Interesting. What about a painless death Vs a lifetime of suffering? And then TWO painless deaths vs a whole lifetime of suffering (a LOT of suffering) and then death?
I find these sort of decisions very difficult. And I think it's like making a choice between two really really bad options..
I find the topic to be interesting..it just came up in conversation @ secularchat.com a few days ago..
Suffering Vs absence of living. And fewer deaths with suffering Vs MORE deaths without any suffering at all.
It seems to me that Giff and Padriac differ to Adrian.. (unless I have understood incorrectly? Seems at least relatively straight forward there to me, the difference(s) that is).
I myself, I think, am at least leaning MORE towards Adrian's position - although something still doesn't 'feel right'.
Although I wouldn't expect it to!!
But I think since in both situations, since there is death anyway (as Adrian says) - when it comes down to it it is about the amount of suffering for me - and not preserving lives. Because once they are gone they won't feel any pain anyway. And I think it would be better for the greater number of people to simply no longer go on living (and die painlessly that is) - than for the fewer number of people to go on having absolutely horrific lives till death (or to simply suffer an absolutely horrific death.)
But if it actually came to making a decision, as I have said, I am sure I would think "Who am I to make such a decision?" and would very probably take no action at all (I think).
Besides, the emotions could effect my decision making. And I could also, basically, panic in such a situation. And panic always effects decision making.
That's in practical terms - if it actually came to making such a decision.
EvF
I find these sort of decisions very difficult. And I think it's like making a choice between two really really bad options..
I find the topic to be interesting..it just came up in conversation @ secularchat.com a few days ago..
Suffering Vs absence of living. And fewer deaths with suffering Vs MORE deaths without any suffering at all.
It seems to me that Giff and Padriac differ to Adrian.. (unless I have understood incorrectly? Seems at least relatively straight forward there to me, the difference(s) that is).
I myself, I think, am at least leaning MORE towards Adrian's position - although something still doesn't 'feel right'.
Although I wouldn't expect it to!!
But I think since in both situations, since there is death anyway (as Adrian says) - when it comes down to it it is about the amount of suffering for me - and not preserving lives. Because once they are gone they won't feel any pain anyway. And I think it would be better for the greater number of people to simply no longer go on living (and die painlessly that is) - than for the fewer number of people to go on having absolutely horrific lives till death (or to simply suffer an absolutely horrific death.)
But if it actually came to making a decision, as I have said, I am sure I would think "Who am I to make such a decision?" and would very probably take no action at all (I think).
Besides, the emotions could effect my decision making. And I could also, basically, panic in such a situation. And panic always effects decision making.
That's in practical terms - if it actually came to making such a decision.
EvF
