What about outside of these forums? For instance, do your voting choices include those that promote or support any religious agendas?
2 Likes
There are no claims about a deity, there is a hypothetical about a deity as per the thread OP. I am happy to explain any claims I have made in relation to the hypothetical, but the hypothetical itself is hypothetical.
At the very least, my arguments in this thread have been in relation to how the question of morality would apply to a hypothetical deity.
Thereâs a difference between something being unknowable in terms of a hypothetical being asked, and not being able to know the difference if something happened in the real-world. That is the distinction here.
As for the universe not existing, that would be on the basis of the hypothetical that a creator deity was responsible for creating the universe. From the outset I distinguished this by specifically referencing the necessary presumption that the universe existed somehow without the need for a creator deity, in order to reach the point that the differences from the perspective of a hypothetical would be unknowable.
Thereâs brevity and thereâs obfuscation.
Iâm not looking to justify belief in this thread. That seems to detract somewhat from the original discussion. Everyone has belief so the justification for it seems to be a moot point.
Unknowable is unknown but also asserts that it could never be known
I recognise that there are thousands of different religions, so even if a hypothetically existing deity in universe A did not exist in universe B (while still existing irrespective of Universe A potentially needing a hypothetical creator), religions might still exist. If one considers that in universe A, the very first âreligionâ could be considered a result of knowledge provided by the hypothetical deity (i.e., making their existence known), then this in turn could have influenced all other religions in some shape or form; but logically, there is nothing about religion that would prevent it from manifesting without a divine origin, so while the religions in universe B could be very different in nature, they could still exist in some form.
The problem is, itâs all speculative. We can consider all manner of differences hypothetically, but there would be no objective evidence for them.
Iâm not from the USA, so my voting choices are thankfully not tied to religious agendas. I vote according to which party I think is best suited to run the country and/or voting strategically to improve support for a smaller party if the main two choices are unpalatable.
I can say though that in terms of some âreligious agendasâ I am familiar with, I would take the view that positions some people take that are often affiliated with religious belief should not be a matter of law and politics.
If people feel that a certain practice/behaviour/action/choice is prohibited solely by a religion, then it is for individuals to decide whether they should adhere to such prohibitions or not; not for such to be enforced by law.
(When I say solely by a religion, I mean practices/behaviours/actions/choices not otherwise viewed as unlawful regardless of theistic/atheistic stance, such as theft, murder, etc.)
So in short, I wouldnât advocate for or vote to have specifically religiously motivated prohibitions introduced into or sustained in law.
Though to make a further distinction, I do agree with anti-discrimination laws that protect beliefs/non-beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, etc. - on the basis it provides equal protection from discrimination - as long as such laws are reasonable and still allow criticism etc., but I would say that view is not religiously motivated, itâs just reasonable.
1 Like
The U.S. is not the only country where voting choices can be tied to religious agendas.
Some?
Do you support legislation on/of/concerning for instance, assisted suicide, abortion, tax exemption for religious organizations, representatives of religion in government?
Abortion, I would say my stance is aligned with âpro-choiceâ
Tax exemption - I have no position on this
Representatives of religion in government - not sure what this would even be, but no specific position on this
With regards to assisted suicide, I am opposed to it, but not due to religious reasons. From a religious perspective, if someone chooses to take their own life, that is a choice for themselves (as long as they donât choose a method that directly involves other people, such as positioning themselves in front of a moving vehicle, etc.) - that said, where laws exist for the purpose of ensuring people with such thoughts get appropriate support/help, I am not opposed to the laws for that purpose.
Specifically though for assisted suicide, I can give a personal example of a family member who had a genetic-sourced disability from birth, they were very much atheist and they were very much opposed to allowing assisted suicide, and the reasons I oppose it are the same reasons they did. If it becomes legalised, there are a number of factors that come into play:
-
Potentially less support made available for people with serious disabilities/life-long conditions/terminal conditions: with legalised assisted suicide as an option, the necessity for other care/support options is reduced
-
The fact of human nature - people already consider people with serious disabilities, etc. to be a âdrain on resourcesâ, etc. and with the legalisation of assisted suicide, there would be an increase in the number of views overtly expressed in relation to this.
Having witnessed people treating my family member with looks of disdain just because they happened to exist and have the condition they had, and knowing that with assisted suicide being legal, people with that view would likely be more vocal in their derision.
- More specifically in relation to point 2, a person can feel obligated with regard to family/friends - considering themselves to be a burden and choose the assisted suicide route because of this concern and not because they actually want to end their own life / put a stop to any suffering.
So in short, my opposition to assisted suicide is not based on any religious views (such as âsuicide being wrongâ), but because of the consequences it would have on people who otherwise wouldnât want to choose such an option.
I can empathise with those who do wish for the option to be available for them, but I donât think legalisation is worth the unintended consequences it would bring.
So a circular reasoning fallacy.
And that was brevity.
How convenient, just express them.
That claim would mean one would have to set tge same bar for all claims, or itâs simpky biased.
I strongly disagree.
Hence my objection.
If one âcanât know the differenceâ it follows they would be indistinguishable.
This thread isnât asking about a hypothetical deity.
So all theistic belief is purely speculation?
Then theistic belief is entirely subjective?
On this at least we can agree.
Well Iâm sure Cyber has some examples, but in the UK for example, the practice of âparachutingâ retired bishops into the house of lords who are unelected seems to fit.
As far as assisted suicide goes, the only criteria id accept is a terminally ill patient, without any prospect of recovery, faciing the prospect of no quality of life, or dignity, and more and increasing pain than anyone should have to endure.
No one should be forced to live through that, without the choise of a quick and dignified end.
1 Like
Arenât church representatives able to vote in the British Parliament?
Yes, and there are non-theistic religions that exist in this world, on this planet. Taoism, Buddhism (most sects), Jainism and Confucianism are the best known. They are a minority, but they force us to define religion independently of deities (or perhaps i should say, deities and religions can vary independently of one another). I define religion as a set of teachings, practices and rituals for the purpose of emotional and moral regulation and other forms of self and/or collective improvement, which usually involve some teaching about human origin, purpose and destiny that are asserted and validated solely by faith (in the religious sense). Gods, demigods, and supernatural or immortal realms are usually somewhere in the mix, sometimes more obviously than others, but none of them have to be.
There are also religious systems that are less formal, more primitive forebears of modern religion. Such as animism, which donât have gods as such, but rather spirits associated with objects or deceased persons (ancestor worship, spirits thought to inhabit or control trees, lakes, mountains or whatever). Jayneâs theory of the bicameral mind even posits that that style of religion, as well as the various polytheisms that evolved from it, arose from a now defunct dominant organization of human mentation where peopleâs inner voice or narrator was so separate that people could audibly hear it, and took it to be spirits or gods advising or informing them. Today that has devolved into schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis, but in the hunter-gatherer era it was a more functional adaptation. Supposedly it all but disappeared via a shift in gene expression several thousand years ago. No way to (dis)prove it but itâs a fascinating hypothesis for how religion evolved â and itâs a more plausible explanation that that some deity invented it, IMO.
This is actually happening in Canada supposedly. To my surprise they seem to have evolved the most liberalized framework for assisted suicide in the world there, in the form of the MAID (Medically Assistance In Dying) laws. New York state is considering its own MAID legislation, I hear.
At any rate an article I read recently entitled âCanada is Killing Itselfâ claims that people are choosing to die rather than navigate the healthcare system which does not really offer them affordable health care for certain kinds of chronic illness (Canadaâs system isnât single payer, but two-payer). And MAID is in the process of being extended to purely psychological maladies.
My personal view has been that assisted suicide should be liberalized to a degree not present in say, any US state, but when you optimize for any thing âXâ, you de-optimize for other things and Canada may be giving us an example of that. I think itâs empathetic of society to allow a person to choose not to have new experiences, just as itâs empathetic to euthanize pets that are suffering (only more so, if you believe that humans should be treated at least as humanely as, say, a dog). But that assumes they are not denied available cures or treatments and so simply have less quality of life than they otherwise could, and so are forced to resort to rational suicide. That would be an unhealthy path for a society to follow â but it would not have to be an inevitable outcome of legalizing assisted suicide.
I see the objection you raise as kind of a separate issue having to do with healthcare as a human right vs an earned privilege of some sort. If society doesnât have a sufficient commitment to provide healthcare to its citizens, especially its most vulnerable and disadvantaged, then legalized euthanasia might interact poorly with that lack of commitment, but itâs a symptom of a broken health care system, not of euthanasia itself.
No matter the topic, the reason we canât have any given ânice thingâ is usually because some precursor is missing or messed up somehow. It may be that when the desired thing is assisted suicide, a robust and equitable health care system may be a prerequisite, at least for it to work best.
Itâs not circular reasoning fallacy. Your question is hypothesising from the position that a deity exists, how would the universe be different if that deity didnât exist.
The point that if the deity in question is a creator deity, and their non-existence would result in there being no universe in existence is a valid inference from the points presented.
Convenient to what? Itâs not necessary to the discussion, and it would only serve to detract from the discussion and give you something to challenge through objective evidence. We may as well skip to the conclusion which is that you consider theistic beliefs have no objective evidence, and I hold the beliefs I hold for the reasons I have.
âWhat is the objective evidence for objective evidence?â
Try answering that without circular logic.
It is what is known as the âMĂźnchhausen trilemmaâ - it is impossible to prove any truth without appealing to accepted assumptions (which are ultimately beliefs - something accepted as truth without objective evidence to support it)
No, indistinguishable means that the differences between two or more things canât be identified - they canât be told apart, they look identical.
But that is not what weâre discussing here. We donât have the opportunity to do a comparative observation - we canât look at the two hypothetical universes side-by-side - if we could then they would be distinguishable. But from the position of just one universe, we can only speculate as to the differences, but we canât know what they would be with any measure of objective evidence.
It is, because youâre asking about how the universe would be different without a deity or deities existing. So the question is dependent on a hypothetical deity or an actual one existing in the current universe being observed in order to give the question any sort of relevance.
Otherwise you have the question, âUniverse A is a universe where no deity is objectively evidenced to exist, how would things be different in Universe B where no deity or deities exist?â
You stated from the beginning that the question was intended for theists, so it stands to reason that as someone who withholds belief on the existence of any deities due to there being no objective evidence to support their existence, you are presenting a hypothetical where you are asking how a universe without a deity or deities existing would be different, so the hypothetical necessarily requires the universe weâre observing to have a deity.
I was talking about differences between an observed universe and another universe with a hypothetical change.
The House of Lords has a variety of unelected members. I donât have a position either way on this, I havenât studied it extensively and they donât make that much of an impact to warrant my investigation 
At the risk of invoking the slippery slope fallacy, it is a slippery slope.
The distinction in terms of the fallacy is the question of whether it is demonstrably valid. I would say from the reasoning I have given, it is a valid concern that it would be a slippery slope.
To expand on this in the context of your position, the argument in favour of a terminally ill patient - if one considers the UK suggested implementation where a person must have 6 months or less life expectancy - does sound reasonable on face-value, and my opposition would not be on those specific premises - if it could be guaranteed that those specific provisions would be the absolute limit, then while the concerns I raised would still be increased slightly, it wouldnât likely be the issue it could be.
However, that would be if it was guaranteed to be the absolute limit without any future changes.
Otherwise all thatâs happened is that one of the strongest boundaries has been broken.
Then itâs no longer an argument of âshould assisted suicide be legalised?â - it becomes a case of âshould more people be able to choose this legal option?â
This is further demonstrated by the fact that a large number of the proponents for legalising assisted suicide are arguing from a personal experience (either themselves or a loved one) who would not directly benefit from the legislation being changed to that specific allowance - i.e., they donât meet the specific criteria as they may have a terminal condition but they donât have a short expected lifespan (6 months or less)
If you open up âterminal conditionâ to not include a lifespan, then where do you draw the line? Life is a terminal condition in that sense. If someone is born paraplegic and are confined to a wheelchair, thereâs no prospect of recovery, their quality of life is reduced, etc.
Consider someone like Stephen Hawking - only able to communicate through eye movements to select characters on a screen. Someone could consider themselves having no quality of life, or they could fundamentally change our understanding of the cosmos.
I donât want anyone to endure pain. I also donât want people to feel pressured into taking their own lives (assisted) by being made to feel a burden on their loved ones, or on society.
As an aside, I also personally hate the use of the word âdignityâ in assisted suicide, because it conveys the idea that the opposite is true - that loved ones who have died from long illnesses, awful illnesses, in pain and suffering, and so on, are to be considered undignified in their manner of death. I reject that. I donât think that âdignityâ can be used in that manner. Death and the lead-up to it should not be considered undignified unless there is specific reason for that word to be used due to unnatural involvement in the death event. But thatâs just my personal belief on the subject.
Well it seems to have assune itâs conclusion in tge opening premise.
Well, itâs asking those who belueve a deity exists, to explain what would be different about this universe if no deity exists.
No, that was the unevidenced assertion you made, that assumed your conclusion in your opening premise, without evidence.
Well that depends, to me it demonstrates the claims are dubious, and that I cannot lend them credence. These debates are informal of course, so yes one can reel off unevidenced claims.
Well, what are those beliefs, and the reasons you hold them?
Not sure i understand what you mean sorry? Objective evidence for what, and why would it need objective evidence if it was itself object evidence?
That is precisely what I said, and you disagreed, a godless universe would be indistinguishable from a universe with a deity, if the difference in uknown, or unknowable.
Well the one I observe isnât hypothetical, it is objectively real, and I have seen nothing in it to objectively evidence any extant deity. Hence my question.
Well clearly you see something in this universe that makes you believe a deity exists, what is it? As that is likely the distinction.
My question is aimed at people who believe in an extant deity, not a hypothetical one.
Its not hypothetical to theists.
The Lords have considerable powers, and of course i should like to see no unelected officials for that reason. And i see no reason to parachute ex bishops in there, we donât do that for other occupations as far as im aware.
It was a bare assertion, and since tge parameters of what would be allowed would be enshrined in a law, i see no readon to believe it would âleadâ anywhere.
Again, laws and arguments are wildly different. Whats more we already have other countries that allow people to make end of life decisions, and they havenât lead to any loss of general human rights, rather people now have one more right, to end their lives in a manner of their oen chosing and with dignity, rather than enduring unbearable and increaing pain and suffering with no prospect of relief.
I think we know what terminal illness is, and the prospect of nothing but unbearable and unecessary sufferring, with ultimately no quality of life or dignity left.
Id have no problem with either having the choice. As much as I admired Stephen Hawking, id not want to carry on if it was me, but i would want thr choice.
Who suggested pressuring anyone? Weâre talking about giving people a choice, under fairky specific circumstances.
I like it, and dislike the term assisted suicide, it suggests taking advantage of vulnerable people, rather than granting someone tge right to decide. I have seen people suffer unecessarily, and saw little dignity in it.
The point is that no one should be forced or coerced, but should be free to decide for themselves.
As a practical matter, if you have a short timeline like the requirement that you have some form of medical death sentence predicting that you will die within six months, typically that isnât the only hoop to jump through. You typically need two doctors to examine you (making and waiting for a backlog of appointments potentially) and agree to this, there are forms to fill out and wait for a response, there is sometimes an opportunity for a family member to challenge your request, all while you are very ill unto death. It is the actual experience of people trying to get this kind of assistance that by the time they jump through rings of fire and eat little pieces of glass to say pretty-please may I end it all, you may be dead anyway.
This is the main impetus for less stringent timelines, less stringent other requirements, or both.
The âright to dieâ is also a question less of length of life than quality of life in the view of the sufferer. Different people have different levels of tolerance, different pain thresholds, and different motivations â for example my wife had a serious cancer scare last year that fortunately turned out to be just a scare, but for the several weeks before emergency surgery revealed the tumor was a very rare benign mimic, she was considering some chemo not so much because she liked the tradeoff between side effects and quality and length of life, but because she wanted the opportunity to see her disabled son through some hurdles. Absent that factor she probably would have, at a minimum, declined Heroic Measures or indeed any treatment, and accepted her fate; or depending on the expected experience of her final days, she might have chosen to go to neighboring Vermont, where she could make a right to die request as a non-resident, and go through that process.
These are all very personal decisions that should put the patient largely in control. And paradoxically, higher levels of control and self-determination in oneâs final illness tends to increase the odds that one will carry on longer. My previous / late wife had a similar concern in her final illness; she did not want to wait too long to end her life, until she got to the point she was no longer physically capable of doing so. Once she had âpermissionâ to be in control of that final decision, I estimate it added a good 6 months to her life, if not more, as there was no particular hurry anymore. At least not until an unrelated physical malady that required surgery she couldnât survive intruded.
Of course as I mentioned, itâs possible that someone might choose rational suicide over not just painful or degrading medical heroics, but over a desire not to burden their family with the attendant expense. Weâve been fortunate to have enough income and to be debt free such that a choice to prolong life isnât necessarily going to put the survivors in penury. But even assuming thatâs a completely viable and open option ⌠both of these women in my life would find the prospect of relying on children or spouse (or even a total hired stranger) to wipe their butt and clean up the bed because they canât control their bowels to be humiliating and a non-starter. Not everyone would feel that way â but it should be up to the individual exactly because some most assuredly do. Everyone has their own quality-of-life calculus, and that calculus also comes at the tail end of a unique set of life experiences that may have already exhausted their forbearance.
The opening premise is yours - âif no deity or deities exist, in what objective way would the universe differ to the one we observeâ
the statement: âif the deity that is being hypothesised not to exist is a creator deity, responsible for creating the universe, then the universe would not existâ - is not circular reasoning. It is using conditional logic. Based on the combination of your opening premise, and my response we have:
- Consider the absence of a deity or deities existing, what would be different in the universe (your premise)
- Consider the deity is a creator deity responsible for creating the universe (valid representation of many belief systems)
- In the absence of a deity responsible for creating the universe, the universe would not exist
There is also the alternative that I have also pointed out:
- Consider the absence of a deity or deities existing, what would be different in the universe (your premise)
- A theistic view/belief would be that a deity or deities are logically necessary
- If no deity or deities exist, a theistic view/belief would be that such an existence itself would be illogical. It would be like asking, âIn a universe where you could divide by 0, what would be the result of 10 divided by 0?â - the logical incompatibility of that universe would render the hypothetical itself invalid.
Of course, I accept that while that may be a theistic view/belief, it could not be supported as a claim, not could it be dismissed as logically invalid either, but given that the thread OP is intending to get a theistic view and not argue an actual claim, it is a valid response in this context as a view/belief.
Putting aside those two, however, the remainder of my comment has been based on the following:
- Consider the absence of a deity or deities existing, what would be different in the universe (your premise)
- As (per the above) a likely theistic view would be that in accordance with a creator deity, either there is no universe or the very concept is logically incompatible with the theistic view/belief
- Hypothetically point 2 can be sidestepped to consider that somehow a universe exists where no deity or deities exists for the purposes of the question
- In the hypothetical that a universe exists where no deity or deities exist, that is when it is concluded that the potential differences would be unknowable - we lack the necessary data to engage in anything more than pure speculation (as has been the main part of the discussion), but that âunknowableâ state does not mean that a comparison of the two universes side-by-side would not result in no detectable differences.
I think this should effectively summarise the majority of the argument so far. Iâll skip your responses that are essentially answered by the above to avoid duplication of responses.
The concept of objective evidence. If âobjective evidenceâ as a concept is considered to be a standard for supporting something being true, what is the objective evidence for the concept itself? How can the standard be validated?
It is the problem of:
- âWe know that X is true because Yâ
- âHow do we know Y is true? Because Zâ
- âHow do we know Z is true?â - etc.
Hence the trilemma, you end up with one of three possibilities:
a. âZ is true because Z.â (circular reasoning)
b. âIt sounds right that Z is true.â (appeal to dogma)
c. âZ is true because A, A is true because B [âŚ] X15495 is true because Y15495 [âŚ]â (ad infinitum problem)
(Note: a. can also be âZ is true because A. A is true because Z.â)
I disagreed because there are two different points at play here:
- Unknowable - we are in the âactual universeâ and have no means to objectively evidence speculative differences with a hypothetical âpossible universeâ
- Undistinguishable - if the two universes were placed side by side, and observation of the two were possible, would the differences be distinguishable?
Point 1 highlights the problem - point 2 would be a hypothetical solution to point 1 - even though in point 1 the differences were unknowable, point 2 provides a hypothetical that works around this (obviously it would be impossible to observe two universes in reality) and the differences would be knowable, only because the hypothetical sidesteps what would otherwise be impossible.
One universe is real, but logically we canât claim which it is. If we consider the alternative is a logically possible universe, we have no means to compare them side by side, but if we did we can consider that the differences would be knowable.
Whatever is sufficient for a theist to hold a theistic belief is not necessarily transferrable to objective evidence.
If someone has an experience, for example, they can be certain that the experience occurred - if you walk into a room and someone shows you a replica of the Mona Lisa, then chucks it onto a fire and you both watch it burn to ash, you would be certain of that experience occurring, but you would have no way of objectively evidencing that it occurred. You return to the room and the ash has been swept away and cleaned - thereâs nothing left in any sense. No one has any reason to believe your position that the event occurred, and despite the absence of objective evidence for it, it would be eminently reasonable for you to maintain the belief/view that it occurred.
Your question is aimed at people who believe in a deity, yes, but your question is hypothetical. Whether or not others choose to sustain the hypothetical of the question is up to them.
A universe without a deity or deities would be hypothetical to theists. A theist can also choose to engage with a hypothetical of a universe where a deity does exist. Just because someone holds a particular position doesnât exclude them from engaging in a hypothetical for that same position.
I was expressing my view. Laws change. The fact that the question of legalisation is actively going through parliament demonstrates this. My point is that the current point is a case of âlegal or not legalâ - this is the strongest barrier. Once that barrier is removed, and we have âsix months or less to liveâ, the barrier between six months and twelve months is much smaller. Any potential argument against it would be much weaker, and so on. Laws change, and itâs much easier for a line to be pushed back a little than it is to remove a line completely and draw a different line.
Again, itâs my view and Iâve explained my reasoning for the view and concerns. Iâve also explained why the view is not related to theism.
Iâm not saying the government, or doctors, or any officials would be pressuring people in any official capacity. Iâm saying that the existence of a choice is a pressure in its own right, and the general public that one encounters would apply pressure in their own way, and pressure can even be applied from loved ones, or even from oneself who is mindful of the impact on their loved ones.
The problem is there is no way to fully prevent coercion/force. You can try to mitigate it, and perhaps there will be some success with that, but coercion can be subtle, it can be indirect, it can be unintentional.
People will die who would not have wanted to die if this option did not exist. That much is an inescapable truth.
Itâs a question of how do you balance that? How many people should be allowed to die that wouldnât have wanted to otherwise, versus the number of people who wanted to die if they were allowed to, and what ratio is acceptable?
Would any ratio be acceptable? Itâs like the trolley problem for morality - pull a lever and divert the runaway trolley from one line that would kill five people, to another line that kills one person. Is it morally correct to pull the lever? The person pulling the lever isnât responsible for the trolley or the five people who would die, but they become responsible for the death of the one person who would have lived.
Changing the law will give people the option to die peacefully and be free from pain and suffering in their final days, but in doing so will result in additional deaths where people didnât want to die before their time.
Yes, thatâs the point I have with my last comment to @Sheldon - already weâre seeing movement on the current plan that is going through parliament - they want to relax the requirements and it hasnât even been legalised yet.
Once it is legalised, the fight will continue to make it broader, less restrictions, longer times or even removing the lifespan requirement altogether.
I do understand both sides of the argument, and I am sorry to hear about the experiences you and your loved ones have been through.
If it was reducible to simply letting people have the choice and there would be no side-effects or consequences as I described, then I would support the right to choose. I do understand the benefits that come with a person having the choice available to them, and I understand how quality of life can factor into the decision and how important such a choice would be.
I wish that it could be reducible in that way, but I am very much aware of how it would change society, and the impact this would have on people. It would result in people experiencing a lower quality of life because of the attitudes of others, people choosing the option to die even though they wouldnât have wanted to make that choice if the option wasnât available because the availability of the option has meant they have been coerced, pressured, or simply felt like a burden.
As I concluded in my comment to Sheldon, it is similar to the trolley problem - legalisation could help a number of people, giving them the choice that allows them to take back control over their life, and that alone is laudable. If the trolley problem was simply, âpull the lever, save five livesâ itâs a no brainer, you pull the lever. But the consequence is present. Pull the lever, save five lives, but one person dies who would have lived.
We donât know the numbers. We donât know how many might die who would have lived, but it will happen. And that line will be crossed. The question is, is that line worth crossing for any benefit?
Slippery slope arguments generally do not influence my thinking very much because they nearly always reflect the desire to preserve some shibboleth or other, even at the expense of harming vulnerable people. In other areas of life we donât insist on the perfect being the enemy of the good.
To draw a parallel, the late Charlie Kirk said just a short time ago that some deaths were unfortunately necessary to preserve the right to bear arms, so he was willing to sacrifice school children so that he could go and practice shoot an AK-47 or at least go bear hunting I guess. To me, this is what happens with slippery slope arguments: you canât have common sense gun control laws because it will lead to no one having any guns at all, ever. Same argument as you canât have the right to choose the manner and time of death because it will lead to society no longer valuing life at all.
People can chew gum and walk at the same time while mindful of context. Itâs possible to keep guns out of the hands of crazy, extermist, radicalized or incompetent persons and still go hunting. Itâs possible to craft a MAID-like law while making sure people have access to health care as a human right so that it never has to be true that a person chooses assisted suicide because they canât obtain or afford treatement. Itâs even easier to craft such laws so that you can be certain the person isnât coerced into suicide. It isnât an impossibility, it is just a lack of will to solve the underlying problems, and at times, IMO, pretending a side effect is intractable when itâs not because of some other agenda (not accusing you of that, just speaking in general).
1 Like
Here in WA, AUS, we have an Assisted dying bill, as well as Advanced Care Directives which are legally binding on the treating physicians. For example my ACD allows for palliative care only if it is determined that I cannot be rehabilitated to a quality of life that I previously enjoyed. This does include medical specifics which I went through with my GP and my specific wishes which we discussed as not contradicting the treating physicians ethical obligations.
It is a chore, but then we have some Catholic âcharitiesâ operating private/public hospitalsâŚwho will stoop to anythingâŚ
In addition the law provides that if I have a terminal condition leading to death within 12 months I can apply to foreshorten the pain and indignity, and, with the assistance of family and health professionals, end my own life at a time of my choosing. DNR in case of a major stroke or brain damage is a popular choiceâŚ
So there is no pressure, just treating the population like adults. If you donât like it donât fill out an ACD. Simples.
2 Likes
I would disagree with this specifically on two points:
-
Slippery slope would work both ways in this argument: not allowing people to have certain types of gun because it could lead to school shootings, etc.
-
USA already has gun laws, so the position is already on that âslippery slopeâ and hasnât slipped. Adjusting the existing laws would be just that. It is demonstated that even the hint of talking about gun laws meets incredible resistance to the extent that when something bad happens, the arguments against gun laws come out seemingly before anyone is arguing for them.
On that basis it is certainly not a slippery slope. itâs more like an uphill slope that has significant friction to impede movement, letalone sliding.
(At least that is how it appears from my non-USA residing perspective)
The UK legislation currently going through parliament has what is currently (though attempts are already being made to reduce it) a ârobustâ system, with a judge and health professionals deciding, including psychologist assessments, etc., but coercion isnât always obvious or detectable. People can be coached on how to get through assessments. It can certainly reduce the number of people who have been coerced being granted the right to die, but even then it canât undo the effects of that coercion - and that is a major point too.
The wider problem is the impact that legalisation has on society - people already discriminate against those with disabilities - strangers look down on people with visible differences, and sometimes even voice their disdain. With legalisation, it will naturally lead to people viewing those same individuals with the legislation in mind, which will mean they will be judging them as choosing not to take up the âright to dieâ and burdening society by doing so.
I think these issues all need to be taken into account when deciding legislation. I do understand it is a very complex matter and thereâs no simple fix or solution.
Iâm not talking some philosophical sense of slippery slope, but how concerns are presented in arguments, whether technically legitimate or not they persuade too many folks.
It is presented as a slippery slope from the perspective of gun enthusiasts. The fearmongering here is that if you give âthemâ an inch (no bump stocks, no extra capacity magazines, no automatic weapons, etc) eventually âtheyâ will come for ALL of YOUR guns.
And gun control advocates arenât arguing a hypothetical â there are mostly unregulated guns and, uniquely in the US, there are school shootings at a level no other country experiences. Even with strict regulation, there would STILL be more shootings here because so many of us are armed to the teeth (there are about 120 guns per 100 citizens, which is really saying something given that many people own no guns at all) so yes a voluntary no questions asked, perhaps even paid turn-in of guns to bring those numbers down would also be needed, likely.
But literally no one is asking all Americans to give up all their guns, to stop target practice or hunting or other âwholesomeâ gun-related hobbies. My oldest brother was a pheasant hunter and reloaded his own ammo, so I am not hostile to that sort of responsible gun use, and neither is anyone else in my experience. My brother wouldnât have owned or needed a sniper rifle or a machine gun.
I understand, and to my knowledge, Switzerland has a high level of gun ownership (though at present, it is comparatively much lower to the US 120 per 100 people, with 28 per 100 people), however the gun crime in Switzerland is comparatively much lower when accounting for the disparity in gun ownership.
The laws in Switzerland are more restrictive, but itâs also a difference of cultures - gun culture and the more general social cohesion in Switzerland that makes the difference.
Iâm happy to live in a country where guns are pretty much illegal (with exceptions for sports and farming, etc.) and while there is still gun crime, itâs often between gangs or gang related matters, so far less prevalent.
Though Iâm cautious not to wade into another countryâs laws and culture too deeply - I know the question of gun control in USA is rather polarising and has a lot of hyperbole.
My point was that the reality of it being a slippery slope wasnât correct*, but I do recognise it is framed as such to (incorrectly*) emphasise the fears over gun control. (* in my opinion)