have to be old, can be young aswell), you may have incurable diseases, continious pains and/or you may be paralysed aswell. Now what? Keep living a few more years, in constant pain and you being a pain to others aswell? Whoever may take care of you will have to buy medicine, food (assuming you can eat and not just inject the necesarry proteins, vitamins and so on), wipe your ♥♥♥ (yes really, if you cannot move or hardly do so then you may need diapers, thus buying them), you will surely need periodical medical examination and/or treatment and for what? I'll also assume that most of these people will never let yo alone in the house so would need to hire a caretaker aswell. Here euthanasia will end both your pain and the pain of the others. Now true in some cases the money you may recieve may be bigger than the cost of your care, so it can actually be helpful to others, but again it's your decision, not theirs and I don't know how big the chance is to recieve that much money.

I would also like to point out that euthanasia should not limit itself to people with severe medical conditions. No, first I'd expand it to animals aswell. True it is used, but at least in Romania a hell lot of people are idiots, proof being the several feral dogs out on the street. A while ago, approaching elections, there was an on-going project to catch and euthanise these dogs. People's response? "Hell no!" and it really pisses me off, like really really much. Idiots, after they complained so ♥♥♥♥ much about it, when a solution comes out they suddenly change their minds? People, we cannot host that many dogs, we cannot afford to feed them in the first place and even if we could, it would be a totally waste of money. Furthermore, there are several victims of those dogs, not only to mention that some of them aren't even neutered AND there are a hell lot of people who just feed them "out-of mercy". Also there are several people who adopt dogs to save them from euthanasia and then release them back on the street. JESUS ♥♥♥♥ DAMN IT CHRIST, do you even THINK about your safety and the safety of others before just another dog's one. That dog can later bite, infect or just kill you.

About an year ago a 4-year old boy was killed by feral dogs, and thus initiasing the anti-dog campaign, at first all agreed, until they found out they will kill the dogs, then suddently they tought that risking other people to be killed isn't as important as eventually becoming the first country with more dog population that humans. Luckly, found an article in english about it, here. Not sure if they do give the details that were given around here, but you may make an idea of the gravity of the situation. I've also had a by-the-way discussion about euthanasing dogs and was horribly disappointed about their reaction "JESUS CHRIST BOG, HOW ABOUT YOU EUTHANISE YOURSELF TO BE SAFER AND LEAVE THE POOR DOGS ALONE, HM?". Deeply in my heart I hope they will be at least bitten by a dog to know both the pain of the bite and the anti-rabbies vaccine, or they may refuse vaccines aswell because "they aren't safe". Well, until you know the pain you cannot be sure about it.

As a last thing I want to say (for now), I'd also use euthanasia as a punishment, death sentence. Yes, in US or other countries it may be still avaible, but in Europe it vanished (save for Belarus, but I think it's only in certain condition too). Life sentence is just a retarded way to punish people. Sure let's give them shelter, food and eventually medical care (cannot confirm, but doubt they'll just let them rot in prison), they'll surely feel bad about it mostly. No, I think ecomically it's a waste, plus I think several people in prison cannot be called a true work force, do they? About 3 or more years ago, there was a case about a man who was just released from the prison. His next goal? Get back into it, when asked why, he answered "because it was warmer than my house and I had food there". It's probably way to easy for a "capital" punishment. Let's not just waste resources on them and proceed and kill them, in my opinion it may also discourage people from doing this further. In communist area, here the prisons were hell, where death sentence was considered an escape, there are several films about them, for instance Manusile Rosii (The Red Gloves) descrbies how awful can it get and in those times, people actually feared the prison. Now there is a case about a sort-of-politican and bussiness man George Becali, he isn't smart nor educated at all and he got in prison. Now he complains about how he cannot have TVs and other stuff, he actually got to the point to where several of his relatives purchased various TVs to see if they can meet prison's policy. Ugh, TV in prison? Food, a warm place to sleep? For some people this may be better than life outside it. Seriously, if you want to do serious law enforcement, make the prisons bitter and get the rid of the real threats.
For those who wonder, your homework for today or when you have time is to research on Rodney Alcala. He was found guilty for several crimes and got death sentence. He still wasn't executed and again wasting resources on him, just because "yeah let's keep him alive for a bit". It is said that he still lives for the purpose of finding more of his crimes (how ironically, I watched a documentary about him on Investigation Discovery and as far as I can remember, he was "saved" from death just to go to court and be acused of more crimes).

---

Oh god, took me so much missed MP3's post. Yes perhaps the mental state of the pacient can affect decisions, but what if they will like never recover from that state? Or it may take as long as the "natural" death itself. While euthanasia should be an imediate response and it may need further questioning and debating, it's still the individual's right to accept or decline euthanasia. And while I'm against suicide, I still do believe it's also purely the persons choice and if it does go for it, then it was his/her decision. I'm pro-euthanasia as long as it does have a reason (again picture yourself as the ill person I described at the beginning). If your life is going to end soon anyway and you really really cannot do anything about it (or do nothing at all, ie paralised), then you may opt for a quicker, less painful death. If your condition can be improved or your disease will still give you a decent ammount of time left in which despite the pain you are not a vegetable, then it's not an actual option.

[~MP3 Amplifier~]

I know that if I was the ill person, I would probably want to consider it. But from an outsider's point of view, I'm overall against it, there are more bad things to me than good, bad things that affect the ill person and the people surrounding them as well. I am aware though, that if your state of mind is going to be permanently affected, it really would not make much difference. But I guess the way the law recognises it is that it is still a choice, they have to consider that while they might be saying right now they want to die, what if their state of mind was different? Would their choice be different?