Do you remember the story of Abraham and Isaac? How God commanded the Patriarch to take his son, whom he loved, up onto a mountain and there sacrifice him? How Abraham obeyed, but as even as his knife was poised to strike, God stayed his hand?
Scholars have puzzled over the meaning of this story for thousands of years. At first glance, it seems obvious enough that God is asking Abraham to prove his faith and devotion. But some have advanced a more nuanced interpretation of Abraham's actions: even as God was testing Abraham, Abraham was testing God. He had to find out, once and for all, whether this was a merciful deity or a monstrous one, whether God would allow a father to kill his son for no reason other than blind obedience. God, of course, passed the test, and Abraham was at last certain that here was a being worthy of his and his family's worship.
We sometimes find ourselves in a situation similar to Abraham's in the philosophy of morals. Like Abraham, we are faced with commandments that claim moral authority over us, and must decide whether these commandments are worthy of our obedience. And so, like Abraham, we put them to the test. Because we're dealing with philosophical imperatives, rather than a voice in the sky, the test is one of logic rather than action: we reason out what the commandments would have us do in various hypothetical scenarios, and ask ourselves, "Is this logical consequence of the commandment an act that is obviously immoral?" If so, the commandment in question has been outperformed by the God of Abraham; it has failed our test, and is nothing we need care about.
We do this because, in the field of ethics, our intuition precedes our reason. We go into it already in possession of a fairly strong, if general, idea of what's right and wrong. We know, for instance, that helping people is good and hurting people is bad. This grounding in intuition is not something to condemn about ethics; indeed, it's what makes the discipline viable. Without some prior method of evaluation, it is impossible to decide between the competing commandments of Kantian deontology and the imperative that we always tie our left shoe first except on alternating Sundays. Ignoring our intuitions, nothing distinguishes the two; only when we decide that Kantian deontology better resembles what an ethical theory should be can we proceed in this field.
Now, make no mistake, there are times and places when philosophers decide that their intuitions are somehow misguided, and so a theory ought to be accepted even though it fails one of our tests. (This is called "biting the bullet".) But it strikes me that the test of whether a theory recommends the wholesale slaughter of innocents is a pretty strong one. It is, after all, the test we used to evaluate Nazi ideology, and find it wanting. Those who are willing to bite the bullet on this one have put the cart before the horse; they have lost themselves in their theory, and forgotten what it is that their theory is for.
To put it in plain language: when your philosophy dictates that you kill a mentally retarded person, it is your philosophy, and not the person, that needs to go. You have no possible reason to be more loyal to the former than the latter, no way of being so sure of your theory - so sophomoric that it evaluates people only as net gains or losses in resources, without pausing to ask why those resources are important! - that you can take an innocent life for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So according to you, Blinking Spirit, I should kill when my intuition tells me so, even if I have rational arguments not to?
Sloppy logic. The proposition "When your intuition tells you not to kill, you shouldn't kill" implies nothing at all about what to do when your intuition tells you to kill. As it happens, I recommend therapy.
Compassion, for instance, is a physiological response. Some even have it when they see spiders and mosquitos. Does that mean killing spiders and mosquitos is immoral?
Insofar as killing them is an expression of cruelty, yes, it is immoral. The cultivation of what you so dismissively call "physiological responses", and others call "virtues", isn't just the mission of sentimental wackos like Aristotle and myself; it's an important part of many utilitarian theories, as well, and is even hinted at in Mill's Utilitarianism itself.
Philosophy doesn't require that you turn yourself into a Vulcan, and no, it isn't cool to be cold. Especially in the case of moral philosophy, having a heart isn't just an excusable failing; it's an absolute necessity. We are, after all, studying the optimal interpersonal behavior of the physiological beings known as "people". Those who deny their physiologies would seem to lack the proper qualifications to pass judgment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While I don't think all people are equal, there are certain occasions when its helpful to pretend all people are equal. And one of those occasions is quality of life. So the life of some guy living on the street unable to read is no less important than some famous guy that everyone admires. They are both humans and all humans have rights...and one of those rights is the right to life. We could declare that the mentally handicapped are not human and therefore are not worth of those rights, but then why would we stop there.
And why would we not stop there? A slippery slope only works if you can show why it is likely or even possible to happen.
Well I could come up with a list of people that are no more useful to us than a mentally handicapped person: Criminals, the stupid, lazy people. Lets demote them to being not human either. Criminals: three strike rule. After your third felony you automatically get executed. For Lazy, if you are over 19 and do not have a steady job or are in some kind of higher education facility for more than 6 months, then you get executed. Ok now being legally stupid is a bit harder.
But some people might want to add "heathen" to the list. Its been done before. In some places "homosexuals" are on that list already. Really, why is it needed to be shown it could happen, that's what CNN is for.
I support neither of those, so you're not arguing against me. It's the classic argument against euthanasia and gay marriage, and it does not work.
But some people could use the dehumanizing an arbitrary group of people law to add more people to that list. People that they feel society would be better off without as well. They don't need you to support their addendum just the original idea, they can do the rest themselves. It would be best to avoid the whole thing altogether and give every human, the right to life. I personally find the mentally hadicapped really good at carrying things, so that alone make me think they are useful to society, I just load them up like little horses. I think that last line might have been a bit too much.
What exception? I didn't say "Follow your intuitions all the time"; I said, "Use your intuitions to determine whether or not your so-called 'morality' is trash". "Red light means stop" does not imply "Non-red light means go".
Do you take these intuitions for granted out of pragmatism? And if so, would you also take those that are present due to culture and tradition? After all, how can you know that an intuition is intrinsic to people and not just 'indoctrination'?
I see no reason to answer this line of questioning until you can demonstrate to me why the source of moral intuitions should be important. The use of the weasel-word "just" can't convince me on its own.
But if my moral intuition tells me that it's more moral to put my utterly demented grandfather out of his misery, should I then deny it? Or my hypothetical retarded son who is incapable of understanding that he needs food to survive? Why would this be an exception just because it includes the word kill or a variant of it?
Well, I've already explained that there is no "exception" here. But I must say, I find the fact that you're dismissing the moral weight of death itself very troubling. "Let's all try not to die" is pretty much the fundamental intuitive imperative not just for moral philosophy, but for all forms of human endeavor whatsoever. If you don't subscribe to this, then why do you even bother to breathe?
And why would we not stop there? A slippery slope only works if you can show why it is likely or even possible to happen.
If your justification for the euthanasia of the mentally retarded is that they're a drain on our resources, then you must surely also admit all those others who are likewise a drain on our resources. You haven't just put yourself on a slippery slope; you've brought a sled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First, it hardly needs to be said that with such a... controversial... subject, the mods are watching this thread extra closely. It may yet end up closed. It certainly will if people continue to snipe at the OP rather than making something of the topic.
Second, a vocabulary lesson that may prove relevant. Retarded is not necessarily a derogatory term, but retard is (unless it's a verb). Yes, I know the words are etymologically related, and quite similar - but so are homosexual and homo, or Negro and ******. It's just the way the English language works. This constitutes fair warning for y'all; ignorance is no longer an excuse.
You'll excuse me, but I think that the question is as offensive as if the words 'mentally retarded' were replaced with 'the Jews' or 'homosexuals' or any other minority, and just as those threads would be removed, so too should this one.
A senile or seriously retarded person can't [contribute to society], except in the way a cute little Teddy also can. Simply because he's mentally very alike that Teddybear.
Thanks for insulting senile/metally retarded people, Mad Mat. Let's say you were injured in an accident and rendered incapable of keeping your job and were only able to recieve benefits from the government. Should we just kill you? In your situation, the occurrance was an accident. In this case, the state of senile/mentally retarded people is also not by choice. So we should just kill them, too.
And if you have no problems dying, then we can simply apply the same logic to anyone you care to keep around.
In that case, we have to analyze what being 'of worth' is to you. I value my family photographs. But honestly, they do nothing really to improve your quality of life. So we should just get rid of them since they're not useful to society.
I think its becuaes humanity like to gamble... Every now and then a "mentally retarded person" will prove to be exceptional in one very exact area. Sometimes this can be in a VERY useful area like mathatics and can lead to alot of additional insight in that topic.
You'll excuse me, but I think that the question is as offensive as if the words 'mentally retarded' were replaced with 'the Jews' or 'homosexuals' or any other minority, and just as those threads would be removed, so too should this one.
Normally, this sort of concern really ought to be voiced via reporting and PM, not posted on the forum, but in this case an in-thread response seems appropriate: This thread remains open on the principle that offensive ideas are to be vigorously opposed rather than censored.
If anything, the lack of unanimity on this issue that has been revealed here only shows how dire is the need for a serious discussion of the topic.
I do it because I consider death for those 'people' not bad, unlike death for those I commonly describe as people.
[...]
A senile or seriously retarded person can't, except in the way a cute little Teddy also can. Simply because he's mentally very alike that Teddybear.
I'm sorry, I just can't keep this up, not when you're not even pretending to know what you're talking about. Go out and work with the mentally disabled for a little while. Be open-minded; experience; learn. One of two things will be revealed: either they are recognizably human; or you aren't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But they do to improve your quality of life, so what right would I have to destroy them? Unless they somehow greatly impaired my life, a hypothetical even I can't find an example for.
It's the same with the gravely impaired: if they improve the quality of life of someone, then that someone can take care of them and nobody will have right to kill them. This only holds if nobody is willing to take care of them.
We don't "keep the mentally retarded alive". We have no right to decide whether they are worthy of life or not, and those who have obligations to the mentally handicapped are not freed from their responsibilities because their child didn't turn out the way they may have wanted, any more than a religious parent has a right to forsake their minor offspring because they've become atheist.
Past those obligations, any further assistance is charity. It is thus up to the person being charitable to question whether they think their actions are making the world a better place. That's a personal question, and we have no right to judge another's charity.
So, in conclusion, because we have no right to do otherwise, and to even dwell on the question, as though you did have the right, is to let your pride overpower your conscience.
I recall reading an article a few years back about some anthropologists who had discovered a Mesolithic-era skeleton. It was the skeleton of a girl about 12 years old. Examination of her bones revealed that she'd been afflicted by a congenital illness which had rendered her unable to walk. The unavoidable conclusion: her nomadic tribe had carried her about for her entire life until she died.
In her clan, despite all the inherent hardships of a primitive hunter/gatherer lifestyle, questions of her "being a drain" on the collective apparently did not arise.
There's only so much that can be drawn from one such instance; but I feel comfortable asserting that it is natural for humans to cherish human life, and to seek to preserve it even at personal cost. Questions about whether any given life was "worth it" probably didn't enter into the human heart until the concept of personal property was fleshed out.
(For the record, the only instance in which I might be comfortable with the euthanizing of the mentally disabled would be in an instance of such extreme scarcity that there literally were not enough resources to keep everyone alive. But that's a dreadful scenario in any case, when even the best of men are forced to choose between the lesser of evils.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I recall reading an article a few years back about some anthropologists who had discovered a Mesolithic-era skeleton. It was the skeleton of a girl about 12 years old. Examination of her bones revealed that she'd been afflicted by a congenital illness which had rendered her unable to walk. The unavoidable conclusion: her nomadic tribe had carried her about for her entire life until she died.
In her clan, despite all the inherent hardships of a primitive hunter/gatherer lifestyle, questions of her "being a drain" on the collective apparently did not arise.
There's only so much that can be drawn from one such instance; but I feel comfortable asserting that it is natural for humans to cherish human life, and to seek to preserve it even at personal cost. Questions about whether any given life was "worth it" probably didn't enter into the human heart until the concept of personal property was fleshed out.
I don't see why they wouldn't have understood personal property or why somebody in the group could not have raised such questions. But I agree that it's natural to value life, including that of others.
The real issue at hand here is whether humanity should follow biological imperatives, or whether sentience (and the resulting need to maintain a certain level of social control that leads to scientific progression for the good of the race a whole) leaves us with an obligation to help further each member of the race.
Was the first ever a valid option? (Though rejecting it doesn't automatically lead to the second.)
I personally say that in the abstract, it is unneeded and harmful to the race as a whole to keep members that are simply a drain to the society around, however even a low level of positive expected value is worth it and a lot of the cases people are assuming fall here are, as previously stated, appliable here. Most mentally retarded people are still functional enough to do necessary tasks, and only an extreme few are simply drains on society, especially as most of the things that lead to people being detrimental also cause extremely early death.
Do you consider personal value to "contribute to society"?
The real issue at hand here is whether humanity should follow biological imperatives, or whether sentience (and the resulting need to maintain a certain level of social control that leads to scientific progression for the good of the race a whole) leaves us with an obligation to help further each member of the race.
I personally say that in the abstract, it is unneeded and harmful to the race as a whole to keep members that are simply a drain to the society around, however even a low level of positive expected value is worth it and a lot of the cases people are assuming fall here are, as previously stated, appliable here. Most mentally retarded people are still functional enough to do necessary tasks, and only an extreme few are simply drains on society, especially as most of the things that lead to people being detrimental also cause extremely early death.
However, the way modern society is set up, the change is too drastic for society to accept without causing major uproars that would be damaging. The optimal solution to the issue is to start spreading preemptive genetic screening for major disorders and getting people to accept the concept that people who are in permanent vegetative states are worse than dead for society.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
As as been stated, there are many mentally retarded people that can be productive members of the community, just like physically handicapped people. So simply saying "all mentally handicapped people are useless and a drain on society" is the kind of sweeping generalization I despise.
The real question isn't who is "worth" keeping alive, but who makes that decision. Personally, I think there are people in extreme situations that eunthanizing them is the best thing (brain dead, as well as some cases of mental retardation). However, I don't think that's "our" decision as a society, but one for their family.
But then you introduce a 'wealth bias' (ie the rules only apply to the poor). If you are going to go by a 'drain on society' standard then you can't use past resource accumulation as an excuse. If you apply that standard then as soon as the person ceases to be productive, you transfer their assets to members of thier family who are still productive and you 'terminate' them.
In all reality, that is close to the current system of retirement. The people that cannot afford healthcare lean on their families until they die for whatever reason. With how many people that don't have insurance, how many do you think just die from a preventable disease? Natural Causes is just a generic term for died from complications brought about by being old.
I don't see how liquidating their funds makes any sense in your arguement. It's simple. If someone has the money to take care of themselves, why would they be declared ad a "non-productive" member of society? They still have to pay for their healthcare, their food, etc. They're still contributing.
And, as mentioned before, I was playing devil's advocate anyways. I have a personal take on what I would do within my own family, but I do not feel that gives me the right to extend my view into society.
The real question isn't who is "worth" keeping alive, but who makes that decision. Personally, I think there are people in extreme situations that eunthanizing them is the best thing (brain dead, as well as some cases of mental retardation). However, I don't think that's "our" decision as a society, but one for their family.
This is my view as well. I think the family should have the right to make that level of decision, and I feel that many times it is a sad choice that truely is based on the needs of the family outweighing the needs of an individual member.
I'm sorry, I just can't keep this up, not when you're not even pretending to know what you're talking about. Go out and work with the mentally disabled for a little while. Be open-minded; experience; learn. One of two things will be revealed: either they are recognizably human; or you aren't.
That's a very mature and reasonable attitude to take during a debate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#define ALWAYS SOMETIMES
#define NEVER RARELY
#define ALL MANY
-=GIVE US SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN=-
I'm nerd enough to link my WoW Armory Though I'll put it in a small font.
Normally, this sort of concern really ought to be voiced via reporting and PM, not posted on the forum, but in this case an in-thread response seems appropriate: This thread remains open on the principle that offensive ideas are to be vigorously opposed rather than censored.
If anything, the lack of unanimity on this issue that has been revealed here only shows how dire is the need for a serious discussion of the topic.
I'll take that as permission to continue in this thread, then.
I respect the premise of countering offensive ideas with reasoned debate, but I think that bigots really aren't interested in any free exchange of ideas and are simply looking for a podium from which to spew their ignorant, hateful delusions.
I just don't see how a serious intellectual discussion of this topic can occur.
I think its becuaes humanity like to gamble... Every now and then a "retard" will prove to be exceptional in one very exact area. Sometimes this can be in a VERY useful area like mathatics and can lead to alot of additional insight in that topic.
Wow guys, just reading this thread I see a lot of why many magic players remain single and friendless...some of you show absolutely no ethical or empathic reasoning at all.
And no, humanity doesn't keep its most vulnerable and disabled citizens alive because it likes to "gamble". This should NOT be the basis for which we decide who is kept alive and who is abandoned to die.
Studies show that even profoundly disabled children can feel emotions and seek out comfort from their parents and caregivers. They may have no words, no fingers, no toes, etc. but they can feel love and warmth and support, and also perceive when they are abandoned to face alone whatever hell they are born into. The best compass to decide life or death is the quality of life of the individual. Often the best person to be in a position to make that judgment isn't the individual who may be unable to communicate, but the family members taking care of him or her. A failure of the system or community to cough up enough material support for that family to provide that care, is no excuse and not a valid proxy for quality of life. It's often the family who are first to sense when a child's previously delicate existence has taken a turn for the worse. In that case, society should have a mechanism in place for that family to provide palliative care and a dignified and comfortable passing for their child. But before we can learn to cure, we first must learn to care.
My biggest problem with the whole idea is I'm one of those people who believes in the "slippery slope" concept, and this seems to be on that path. If we, as a society, decide mentally retarded people should be removed, why stop there? Let's get rid of those with physical disabilities as well, since they're usually more of a "burden on society" than they can contribute, right?
I obviously have a vested intrest in this topic. I myself have what most would consider a phyical disability. But I work, pay taxes, am involved in my community, and generally would say I live a happy, productive life, so anyone who tried to claim I was a burden to society would get swift punch in the kidney. Also, I have a friend who lost his legs when he was 6. Again, most would view this as a handicap or limitation, but he's probably the least handicapped person I know, competeting in all sorts of sports and marathons. While I realise we may not be in the majority for our "groups," we're not exactly rare cases. And there are likewise many with mental disabilities that overcome them to be productive human beings. To write someone off as useless before we give them a chance to prove otherwise is cruel.
I try and stay away from these sorts of topics as it is pretty much impossible for me to stay unemotionally attached, as I have a sibling who qualifies as severly mentally handicapped.
The thing that irks me the most though is that someone (don't know who) said that they have no right to destroy someone elses family photographs because they have value, and yet somehow thinks that mentally handicapped persons have no value?
Given the choice between losing all my family photographs, heirlooms, and EVERYTHING, or my brother... well I'm pretty sure the tone of my message makes it obvious which one I would choose.
There's is NO way that you can say a living person has no value.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Are you close with anyone who is mentally handicapped to any degree?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
That sounded more like a sarcastic reference
Scholars have puzzled over the meaning of this story for thousands of years. At first glance, it seems obvious enough that God is asking Abraham to prove his faith and devotion. But some have advanced a more nuanced interpretation of Abraham's actions: even as God was testing Abraham, Abraham was testing God. He had to find out, once and for all, whether this was a merciful deity or a monstrous one, whether God would allow a father to kill his son for no reason other than blind obedience. God, of course, passed the test, and Abraham was at last certain that here was a being worthy of his and his family's worship.
We sometimes find ourselves in a situation similar to Abraham's in the philosophy of morals. Like Abraham, we are faced with commandments that claim moral authority over us, and must decide whether these commandments are worthy of our obedience. And so, like Abraham, we put them to the test. Because we're dealing with philosophical imperatives, rather than a voice in the sky, the test is one of logic rather than action: we reason out what the commandments would have us do in various hypothetical scenarios, and ask ourselves, "Is this logical consequence of the commandment an act that is obviously immoral?" If so, the commandment in question has been outperformed by the God of Abraham; it has failed our test, and is nothing we need care about.
We do this because, in the field of ethics, our intuition precedes our reason. We go into it already in possession of a fairly strong, if general, idea of what's right and wrong. We know, for instance, that helping people is good and hurting people is bad. This grounding in intuition is not something to condemn about ethics; indeed, it's what makes the discipline viable. Without some prior method of evaluation, it is impossible to decide between the competing commandments of Kantian deontology and the imperative that we always tie our left shoe first except on alternating Sundays. Ignoring our intuitions, nothing distinguishes the two; only when we decide that Kantian deontology better resembles what an ethical theory should be can we proceed in this field.
Now, make no mistake, there are times and places when philosophers decide that their intuitions are somehow misguided, and so a theory ought to be accepted even though it fails one of our tests. (This is called "biting the bullet".) But it strikes me that the test of whether a theory recommends the wholesale slaughter of innocents is a pretty strong one. It is, after all, the test we used to evaluate Nazi ideology, and find it wanting. Those who are willing to bite the bullet on this one have put the cart before the horse; they have lost themselves in their theory, and forgotten what it is that their theory is for.
To put it in plain language: when your philosophy dictates that you kill a mentally retarded person, it is your philosophy, and not the person, that needs to go. You have no possible reason to be more loyal to the former than the latter, no way of being so sure of your theory - so sophomoric that it evaluates people only as net gains or losses in resources, without pausing to ask why those resources are important! - that you can take an innocent life for it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sloppy logic. The proposition "When your intuition tells you not to kill, you shouldn't kill" implies nothing at all about what to do when your intuition tells you to kill. As it happens, I recommend therapy.
Insofar as killing them is an expression of cruelty, yes, it is immoral. The cultivation of what you so dismissively call "physiological responses", and others call "virtues", isn't just the mission of sentimental wackos like Aristotle and myself; it's an important part of many utilitarian theories, as well, and is even hinted at in Mill's Utilitarianism itself.
Philosophy doesn't require that you turn yourself into a Vulcan, and no, it isn't cool to be cold. Especially in the case of moral philosophy, having a heart isn't just an excusable failing; it's an absolute necessity. We are, after all, studying the optimal interpersonal behavior of the physiological beings known as "people". Those who deny their physiologies would seem to lack the proper qualifications to pass judgment.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
Well I could come up with a list of people that are no more useful to us than a mentally handicapped person: Criminals, the stupid, lazy people. Lets demote them to being not human either. Criminals: three strike rule. After your third felony you automatically get executed. For Lazy, if you are over 19 and do not have a steady job or are in some kind of higher education facility for more than 6 months, then you get executed. Ok now being legally stupid is a bit harder.
But some people might want to add "heathen" to the list. Its been done before. In some places "homosexuals" are on that list already. Really, why is it needed to be shown it could happen, that's what CNN is for.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
But some people could use the dehumanizing an arbitrary group of people law to add more people to that list. People that they feel society would be better off without as well. They don't need you to support their addendum just the original idea, they can do the rest themselves. It would be best to avoid the whole thing altogether and give every human, the right to life. I personally find the mentally hadicapped really good at carrying things, so that alone make me think they are useful to society, I just load them up like little horses. I think that last line might have been a bit too much.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
What exception? I didn't say "Follow your intuitions all the time"; I said, "Use your intuitions to determine whether or not your so-called 'morality' is trash". "Red light means stop" does not imply "Non-red light means go".
I see no reason to answer this line of questioning until you can demonstrate to me why the source of moral intuitions should be important. The use of the weasel-word "just" can't convince me on its own.
Well, I've already explained that there is no "exception" here. But I must say, I find the fact that you're dismissing the moral weight of death itself very troubling. "Let's all try not to die" is pretty much the fundamental intuitive imperative not just for moral philosophy, but for all forms of human endeavor whatsoever. If you don't subscribe to this, then why do you even bother to breathe?
If your justification for the euthanasia of the mentally retarded is that they're a drain on our resources, then you must surely also admit all those others who are likewise a drain on our resources. You haven't just put yourself on a slippery slope; you've brought a sled.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You'll excuse me, but I think that the question is as offensive as if the words 'mentally retarded' were replaced with 'the Jews' or 'homosexuals' or any other minority, and just as those threads would be removed, so too should this one.
-this signature is courtesy of HotPizza at Ye Old Sig and Avatar Shoppe
Real men wear pink.
(Here is my Have/Want list: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=112800 )
And if you have no problems dying, then we can simply apply the same logic to anyone you care to keep around.
In that case, we have to analyze what being 'of worth' is to you. I value my family photographs. But honestly, they do nothing really to improve your quality of life. So we should just get rid of them since they're not useful to society.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
Normally, this sort of concern really ought to be voiced via reporting and PM, not posted on the forum, but in this case an in-thread response seems appropriate: This thread remains open on the principle that offensive ideas are to be vigorously opposed rather than censored.
If anything, the lack of unanimity on this issue that has been revealed here only shows how dire is the need for a serious discussion of the topic.
I'm sorry, I just can't keep this up, not when you're not even pretending to know what you're talking about. Go out and work with the mentally disabled for a little while. Be open-minded; experience; learn. One of two things will be revealed: either they are recognizably human; or you aren't.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Unless they're pretty much braindead, they're a part of society.
I accept this
and this
(though I don't know about judging charity).
In her clan, despite all the inherent hardships of a primitive hunter/gatherer lifestyle, questions of her "being a drain" on the collective apparently did not arise.
There's only so much that can be drawn from one such instance; but I feel comfortable asserting that it is natural for humans to cherish human life, and to seek to preserve it even at personal cost. Questions about whether any given life was "worth it" probably didn't enter into the human heart until the concept of personal property was fleshed out.
(For the record, the only instance in which I might be comfortable with the euthanizing of the mentally disabled would be in an instance of such extreme scarcity that there literally were not enough resources to keep everyone alive. But that's a dreadful scenario in any case, when even the best of men are forced to choose between the lesser of evils.)
I don't see why they wouldn't have understood personal property or why somebody in the group could not have raised such questions. But I agree that it's natural to value life, including that of others.
edit:
Was the first ever a valid option? (Though rejecting it doesn't automatically lead to the second.)
Do you consider personal value to "contribute to society"?
I personally say that in the abstract, it is unneeded and harmful to the race as a whole to keep members that are simply a drain to the society around, however even a low level of positive expected value is worth it and a lot of the cases people are assuming fall here are, as previously stated, appliable here. Most mentally retarded people are still functional enough to do necessary tasks, and only an extreme few are simply drains on society, especially as most of the things that lead to people being detrimental also cause extremely early death.
However, the way modern society is set up, the change is too drastic for society to accept without causing major uproars that would be damaging. The optimal solution to the issue is to start spreading preemptive genetic screening for major disorders and getting people to accept the concept that people who are in permanent vegetative states are worse than dead for society.
As as been stated, there are many mentally retarded people that can be productive members of the community, just like physically handicapped people. So simply saying "all mentally handicapped people are useless and a drain on society" is the kind of sweeping generalization I despise.
The real question isn't who is "worth" keeping alive, but who makes that decision. Personally, I think there are people in extreme situations that eunthanizing them is the best thing (brain dead, as well as some cases of mental retardation). However, I don't think that's "our" decision as a society, but one for their family.
In all reality, that is close to the current system of retirement. The people that cannot afford healthcare lean on their families until they die for whatever reason. With how many people that don't have insurance, how many do you think just die from a preventable disease? Natural Causes is just a generic term for died from complications brought about by being old.
I don't see how liquidating their funds makes any sense in your arguement. It's simple. If someone has the money to take care of themselves, why would they be declared ad a "non-productive" member of society? They still have to pay for their healthcare, their food, etc. They're still contributing.
And, as mentioned before, I was playing devil's advocate anyways. I have a personal take on what I would do within my own family, but I do not feel that gives me the right to extend my view into society.
This is my view as well. I think the family should have the right to make that level of decision, and I feel that many times it is a sad choice that truely is based on the needs of the family outweighing the needs of an individual member.
Though I'll put it in a small font.
Please stop hijacking my reply box.
I'll take that as permission to continue in this thread, then.
I respect the premise of countering offensive ideas with reasoned debate, but I think that bigots really aren't interested in any free exchange of ideas and are simply looking for a podium from which to spew their ignorant, hateful delusions.
I just don't see how a serious intellectual discussion of this topic can occur.
-this signature is courtesy of HotPizza at Ye Old Sig and Avatar Shoppe
Real men wear pink.
(Here is my Have/Want list: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=112800 )
Wow guys, just reading this thread I see a lot of why many magic players remain single and friendless...some of you show absolutely no ethical or empathic reasoning at all.
And no, humanity doesn't keep its most vulnerable and disabled citizens alive because it likes to "gamble". This should NOT be the basis for which we decide who is kept alive and who is abandoned to die.
Studies show that even profoundly disabled children can feel emotions and seek out comfort from their parents and caregivers. They may have no words, no fingers, no toes, etc. but they can feel love and warmth and support, and also perceive when they are abandoned to face alone whatever hell they are born into. The best compass to decide life or death is the quality of life of the individual. Often the best person to be in a position to make that judgment isn't the individual who may be unable to communicate, but the family members taking care of him or her. A failure of the system or community to cough up enough material support for that family to provide that care, is no excuse and not a valid proxy for quality of life. It's often the family who are first to sense when a child's previously delicate existence has taken a turn for the worse. In that case, society should have a mechanism in place for that family to provide palliative care and a dignified and comfortable passing for their child. But before we can learn to cure, we first must learn to care.
No, this is for obviously having no practical experience whatsoever with the mentally retarded. C'mon, teddy bears?
How do you know until you try?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I obviously have a vested intrest in this topic. I myself have what most would consider a phyical disability. But I work, pay taxes, am involved in my community, and generally would say I live a happy, productive life, so anyone who tried to claim I was a burden to society would get swift punch in the kidney. Also, I have a friend who lost his legs when he was 6. Again, most would view this as a handicap or limitation, but he's probably the least handicapped person I know, competeting in all sorts of sports and marathons. While I realise we may not be in the majority for our "groups," we're not exactly rare cases. And there are likewise many with mental disabilities that overcome them to be productive human beings. To write someone off as useless before we give them a chance to prove otherwise is cruel.
The thing that irks me the most though is that someone (don't know who) said that they have no right to destroy someone elses family photographs because they have value, and yet somehow thinks that mentally handicapped persons have no value?
Given the choice between losing all my family photographs, heirlooms, and EVERYTHING, or my brother... well I'm pretty sure the tone of my message makes it obvious which one I would choose.
There's is NO way that you can say a living person has no value.