Faith or Reason?

Sorry, not Ontario, but Oregon.

I am suggesting that there are at least two examples of assisted dying laws in place, in two entirely different countries, which have worked well, without wrongful deaths occurring. It is not beyond the wit of mankind to put similar laws, with all the same safeguards that have worked in those places, in place in yet another country, and for there to be no wrongful deaths.

I am suggesting that there are clear cases of people wanting to die and not being allowed to. That scenario is inhumane and we shouldn't let it continue.

I am not suggesting, but saying it as fact, that in Ontario, the suicide rate has fallen since the assisted dying law was passed, which suggests that it helps people to know that they will be allowed to chose death in their own time when they have an incurable illness, for instance, or if they suffer intolerable and interminable pain.

I am saying that the slippery slope argument is not usable in a proper argument. That doesn't mean people won't use it, only that it should not be given the same status as arguments which are logical. Anyone who wants to be alarmist about assisted dying will be alarmist, but more and more people are understanding the compassion behind the idea and supporting it for that reason. Assisted dying has nothing to do with wilful and indiscriminate euthanasia. It is a right and proper and humane and moral thing to include in a civilised society.

I'm not arguing that what is predictable will inevitably come to pass. That would be silly. But if enough people stand on top of a ski slope, it is reasonable to expect some slipping. That isn't formal or informal logic, it is observation combined with common sense. Are you suggesting that with a system of euthanasia, there are NO circumstances in which someone who wasn't wholeheartedly ready to be put away might end up dead?

No, lily. Forgive me for saying so, but I don't think you've understood. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. That means it's wrong, deceptive, not well-founded, apparently genuine but actually illogical. It doesn't work logically whatever the premise. The nature of the "slippery slope" argument is not logical. An argument cannot be won logically using that device.

Can I have the prize for the most tautologies in one post now, please?

Yes, if the premise is ridiculous. But not if it isn't. And the definition of 'ridiculous' may be rather subjective.

Actually, if you google "arguments against slippery slope", or even just the unbiassed "slippery slope", there are loads of examples. Some are better than others and some are better written. But the bottom line, the crunch and the crux is that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. That about covers it, I think.

i'll need time to dig out my evidence, lily, but I have seen some very good rebuttals of slippery slope fear. Off the top of my head is one that was used recently over the gay marriage bill. People against gay marriage said it would lead to all sorts of ridiculous 'unions' if a marriage was not defined as between one man and one woman – e.g. that a man could 'marry' his son, or two brothers and all sorts of daft nonsense like that. Those things are guarded against by incest laws so thay particular slippery slope argument was just scaremongering, as they usually are.

Similarly one of the arguments against assisted dying is that it will lead to euthanasia that is not voluntary. With proper safeguards in place, as in Switzerland and Oregon, this is clearly nonsense. The significant words are "proper safeguards", and it clearly is possible to put those in place because it has already been done so successfully in those two places at least.

I'll try to find a proper philosopher's rebuttal for you though.

What evidence do you have, Bags, for the assertion that slippery slope arguments are usually based on stupid premises?

This has gone meandering off a bit.

The original point I was trying to make was that logic is not enough, it needs to be mediated by morality and other things like love and compassion.

BAGS I am certainly not of the opinion that people should have experiments done on them without their consent. Not everyone agrees though.

In the past, quite a few psychological experiments were done on people without their consent. Now , thankfully, we have more stringent guidelines. There was something in the news a few years ago about the U S military trying out new drugs on soldiers without their consent but I'm hazy on the detail but think it was totally wrong. Presumably, though, enough people in charge thought it was a good idea.

I seem to remember that it was someone like Mill who suggested that the way to decide what was right and what was wrong was to go on the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number of people which would, of course, support sacrificing the individual if society as a whole would benefit, as in medical experiments.

Again, I don't agree with this view on moral grounds but some people obviously do.

Don't bother to be polite when you suggest such things are bollocks. I don't suppose Mill would mind and anyway he's been dead for ages

I have researched stuff on assisted dying. In fact, I have details of various organisations which support this in the right circumstances. I am totally for it, I might want to take advantage of such a thing one day. I just don't care to call the opposing argument stupid.

I am objectively discussing what some people in society seem to think and feel. It does not mean I agree with them. In fact, for the things under discussion I am very much against.

Well if experiments without consent is a value judgement, that would be news to the Declarstion of Helsinki for starters

Would you want experiments to be done on you without your consent, petallus? Would anyone? If the answer is no, then further logic is irrelevant. Anyone who decides for someone else that experiments can be done on them is making an immoral decision because they have no right to do that.

If there is an argument which says some people do have that right, I politely suggest it is bollocks.

Slippery slope arguments are usually based on stupid premises. There has been an assisted dying law very successfully maintained in Oregon for a decade. No idea how long Dignitas in Switzerland has been successfully run, but it,s quite a while, isn't it? So clearly it can be done without any slippery slopes into other realms. A properly made law will prevent misinterpretations. I highly recommend your researching various campaigns that are going on here, in Canada, and in South Africa for new laws on assisted dying. I don't think you'd find what they say difficult to accept.

petallus I have never heard that saying before - "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light".

It's very good!

This afternoon I heard an important American bloke give a very logical justification for the monitoring of people's e-mails, forum posts and so on.

I still wasn't convinced though.

Bags I think this is such a complex issue, it is difficult to discuss properly on a forum.

Thinking it is immoral to do experiments on people without their consent (of course I agree) is a value judgement. Many people have not agreed.

The issue of assisted dying is not clear cut. There is a logical argument against this (thin edge of the wedge etc.).

So in these two cases, value judgements are involved in the first instance and then logic follows.

Yes, oddly (or perhaps not) people who are for the death penalty and this and that war are often the ones against assisted dying and abortion.

feetlebaum interesting about Newton. I like a multi-dimensional personality and usually warm to 'nut cases'

Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light (as the saying goes)

pettalus : Newton was a bit of a nut case, actually - but the most fantastic mathematician. When he needed a tool to deal with a subject he invented one - calculus!

He also believed in alchemy, and spent a great deal of time searching for the Philosopher's Stone.

I don't thinkwhat is called morality (people's definitions differ) can always be called logical. I think we should try to make it so, or at least rational, as much as we can though.

If something is clearly immoral, like doing experiments on people without their consent, logicality doesn't come into it as there's nothing to argue about.

If something is clearly illogical and not immoral (the second example about meat-eating; it does not follow from meat-eating that one doesn't care about animals, even the ones one eats), neither logicality nor morality come into it. Being sentimental about animals is a completely separate issue.

Not allowing people to choose euthanasia is a misnomer. If you call it assisted dying, by choice only of the dying person and no-one else, then there's no immorality involved and, once again, the logic of ending suffering by one's own choice can only be argued down by emotional values, not by logic. The immorality is forcing someone to stay alive and continue suffering when they don't want to.

I wonder if the same states in the US that still have the death penalty are also the ones that are most against assisted dying? If so, there'd certainly be no logic in that. Not much morality either.

It has got a bit heavy.

I must nip over to comment on the Corrie thread.

We definitely need morality! And stuff like compassion, mercy and empathy.

But I don't think I'm really following this discussion. Never mind.

Bags I was curious enough to google 'is morality logical' and there was quite a diversity of opinion on the question.

For instance, Haidt says 'people's morality is based more on their emotions and feelings than on logical analysis of any given situation'

To take just one of your comments, what is the logical, as opposed to moral, reason for assuming that experiments should not be carried out on people without their consent?

Yes, j08 that video was boring!

I just want to make it clear I am not arguing for euthanasia, experiments on condemned people etc. The debate is whether morality is logical, or more to the point, whether logic is enough to run society on or whether we need something else like morality (and other emotions).

Has everyone else gone home?

I had to listen to that video three times before I managed to stay awake all the way through. Hypnotising.

It was got left out there. #Fire

Oh no. Sorry. grannyactivist. That makes more sense.

I have watched the vid. So, is he saying believing in a creator is logical. If so, why is Bags posting this?