Euthanasia

Throughout history, there have been times when we made dignity arbitrary. Every time that happened we ended up with slavery, genocide or prejudice. You can"t make arbitrary something that isn"t. You said there is no intrinsic dignity. Okay. Then how would you define the value of an individual? Is it how he sees himself? Is it how society values him? Maybe it"s how much he can produce. Is it how physically or mentally capable he is? If so, does that mean that we can determine a person"s worth to be gone once those faculties are gone? If a fulfilling life is determined by a doctor, as you mentioned, then maybe worth is determined by the doctor. Or is it determined by the family paying the medical bills or the state providing insurance? The issue with no subjective dignity is that is can be twisted and people can be disposed of or written off with no real basis and no real consideration for their personhood. Many people see more than one kind of dignity. One kind of dignity is seen as the accompaniment to life. As long as there is life, there is dignity (physical life, not perceived life). Some dignity seems to be conferred on people (honors awarded, respect given) and in that sense, dignity is subjective. It is something conferred on somebody by society or another individual. So maybe dignity is too vague. There is something that is the same for every human being. We have physical senses, but beyond that we have the ability to think and reason, to abstract concepts and put them in context of the world we live in. We have the ability to choose, a power that no other creature has. If we all share those things then we must also share the value that goes along with those things. If they are a part of us, all of us, then we can"t determine one person to have lost that value when he still has his nature but determine another to still have value because he also has his nature. The point is that there is something in every human being that no one and no circumstances can take away. We can only take away from someone what we have given him. We did not give him his worth, we cannot take it away and so we have no right to treat him differently in his new circumstances. Christians believe that man has an inherent dignity because he is made in the image of God. Regardless of whether you agree, a similar argument can be used. We are all made (not necessarily by God) in the image of something (even if that something is Plato"s ideal human being). We all share traits that make us human. Put simply, we all share human nature and our nature as human beings is what makes us valuable. Therefore, anyone that has human nature shares that dignity with every other human being. If we measure worth -and I mean inherent worth, not monetary worth to society- by this system, then anyone who is human is valuable and his life is precious. Responsibly taking care of life is something that follows from our intellect. We know that life is good, so we should respect it and protect it. You mentioned something interesting- that life is inclined to protect life. I completely agree, and I think that"s actually a strong argument against euthanasia. We should protect life, not take it. In order to mean anything, dignity (or value or worth, however you want to define it) has to have an objective standard by which to judge it. There is no objective standard that can be applied to subjective attributes. We can't have a system that claims to be just or If dignity is subjective then I can give it to or take it from whomever I want. If dignity is decided only by the individual then it has no meaning. I can think I"m the greatest person on earth and live without regard for other people, but that doesn"t make me more valuable than anybody else. As you mentioned, sometimes a person can no longer add to the joy of the world " so the world should get rid of him? Individuals are not meant to bring pleasure to society. People are not there for us to use as we would use money or material resources. The problem with the economics argument is exactly that- maximizing a person"s worth. We are not supposed to maximize people"s usefulness. We are supposed to love them, not use them. We are supposed to see them as valuable, not as discardable tools with a peak profit and an expiration date. One of the issues with making euthanasia legal is that people will be far more inclined to end their lives. They might feel a financial burden to help their family and pass on money. They might be emotionally burdened with the knowledge that their family is suffering with them. Their doctors might offer euthanasia as a way to escape a painful and undignified end. With that pressure, even though euthanasia would be voluntary, it might be more than a person"s own desire influencing him to make that decision. It can be hard to see the value of life when we suffer, but that doesn"t mean there is no value anymore. It"s better for people to be remembered how they were than to be killed for how they might be. There are innumerable cases of people who suffered heroically and saw equal value to their lives with illness (sometimes even greater value). There are also people who see suffering as the end to their happiness, dignity and life. Both cannot be true. Life is not purely what we determine it to be. Something has to be objective. This doesn"t mean that people can"t see the world in different ways or that everything about suffering has to be seen as good, but it does mean that some things are not a matter of debate. Life is life. There are different qualities of life, but they do not change the value of the person. If they did, an unwanted child born to a poor family in rural China would have less dignity than a loved child born to wealthy parents in England. We can"t stop seeing human beings as human beings. We need to respect every person, no matter his circumstances. Killing him does not respect him, but loving and caring for him does. Even if someone wants to die, nobody has any business taking a human life, with consent or without. We aren"t taking a person"s free will, even if it is seen as a denial of his choice. We can"t make decisions about some things, like when we are born and when we die. Those things aren"t in our control. But how we live is. Just because we are physically capable of something doesn"t necessarily mean we should do it. We don"t have a right to die, we have a right to live. Death is, in a sense, a forfeiture of all rights. Rights correspond to duties. Therefore, if a person has the right to die, I have the duty to kill him if he requests it. Rights are also directed toward the good of a person. Death is never in the best interest of a person. It is never better than life. We can and should find meaning in suffering and make the most of our lives. We need to respect people for the intrinsic dignity that accompanies human nature. This means loving and caring for them despite illness. Care involves making a person better, not killing him. Again, this doesn"t mean we have to keep people alive against their will. It simply means we can"t kill them. Removing one option does not take away a person"s autonomy. The person still has choices and a free will. He can act on his own choices. People are beautiful and life is a gift (regardless of whether you believe in a god). We need to respect people"s life rather than seeing suffering as the end of goodness. We need to love people, not encourage them to die. Euthanasia, the taking of a human being"s life, violates the dignity that accompanies human nature. Because of this, it is morally wrong and should not be legal. Thank you for a great debate. I enjoyed seeing your side of the issue.