Calling out Mt. Ivanhoe...

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Your criteria are not clear to me I must say. In particular the first and the last ones are rather foggy .... to say the least.

What's unclear about why the first and third criteria are stipulated? If you just went with the second listed, you could simply take the proposition 'I have hands'. Look everyone, bbarr thinks he has hands, just like the Nazis did!!!

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm giving you an opportunity, wihtout distraction from tangential issues, to show everybody that my views are similar to the Nazis. I was being generous by giving you the opportunity to make your case using any normative proposition about euthanasia. If your claims are limited to the similarity betwen respective views on the treatment of the disabled, then ...[text shortened]... n common.

[b]So, again, what is the proposition that the Nazis and I both endorse?[/b]

Bbarr: So, again, what is the proposition that the Nazis and I both endorse?

Here it is:

It is morally permissible to kill disabled people, who are not able to express their will or to exercise their autonomy because of their mental and/or physical restrictions, in case their lives are considered "not worth living".

The above is morally impermissible, morally wrong, unjustified, because it violates the fundamental and inalienable Human Right to Life.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It is morally permissible to kill disabled people, who are not able to express their will or to exercise their autonomy because of their mental and/or physical restrictions, in case their lives are considered "not worth living".

Am I wrong in assessing that this is descriptive and not normative?

Originally posted by Starrman
Proofs (if we can even call them that) of opinion rely on the reciprocation of belief between parties. You can't just state an opinion and hold that opinion is true when it isn't backed by either deductive reasoning or democratic agreement. Nobody yet agrees that you've shown a connection, until at least one person does you haven't proved anything.

Pe ...[text shortened]... would mean you actually might have to lay out premises and reach a conclusion for once...

Starrman: "Proofs (if we can even call them that) of opinion rely on the reciprocation of belief between parties. You can't just state an opinion and hold that opinion is true when it isn't backed by either deductive reasoning or democratic agreement."

???

Originally posted by Starrman
Proofs (if we can even call them that) of opinion rely on the reciprocation of belief between parties. You can't just state an opinion and hold that opinion is true when it isn't backed by either deductive reasoning or democratic agreement. Nobody yet agrees that you've shown a connection, until at least one person does you haven't proved anything.

Pe ...[text shortened]... would mean you actually might have to lay out premises and reach a conclusion for once...

Starrman: "Nobody yet agrees that you've shown a connection, until at least one person does you haven't proved anything.

???

Originally posted by Nemesio
Am I wrong in assessing that this is descriptive and not normative?

As I said, for the joint reason of not distracting from bbarr's interest in
this thread and to avoid giving you the impression that I am part of
his 'gang,' I'm going to withdraw from discussion for now and let you
and bbarr discuss it in plain sight so that we might draw conclusions of
our own from the fruits of the deliberation.

Nemesio

*******************************************************

Well, that didn't last long, did it ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Bbarr: So, again, what is the proposition that the Nazis and I both endorse?

Here it is:

It is morally permissible to kill disabled people, who are not able to express their will or to exercise their autonomy because of their mental and/or physical restrictions, in case their lives are considered "not worth living".

The above is morally imp ...[text shortened]... y wrong, unjustified, because it violates the fundamental and inalienable Human Right to Life.[/b]

Good, now we're getting somewhere. I have a few clarificatory questions about the meaning of the proposition. In the absence of clarification on the following points, I can't tell whether the proposition is one I believe, since the content of the proposition is unclear:

1) Is the proposition claiming that it is always permissible to kill disabled people under the specified conditions, or that it is merely sometimes permissible?

2) Do the disabled people referred to in the proposition meet my criteria for personhood?

3) What do you take the phrase "not worth living" to mean?

4) According to the proposition, just who is doing the considering in making determinations of "worth living" or "not worth living"?

I'm assuming for the sake of argument that you are thinking of cases where there is no living will.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Am I wrong in assessing that this is descriptive and not normative?

This is a normative claim because it has prescriptive entailments. If a proposition claims 'A is permissible', then an entailment is that 'It is not the case that one is obligated not to A'.

Originally posted by bbarr
Good, now we're getting somewhere. I have a few clarificatory questions about the meaning of the proposition. In the absence of clarification on the following points, I can't tell whether the proposition is one I believe, since the content of the proposition is unclear:

1) Is the proposition claiming that it is always permissible to kill disabled people ...[text shortened]... for the sake of argument that you are thinking of cases where there is no living will.

I will answer you tomorrow.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Well, that didn't last long, did it ?

Stop being so egocentric. The question was directed at bbarr because
as someone relatively ignorant of formal philosophy, the terms descriptive
and normative are not part of a vernacular familiar to me.

As it turns out, I was wrong and I am glad that bbarr took the time to
explain why.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Starrman: "Nobody yet agrees that you've shown a connection, until at least one person does you haven't proved anything.

???

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you're confused.

Originally posted by bbarr
Good, now we're getting somewhere. I have a few clarificatory questions about the meaning of the proposition. In the absence of clarification on the following points, I can't tell whether the proposition is one I believe, since the content of the proposition is unclear:

1) Is the proposition claiming that it is always permissible to kill disabled people for the sake of argument that you are thinking of cases where there is no living will.

1) Only permissible under the specified conditions. The parents or the representatives of the person who is going to be killed have to make a request. The doctors or the comittee (the "ethics committee" )dealing with such requests will have to agree and the patient must live a life "not worth living".

Under the specified conditions killing the disabled human being is always morally permissible ... although not obligatory .... of course.

2) Not necessarily. You're touching here on the "new ideological jacket " that I am referring to in which you present these old ideas. That "jacket" did not exist at the time as you will understand.

3) "Not worth living" means that the human being in question is living a life in which only pain and discomfort are said to rule his or her life.

4) The representative(s) of the disabled human being going to be killed, the doctors involved and the "ethics committee".

Bbarr: "I'm assuming for the sake of argument that you are thinking of cases where there is no living will."

Of course. Others than the disabled human being who is going to be killed make the decision to kill.

Originally posted by ivanhoe


3) "Not worth living" means that the human being in question is living a life in which only pain and discomfort are said to rule his or her life.

That's not the way it was used by the nazis. See my post in Debates: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68106&page=5#post_1332629

Originally posted by Nordlys
That's not the way it was used by the nazis. See my post in Debates: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68106&page=5#post_1332629

This remains to be seen.

Originally posted by Nordlys
That's not the way it was used by the nazis. See my post in Debates: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68106&page=5#post_1332629

My impression is that Nazi euthanasia stemmed from a will to get rid of unwanted people, hindrances to the race, and a willingness to use any alibi to achieve that end. Under no circumstances did compassion, which I would take to be bbarr's motivation if he ever condoned the termination of a real person's life, enter into it. That to me is the crucial difference between their stances.