On morality: Death vs extreme suffering

[Edwardo Piet]

I was thinking about questions like all other things being equal...which is worse, 2 people dying instantly and completely painlessly? Or 1 person dying in intense prolonged pain (however long that it could be worse than 2 people, if that's possible?)?
Or 10 completely painless deaths vs 1 or 2 really really unimaginably unbearable ones, for example? Etc, etc, etc.

Ultimately - which is most important - saving lives, or limiting suffering?

I would say it's all rather vague and if I was ever personally in a situation when I had to make a decision like this...HOWEVER confident I was - I would do nothing. Because it's not up to me to make such a decision..

But yes thoughts on ultimately what do you think is most important, limiting suffering (however intense, more intense the more important to limit of course) or saving lives?
And thoughts on euthanasia for example?

And it's also important how LONG. An extremely painful death that only lasts a second (or even a minute) is not half as bad as if it's extremely prolonged. Or if we're just talking about a lifetime of torture for example.
The thing is, if it's about simply the suffering... assuming the people do not die together, all other things being equal: each person INDIVIDUALLY suffers the same ON AVERAGE......so ultimately is it really about the suffering and how bad it is and how long it lasts....or is it more about the amount of deaths - or HOW MANY people suffer?

How do you compare these things? It's not exactly mathematics. It's about empathy and human feelings...all options are horrible here. Which is why - if I was in a position of power. I may just do nothing because I'm not capable of making such an important decision, I'm not sure ANYONE is. Would have to have a lot of fucking conceit I think..

Thoughts?

P.S: I personally, really love my life and adore living and I would obviously hate for it to end. But I personally think the fear of 'death' is kind of exaggerated because I'd much prefer to simply 'stop living' than to experience for instance: a life time of suffering and torture.

I mean which is worse, an absolutely horrible life, or no life? Of course the reason you often don't get up EVEN when it gets horrible. Is it may not stay that way, and the survival instinct, etc.

But I'm sure there are very many situations one could live in, when u'd be better off dead. Ouch :S I think anyway.

EvF

[lilphil1989]

My initial thought was that I'd rather have many people die painlessly that see one suffering a horrible death.

But what if i didn't have to watch? I don't think seeing someone die horribly and just knowing it's happened are even close.

So if i didn't have to watch I guess I'd choose the small amount of people to die horribly over the many dying painlessly.
This is quite selfish I guess, but I don't think I could stomach seeing someone tortured/killed slowly.

But like you, I think if it was a situation where one would happen and I had the option of intervening to prevent it, but cause the other, I don't think I could.


As for euthenasia, I think if the person, for example has a condition that causes chronic pain, they should definitely have the right to end their life. But if they were immobile, I don't think it would be right to ask, for example, a doctor to kill them. But a friend who agrees with their decision shouldn't be penalised by law, I think.
But what if an immobile person with chronic pain wanted to die, and they had no family or friends?
I don't really have an answer to that... instinctively I feel they should have the same right, but I don't think anyone should be made to excercise that right for them. Hmm.... any ideas?

Really, I think if someone wants to die, of course they have the right to and anyone assisting them shouldn't be punished.
Although this doesn't factor in considerations of mental illness, what if someone wants to die now, but with treatmeant, won't in the future?


Interesting, if slightly morbid topic!

[Tiberius]

They key here is that both scenarios end with death, which as all rational people know is the end of life; nothing beyond it etc. If the preservation of life is out the window (given these people are already going to die) then I would choose to end the lives of the many quickly and painlessly than to have the lives of the few suffer.

[Edwardo Piet]

I personally would hope that witnessing it wouldn't effect my decision. It very probably would, although I don't think it should.

Whether I witness someone suffering an awful lot or not - either way they suffered the same. That wouldn't effect how bad it was for them..

But as you help me understand - it's easier said than done. Witnessing it would probably influence you whether it should or not.

I'd say my views on euthanasia are more or less the same..

On about the topic being morbid...well if I can't discuss it here and now, then where/when can I?

If it's interesting and worth the discussion I'll talk about it. I'm very good at compartmentalizing in regards to this I say. Perhaps because I am absolutely terrible at visualization. So it also means I kind of never get "disgusted" by anything someone says. Shocked yes. Disgusted no.

Sorry to perhaps digress a bit there - on my own topic. But anyone of course is still welcome to respond to the OP, what you said Phil, or anything else relevant in this post too.

EvF

EDIT: @ Adrian. Yeah the thing is that death isn't bad once you've died. It's nothing. No good, no bad. And pain and suffering on the other hand, can be very very bad (and then some). So I agree with you there based on that - but I still don't think I'd be capable to make such a big decision and carry it out if given a choice...doesn't feel right.

Perhaps I'd TRY and make a decision - whether I'd be able to follow through is another matter. I'd probably hesitate for so long it would be too late anyway. I wouldn't want to panic and make the wrong decision you see.. It would be an immensely big (basically because of the emotions) decision.


Each person (all other things being equal) on average would suffer the same, individually - except the one person who suffered an awful, awful lot. So since the quantity of people doesn't make any one person suffer any more, I see where you are coming from.

[fr0d0]

It is, for example, generally and universally, ok to divert a train from hitting 5 people if there is a person on the other line?

It is not ok to push a fat man off a bridge to stop the train and save the people?

Sorry - just made me think of those

My Mum always taught me to prevent suffering at all cost! Kill a bug rather than let it suffer.

Depressed, very depressed people consider it better to die than live. For them there's only hope that things will get better. Things may well do but the pain of the moment is what usually focuses the mind and it can be impossible to envisage happy times.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Evidence of faith.

You seem to be asking; "Can it be argued that the ends justify the means?"

An egoist,utilitarian and moral relativist,my position is "Yes of course". This is also how the world actually operates in reality. Kill one to save 1000, or 20, or 5 or 2? Yes. Allow one die slowly in agony to save others? Yes. (although I'm not sure how I'd feel if I was the one )

On a societal, level I believe the guiding principle should be "the greatest good for the greatest number". That the individual is of limited or no importance to society as a whole. This position is purely pragmatic. I see it as the best way to ensure the survival of the species.However,I may be mistaken. This my opinion,not the premise for an argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you are saying that you think it's more about saving the greatest number of lives, than preventing the greatest amount of suffering? If I understand you correctly.

I don't think I'd ever be able to make these decisions though. Although I do find them to be interesting moral dilemmas to think about..and I'd HOPE to be able to make a right decision. I just don't think that I'd necessarily have any way of being even more LIKELY on the right track.

Because I just find the whole, as I phrased it above; 'saving the greatest number of lives' Vs 'preventing the greatest amount of suffering' to be extremely difficult.

Who am I to decide?

I just find it an interesting discussion over what I think to be an important (whether it's a decision possible to truly manage or not) moral dilemma(s), anyway.

Hmm.

Thoughts?

EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So you are saying that you think it's more about saving the greatest number of lives, than preventing the greatest amount of suffering? If I understand you correctly.


EvF

Yes.

Addendum (Sunday May 10) In case I misunderstood or expressed myself poorly:: I support voluntary euthanasia. My argument is NOT "life is sacred"
or "life at all costs". My position is that if I had a choice between saving the life of one person or easing the suffering of another,as a broad general principle,I would advocate saving a life. HOWEVER,a moral relativist, I assert that ultimately each case needs to be decided on its own merits.

[Giff]

I agree with padraic, it's better to save many people then one, if you had to choose. Even though it result that one person will suffer a painful death. Hard choice but that's what I think.

I would personally be willing to die a painful death to save people from death, no matter if they would suffer or not.

[Edwardo Piet]

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