How does that statement imply that pain is the only acceptable case?
There are many other horrible, distressing and unpleasant things in life and not all of them involve pain.
Pain is just a simple case.
It’s a dodge because it tries to use a loophole in the rules about killing. You can’t intentionally kill, but the people who you want to intentionally kill suffer pain, and you’re allowed to incidentally kill in the course of relieving pain. So you just characterize the killing as incidental rather than intentional and presto, you can now morally kill them.
The loophole doesn’t work for Alzheimers because it doesn’t cause pain like that.
That’s not a loophole, that’s literally just a description of doing things how you’re supposed to do them.
It’s like describing rightlyfully claiming simple tax deductions you’re entitled to as a “tax loophole” or winning a game by scoring the most goals against the other team as using the “goals loophole”.
Read more than the first word of my post.
There are many other horrible, distressing and unpleasant things in life and not all of them involve pain. Pain is just a simple case.
Pain is just another form of distress, people with only a childlike understand of ethics might ignore anything except pain but relieving other forms of significant suffering can also perfectly ethically involve death. There are things in life worse than death and that doesn’t just include pain.
Having literally everything you are slowly erased can be massively distressing to people.
Having literally everything you are slowly erased can be massively distressing to people.
And by your own reasoning, doctors are not allowed to kill them, because they’re only allowed to kill people in pain and only by using physically damaging painkillers.
I have a basic understanding of implicature. Saying that you are permitted to kill patients if you are doing it incidentally in the process of alleviating pain also implies, in normal conversation, that you are not allowed to do it otherwise. It is a “limiting implicature”.
Outlining how in some jurisdictions you’re allowed to drive drunk in some situations and giving the example of escaping a kidnapper may imply that driving drunk is normally disallowed. Absolutely.
On the other had it in no way shape or form implies that similar rules of thumb do not apply if you’re escaping a rapist or murderer.
Talking about a specific case where it’s ethical to relieve a particular kind of distress through death implies that using death as a treatment isn’t the usual case but it in no way shape or form implies that it’s the only case.
It implies that causing death isn’t the usual case in similar situations. Saying that it’s permitted in circumstances related to particular fatal illnesses implies that it is not permitted for other fatal illnesses that don’t meet the same criteria.
Dodge?
How does that statement imply that pain is the only acceptable case? There are many other horrible, distressing and unpleasant things in life and not all of them involve pain. Pain is just a simple case.
It’s a dodge because it tries to use a loophole in the rules about killing. You can’t intentionally kill, but the people who you want to intentionally kill suffer pain, and you’re allowed to incidentally kill in the course of relieving pain. So you just characterize the killing as incidental rather than intentional and presto, you can now morally kill them.
The loophole doesn’t work for Alzheimers because it doesn’t cause pain like that.
That’s not a loophole, that’s literally just a description of doing things how you’re supposed to do them.
It’s like describing rightlyfully claiming simple tax deductions you’re entitled to as a “tax loophole” or winning a game by scoring the most goals against the other team as using the “goals loophole”.
Read more than the first word of my post.
There are many other horrible, distressing and unpleasant things in life and not all of them involve pain. Pain is just a simple case.
Pain is just another form of distress, people with only a childlike understand of ethics might ignore anything except pain but relieving other forms of significant suffering can also perfectly ethically involve death. There are things in life worse than death and that doesn’t just include pain.
Having literally everything you are slowly erased can be massively distressing to people.
And by your own reasoning, doctors are not allowed to kill them, because they’re only allowed to kill people in pain and only by using physically damaging painkillers.
Yet again. You seem to lack a basic understanding of the difference between if and iff (if anf only if).
If does not imply iff.
I have a basic understanding of implicature. Saying that you are permitted to kill patients if you are doing it incidentally in the process of alleviating pain also implies, in normal conversation, that you are not allowed to do it otherwise. It is a “limiting implicature”.
Outlining how in some jurisdictions you’re allowed to drive drunk in some situations and giving the example of escaping a kidnapper may imply that driving drunk is normally disallowed. Absolutely.
On the other had it in no way shape or form implies that similar rules of thumb do not apply if you’re escaping a rapist or murderer.
Talking about a specific case where it’s ethical to relieve a particular kind of distress through death implies that using death as a treatment isn’t the usual case but it in no way shape or form implies that it’s the only case.
It implies that causing death isn’t the usual case in similar situations. Saying that it’s permitted in circumstances related to particular fatal illnesses implies that it is not permitted for other fatal illnesses that don’t meet the same criteria.
You’re not actually reading any of my replies are you?
It doesn’t matter what I write here, you’re going to ignore it utterly like the last 3 posts and just repeat your same basic misunderstanding.