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.
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.