Monumental Travesty or Triumph of Justice?
A lot of people getting in an uproar about this case in Nelson, chiefly those with or have a close association with disabled children. By all means this case should not be set as a precedent to allow all parents who do not desire to keep their disabled children to kill them. However, the problem in this case arises over the definition of the word person. If the baby was indeed a person then the father committed the henious crime of infanticide, whereas if the baby was not a person then no such charge could be levelled. The baby's brain had stopped developing as a thirteen-week foetus and, from what I understand, was unable to do even the most instinctive actions such as feeding itself without aid. Was then the baby actually a person? If a person is defined as someone who is able to pursue happiness and experience joy then I doubt whether this baby could actually be called a person ( bearing in mind that I have no medical expertise and would welcome correction from any qualified person). However, if a person is merely a human born of two homo sapiens then the baby was indeed a person. Furthermore, American law has a clause referring to a state defined as brain dead. This state is one where a person's brain ceases to function but their body can be sustained through artificial means. Once a person is declared to be in this state the medical staff charged with their care can legally turn off the life support without being called euthanasia. Now I know that America is not exactly a shining example of what to do, but if the classification of brain dead then it could be accepted in this case.
4 Comments:
"If a person is defined as someone who is able to pursue happiness and experience joy..."
I'm not sure where you get this definition. (If I'm sad am I no longer a person?) Happiness and Joy are pretty subjective. How can we judge whether ones life is 'happy'? I wouldn't be prepared to make that decision.
I'm not sure the Father used this reasoning anyway, (or if he used reasoning at all) but was probably motivated by other factors. So the issue should be whether the father should have done what he did, rather than whether the actions performed by the father should have been performed.
Note please I never said anything about the acheivement of or remaining within the state, rather I said to pursue happiness, there is a difference. If I meant the acheievement a happiness then indeed you would be right in that you would cease to be a person according to my assertion. This is where human rights proponents have got the short end of the stick because they thing that the only way to pursue happiness is if it is possible to achieve happiness. Thus we end up with whole raft of things becoming (wrongly) human rights issues.
I saw the problem with the God thing as well and thats where my arguments get tripped up. However, I was trying to present some rational ideas of the argument since it was one we discussed in Ethics and the Good Life.
Good on you for trying to conceptualize the issue within a different framework. More for the discussion
You think someone should live if they can pursue happiness, even if they can't achieve this right?
Firstly, where does this definition come from?
Secondly, isn't this is a bit futile? - would you leave someone in pain because they can seek relief, but will never find it? And would you kill someone (or allow them to be killed) who has a decent life and isn't able to purse happiness? (if possible)
Thirdly, isn't pursuit is even more subjective? You need to infer what state they need to be in to be happy, and then you need to infer that they can do stuff towards achieving this aim.
(random aside: If we define happiness behaviourally, then happiness is defined as what behaviours are intended to produce, so then anyone who can do anything is pursuing happiness, so the only thing you can kill is something that is already dead, as something that is alive must be doing something, no matter how small)
The definition is my own in reaction to cases where happiness is called a right and therefore people should have it. This definition probabaly arose out of a case when prostitutes were illicted for mentally handicapped people because of this right (the argument went: P1/ people have a right to be happy; P2/ sex makes people happy; C/ therefore people should be able to have sex. Hence since it is uncommon that handicapped person “pick up chicks” then their right to be happy is being denied. Thus we should supply a means for handicapped people to have sex.). It is the pursuit of happiness that is the right not happiness itself.
[Secondly]
[would you leave someone in pain because they can seek relief, but will never find it?]
Are you infering that we kill those people with incurable diseases?
Who is to say that a person will never achieve happiness (excepting God the Father)? For no one knows what tomorrow will bring. If then we do not know a persons future then we cannot judge that tomorrow they may have that one perfect moment.
Now I think about it ... maybe my original definition is flawed. Mayhap the thing of concern is not the ability to pursue happiness but the ability to experience it. A person who, for all intents and purposes, appears unable to pursue happiness may in fact be perfectly happy. For happiness may not be in achieving but in being. The ideal then becomes that if a person is able to experience happiness then it matters not whether they can achieve it. Thus since we cannot see their future, if a person is able to achieve happiness then even if they are not happy at the moment they should live.
However I can see the problem arising in how do we determine whether a person is able to achieve happiness (your third objection). For no one knows what another man is feeling or how he will respond to a given situation. If then we cannot find out how another person is feeling then how can we ascertain whether they are feeling happy. If they never feel happy from birth to do death how can we judge whether or not they were able to experience happiness. If then we cannot judge the ability to experience happiness of someone who has completed their life then how can we judge the same ability in a new born babe.
Hmmm ... *J-Rod considers his position*
An anology. People take drugs and alcohol because that is where they believe happiness lies. They become addicted and find out that happiness is not in drugs and alcohol. However, because of their addiction they are now unable to pursue happiness.
In this situation and you knew the dangers of drugs and alcohol then would it not be your duty to warn them and try to avert them from this course of action. However are you not then attempting to stop them in their pursuit of happiness. Then if this is the case then happiness is not a subjective matter. For there must be a set of things which happiness is, in order that there are things which happiness is not. Thus we must in some way be able to judge whether a person is able to experience happiness if under their own power they can achieve one or all of these things.
Now if this is the case then how do we find out what happiness is? According to the Psalmist, 'When you eat the labour of your hands; You shall be happy, and it shall be well with you.' (Psalm 128:2) and 'Happy is he who has the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God.' (Psalm 146:5). According to the Proverbist, 'He who despises his neighbours sins; But he who has mercy on the poor happy is he.' (Proverbs 14:21) and 'He who heeds the word wisely will find good, and he whoever trusts in the Lord happy is he.' (Proverbs 16:20). Also possibly St. Paul was referring to happines when he wrote, 'whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy-meditate on these things' (Philippians 4:8).
Post a Comment
<< Home