I have been thinking thinking about ethics...
You see this semester, I'm doing a study on ethics, and I'll be trying out a few of my arguments on it here before I put them into an essay. Looking over the study guide, we'll be doing things like Christian ethics, euthanasia, abortion, ageing, crime and punishment, and other big issues like war, peace, terrorism and violence, nonviolence and the arms trade - we might also be looking at social justice, welfare and then marriage, family and sexuality.
I started thinking about the context of the position that I have in regards to ethics. Am I a relativist where everything is relative, or do I hark back to the days of Plato where I believe that there is an absolute truth in some issues... just getting a handle on that has been hard, at it is I tend more towards relativism, but I'll explore that a bit later on - and there are some short comings about that frame work also!The
I was telling a wonderful friend of mine that I am studying ethics over lunch today, and we ended up talking about abortion and the death penalty – a nice topic over sushi rolls...
I kept on thinking afterwards, (rather than writing a sermon - that is tomorrow's job )
Where do I stand on the death penalty?
Should the state allow it?
Can I support the state sanctioned killing?
In answer to all of there - my answer is NO.
I cannot say I support the death penalty, but why then can I allow abortion at a state level?
I oppose one outright, but not the other outright ... it makes me wonder what is the distinction between the two?
Without the aid of thinking juice - I thought the logic or argument must come down to sentience.
I believe that most people assumed that an abortion takes place to a being that is not yet sentient, but the death penalty takes place on a person who knows what is happening. - Because the person knows that it is happening, the death penalty seem to be morally bad.
Is this the only dividing thing?
But then if sentience is the deciding factor –
Where does that place people who are in comas?
Where does that place people who are severely mentally disabled?
Where does that mean for people who are brain dead - but physically still able to exist?
Keep on pondering...
Dividing lines are always going to be fuzzy and situational in matters like these - and if they aren't, they should be. Anyone who stands on firm moral ground hasn't got a grip on the problem.
ReplyDeleteI'm against the death penalty under any circumstances because of the... surrealism, perhaps, of someone being killed as punishment for killing someone. State sanctioned murder, as opposed to the illegal civil one. I'm also against it as it eliminates the possibility of any future acquittal due to scientific technological developments.
(If sentience is the deciding factor, why is animal cruelty wrong?)
The 'don't kill sentient things' principle needs to be balanced by compassion (for all things, by the way, not just sentient ones). Compassion for the woman who would otherwise have to spend 9 months of her life carrying an unwanted child and risking social financial and psychological harm. Compassion for the person dying of a terminal condition and with no hope except death of escaping their pain - why make them suffer more pain?
I'm in favour of euthanasia as a general principle, but realise that it would be very difficult to define appropriate situations. I think the best thing is to leave it as it happens now - doctors and family (and perhaps the patient) quietly agree to give mum increasing doses of morphine 'to help her pain' knowing that death from overdose is an 'unfortunate' risk. They run the risk of having to face court but, if their actions are good and compassionate, noone will report them to the police.