You will be unsurprised to learn that I oppose the Assisted Dying bill both in principle, as well as on the procedural grounds that you outline here: though I think the two are not unrelated, and the procedural difficulties demonstrate the problem of the principle. One might in theory accept the proposition that any given person should be able to end their own life at a time and in a manner of their choosing (I don't), but if it is impossible to legislate for that position without it effectively coercing certain people to end their own lives at a time of somebody else's convenience (a cost-driven NHS, a greedy heir or inheritor, a manipulative spouse - q.v. Canada) then the principle itself is self-defeating.
Your insights into the potential Trump-Putin entente really help to clarify matters. Thank you. You made me wonder how St Thomas Aquinas might approach the same questions, since he would reach a very different conclusion to the first but largely the same to the latter.
Both ethical conundra would invoke the primary precept of promoting and preserving life. The Angelic Doctor's answer to the first problem would therefore be clear. The second would not simply be a utilitarian matter of calculating the number of lives lost, however, which seems to be the ethical system to which the USA's President-elect subscribes. The Ukrainians are, after all, seeking to preserve their own lives and protect their nation. Their self-defence is justified, subject to the proportionality of their response. Although the enemy death toll is huge, these are military casualties of war in defence of one's homeland, not bombardments of civilian areas. The issue is clouded by the matter of Russian conscription, since many of the dead presumably had no choice in serving. Nonetheless, as far as I know, Ukraine is not attacking civilians, unlike the aggressor. Their war is therefore just, and the proper ethical response is to support them militarily, rather than cede victory to the aggressor. You are therefore on the side of the angels, but for one caveat: the defence of Ukraine is right regardless of Russia's putative intentions for further expansion.
Perhaps the West's inconsistency in approaching both of these matters rests on a lack of any agreed means for making ethical decisions. There is an unspoken assumption of a utilitarian calculus, based on the greatest happiness of the greatest number of atomised individuals. I am not sure that your pragmatic response to Ukraine - namely, the main reason we should continue to offer support is because failure to do so will increase suffering later on - is robust enough a defence against the tyranny of the majority. It is not enough to protect the vulnerable from coerced legal suicide, the disabled from abortion, or the politically undesirable from being silenced, imprisoned or worse.
Your recognition of the basic desire of humans to do what is good rests on assumptions very close to St Thomas' broadly Platonic-Aristotelian position, and I applaud it; but this, I fear, is incompatible with the hedonistic path you wish to tread regarding assisted dying, which implies that the good equates to the avoidance of personal suffering. That way lies a majoritarian utilitarianism, and further down the path, Marxism. Might we not say rather that the absolute claims that natural law makes, along Thomistic lines, about the inherent and inalienable value of life are foundational to Western ethics, not least the doctrine of human rights, first of which is the right to life? It should be no surprise that when those foundations are undermined, the entire edifice of Western civilisation becomes so shaky that it loses the confidence of those both inside and outside it.
Thoughtful and profound as ever, old friend. You are right to touch, as I didn’t, on the effect of participating in a system which enables assisted dying on those other than the terminally ill, and it is another flaw in the proposed legislation that doctors may recuse themselves, but judges may not. I am open to the idea that it is simply not possible to construct a system which provides the option of ending their lives to those who wish to and who would qualify (sound mind, no coercion etc) without placing intolerable burdens on others. Nevertheless in principle, I cannot conceive of a rational person, in the last months of their life, in pain and indignity, and decide that they do not have the right to choose their death. Absent any wider theological structure, of the role of which I do see in this situation, I can find no argument for denying that autonomy and freedom if there were no negative consequences for others, and you may be right to imply (I think you imply rather than I am inferring) that such a balance is, to coin a word, unstrikeable.
I was intrigued - by which of course I mean surprised and disappointed - by Lord Falconer of Thoroton’s chiding of the Lord Chancellor that she should keep her faith out of the matter. I’ve never understood why non-believers expect that of believers in matters of ethics and morality: if you are a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Seventh Day Adventist, then your religious beliefs will shape your morality as surely as some notion of human rights or fundamental ethics will shape those of a non-believer. I think it is odd, unreasonable and faintly autocratic to say that someone’s religion is all well and good so long as it doesn’t affect their public actions. On what other basis is Shabana Mahmood expected to reach a decision on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, if she is required somehow (though it is impossible) to set aside the faith which shapes her outlook on the world? It is hard to imagine telling someone to keep their Enlightenment rationalism a private matter but not to let it influence their public actions. I have a theory, though I cannot prove it, that one cause of this idiocy is that the decline in practice of religion means that many people have no real conception of what being an adherent to any faith is actually like; instead it is regarded as analogous to a hobby, perhaps, something you do for an hour or two at the weekend, rather than a (yes, i’ll use it, because it’s one of my favourite words) Weltanschauung which is intrinsic to who you are and how you think and act. But that is something on which I need to read, think and write more.
You will be unsurprised to learn that I oppose the Assisted Dying bill both in principle, as well as on the procedural grounds that you outline here: though I think the two are not unrelated, and the procedural difficulties demonstrate the problem of the principle. One might in theory accept the proposition that any given person should be able to end their own life at a time and in a manner of their choosing (I don't), but if it is impossible to legislate for that position without it effectively coercing certain people to end their own lives at a time of somebody else's convenience (a cost-driven NHS, a greedy heir or inheritor, a manipulative spouse - q.v. Canada) then the principle itself is self-defeating.
Your insights into the potential Trump-Putin entente really help to clarify matters. Thank you. You made me wonder how St Thomas Aquinas might approach the same questions, since he would reach a very different conclusion to the first but largely the same to the latter.
Both ethical conundra would invoke the primary precept of promoting and preserving life. The Angelic Doctor's answer to the first problem would therefore be clear. The second would not simply be a utilitarian matter of calculating the number of lives lost, however, which seems to be the ethical system to which the USA's President-elect subscribes. The Ukrainians are, after all, seeking to preserve their own lives and protect their nation. Their self-defence is justified, subject to the proportionality of their response. Although the enemy death toll is huge, these are military casualties of war in defence of one's homeland, not bombardments of civilian areas. The issue is clouded by the matter of Russian conscription, since many of the dead presumably had no choice in serving. Nonetheless, as far as I know, Ukraine is not attacking civilians, unlike the aggressor. Their war is therefore just, and the proper ethical response is to support them militarily, rather than cede victory to the aggressor. You are therefore on the side of the angels, but for one caveat: the defence of Ukraine is right regardless of Russia's putative intentions for further expansion.
Perhaps the West's inconsistency in approaching both of these matters rests on a lack of any agreed means for making ethical decisions. There is an unspoken assumption of a utilitarian calculus, based on the greatest happiness of the greatest number of atomised individuals. I am not sure that your pragmatic response to Ukraine - namely, the main reason we should continue to offer support is because failure to do so will increase suffering later on - is robust enough a defence against the tyranny of the majority. It is not enough to protect the vulnerable from coerced legal suicide, the disabled from abortion, or the politically undesirable from being silenced, imprisoned or worse.
Your recognition of the basic desire of humans to do what is good rests on assumptions very close to St Thomas' broadly Platonic-Aristotelian position, and I applaud it; but this, I fear, is incompatible with the hedonistic path you wish to tread regarding assisted dying, which implies that the good equates to the avoidance of personal suffering. That way lies a majoritarian utilitarianism, and further down the path, Marxism. Might we not say rather that the absolute claims that natural law makes, along Thomistic lines, about the inherent and inalienable value of life are foundational to Western ethics, not least the doctrine of human rights, first of which is the right to life? It should be no surprise that when those foundations are undermined, the entire edifice of Western civilisation becomes so shaky that it loses the confidence of those both inside and outside it.
Thoughtful and profound as ever, old friend. You are right to touch, as I didn’t, on the effect of participating in a system which enables assisted dying on those other than the terminally ill, and it is another flaw in the proposed legislation that doctors may recuse themselves, but judges may not. I am open to the idea that it is simply not possible to construct a system which provides the option of ending their lives to those who wish to and who would qualify (sound mind, no coercion etc) without placing intolerable burdens on others. Nevertheless in principle, I cannot conceive of a rational person, in the last months of their life, in pain and indignity, and decide that they do not have the right to choose their death. Absent any wider theological structure, of the role of which I do see in this situation, I can find no argument for denying that autonomy and freedom if there were no negative consequences for others, and you may be right to imply (I think you imply rather than I am inferring) that such a balance is, to coin a word, unstrikeable.
I was intrigued - by which of course I mean surprised and disappointed - by Lord Falconer of Thoroton’s chiding of the Lord Chancellor that she should keep her faith out of the matter. I’ve never understood why non-believers expect that of believers in matters of ethics and morality: if you are a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Seventh Day Adventist, then your religious beliefs will shape your morality as surely as some notion of human rights or fundamental ethics will shape those of a non-believer. I think it is odd, unreasonable and faintly autocratic to say that someone’s religion is all well and good so long as it doesn’t affect their public actions. On what other basis is Shabana Mahmood expected to reach a decision on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, if she is required somehow (though it is impossible) to set aside the faith which shapes her outlook on the world? It is hard to imagine telling someone to keep their Enlightenment rationalism a private matter but not to let it influence their public actions. I have a theory, though I cannot prove it, that one cause of this idiocy is that the decline in practice of religion means that many people have no real conception of what being an adherent to any faith is actually like; instead it is regarded as analogous to a hobby, perhaps, something you do for an hour or two at the weekend, rather than a (yes, i’ll use it, because it’s one of my favourite words) Weltanschauung which is intrinsic to who you are and how you think and act. But that is something on which I need to read, think and write more.