|
|||
The whole argument about euthanasia comes down to an argument about a priori assumptions. When you pin them down, those opposed to it will state that any life is better than no life at all. In essence, there is no fate worse than death. Those on the other side of the issue (such as me) will think that there are indeed fates worse than death, and that death is often preferable. The problem is that by their nature these are not issues people can rationally discuss. I came around to this point of view after long experience and thought, and it's consistent with my position as an atheist. Indeed, this like abortion is susceptible to a meta-question: should this be a collective or individual choice? By its nature, if this is a collective choice then it must be governed by law, which recurses us yet again to a meta-question: should laws be about morality or about order? One theory of law is that it is an attempt to make the people of a nation live good lives, by punishing them for committing evil acts. Thus you outlaw such things as sodomy or looking at porn, or drinking, or gambling, or running around naked in the woods, or indeed anything which the wiser more moral heads think are wrong to do. These things are punished by the power of the state to dissuade people from doing them, for their own good. The other attitude about laws is that laws are intended for purposes of maintaining an orderly state. An act which is broadly believed to be immoral but which does not threaten order should not be illegal though it may be frowned upon, such as for instance visiting prostitutes. These kinds of things are sometimes referred to as "victimless crimes", though that's not the point. It is possible for a victimless crime (such as severe drug addiction) to threaten society. Still, within this view murder should be illegal not because it is "wrong" (though it usually is) but rather because if anyone in the state can indiscriminately kill anyone else then the fabric of society breaks down through fear. We catch and punish murderers because none of us wants to be murdered and because we don't want to go through our lives in fear of being shot at any moment. Equally, rape should be illegal because of its threat to order (the safety and peace of mind of the women of society), not because it is evil (though it is). Within this second view, any sexual act in private between consenting adults should be legal because they do not threaten the fabric of society, even if those acts involve things that would scandalize the neighbors. I don't condemn homosexuality nor am I scandalized by it, but I myself am firmly hetero and have no curiosity about or interest in sleeping with a man. If a man forcibly had sex with me, that would be rape. But I am not in danger of being forced to involuntarily have sex with a man simply because two male neighbors of mine sleep together. Therefore, their act is no threat to me (or anyone else), and should not be punished. This is a very utilitarian view of the law, and it comes off as a bit heretical to some people. Part of the reason why is historical: for much of the history of Europe, the laws did come from the Church and were indeed intended to enforce not just order but also morality. The US, and indeed most nations, have grappled with these two points of view for centuries and have been slowly moving away from "morality" to "order". The nations we think of as being "liberal" or "free" tend to be the ones which have moved the furthest towards "order". The closer they are to that ideal, the more progressive we think them (and interestingly enough, the more liberty their citizens have). "Order" is less restrictive than "morality". The nation which strikes me as furthest out on the "order" path would be the Netherlands right now, who have legalized prostitution and marijuana and homosexual marriage. The most extreme example of the "morality" viewpoint of law now is the Taliban in Afghanistan, who recently outlawed magazines with pictures, playing cards, women's makeup, statues and a whole long list of other amazing things. So let's start to unwind the recursion by beginning with the idea that law is about order, not about morality. Decisions should be collective if and only if they threaten the fabric of society; if not, then they should be individual. On that basis, "murder" is a crime where someone kills someone else in a fashion which, if common, would threaten the wellbeing of innocents everywhere. In other words, if I shoot my neighbor, I'm a murderer and should be hunted down and punished. But if a cop shoots me while I'm threatening to shoot my neighbor, the cop is not a murderer, because his act preserves my innocent neighbor's wellbeing, and preserves the fabric of society. If a soldier defending our nation kills an enemy soldier, he is also not a murderer because he is preserving our society. Within this view, not all deliberate killings are murder. Euthanasia is a form of deliberate killing but does not threaten the wellbeing of society if it is voluntary and requested. Therefore euthanasia also is not murder. Within this viewpoint, the decision should be individual, not collective. If you believe that there is no fate worse than death, then you are free to live with pain and die in a 
| |||