Glorfindel wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > Glorfindel wrote:
>
> >>To continue:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>To be just and recognize their rights, euthanasia cannot be based
> >>on our own utilitarian considerations ( for example, how difficult
> >>it is for us to care for them, or how expensive the treatment
> >>required, or how much it bothers *us* to watch them suffer, or
> >>how nice it would be for us to have a new, healthy pet) but on
> >>the basis of what value their continued life has *for them*.
>
> > Thanks for that summation. I think Regan is wrong to trivialise
> > the financial and emotional and time costs to the parents.
>
> I don't think he trivializes those things, but he ( and I )
> believe they can't be used as the primary reasons for
> euthanasia, unless the subject consents.

I see all the interested parties, as having needs that ought to
be given consideration. It appears that Regan and you want to
pay far more attention to the needs of the infant than his/her
parents. In your ethics the parents needs appear to be little
more than a tie-breaker if the judgement is too close to call.
Is this fair?

> Let's take another example. Suppose we have a sick old woman
> who wants to spare her family financial and emotional
> suffering. She asks her family to help her with assisted
> suicide, and they do. In that case, she is taking the costs
> to others into consideration, and suicide under those conditions
> would respect her right to choose what she wants done with her
> own body, and be based on a utilitarian analysis of the total
> system as well.

Yes.

> OTOH, take the same sick old woman who does *not* want to die.
> If her family kills her to spare themselves suffering (or for her
> insurance) it would be considered murder and a violation of
> her rights.

Although it is perhaps inconsistent of me to be introducing
non-utilitarian considerations, I think there is a relevant difference
between
an old woman and infant here. The woman will likely have invested
a great deal of time and/or money and (during pregnancy) health in
order to bring her children up. If she wants to be kept alive the
children
sort of owe it to her in a way. A baby killed shortly after birth is in
the same position as a baby who hadn't been concieved, at least
from an atheistic perspective.

> > If we accept Francoine's argument that we are obligated not to
> > violate the rights of others but not morally obligated to help
> > others then is it not better to painlessly euthanise the infant
> > than to wait for him/her to die of neglect?
>
> Oh, yes. I think so.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>I'm still not entirely sure what reasons. You have conceded that
> >>>lethal methods of pest control are in violation of animal rights. Is it
> >>>implausible to you that the number of rodents deliberately posioned per
> >>>calorie of grain is greater than the number of deer deliberately shot
> >>>per calorie of venison?
>
> >>No, it is entirely plausible and even probable. However, from a rights
> >>perspective, the violation of the deer's rights as an individual cannot
> >>be justified on the basis of the violation of the mice's rights as
> >>individuals. In effect, "two wrongs don't make a right."
>
> > But we are not talking about violating the rights of the deer and the
> > rights
> > of the mice. We are talking about violating the rights of the deer or
> > the rights of the mice.
>
> Either one is wrong from a rights perspective. While one may have to
> choose between two wrongs, it is better to try to avoid either one by
> looking for least-harmful sources of vegetables.

Of course.

> And, of course,
> humans are not pure carnivores. Even if a hunter reduces the amount
> of vegetable food in his diet, he will still eat some. Unless it is
> gathered plants, he will then violate the rights of both groups
> anyway.

Surely what matters is how many individual animals are violated, not
how many groups are? Do vegans not eat more plant matter than
non-vegans?
>
> >>The only
> >>just course of action would be to respect the rights of *both* by
> >>trying to avoid poisoning the mice in production of vegetables and
> >>using some other method of protecting the crop (for example, better
> >>fences, or more secure storage buildings).
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>Well, that's a major question, isn't it? I'm not sure I can give
> >>>>a simple answer off the top of my head. You first: what do *you*
> >>>>see as the purpose of ethics?
>
> >>>How about to balance the conflicting interests of sentient beings
> >>>in such a way as to foster the greatest overall quality (x quantity)
> >>>of life?
>
> >>I would see that as a good goal, as long as the inherent value of
> >>each individual within the whole is respected first, as in the
> >>example of the mice above, or the euthanized animal above. I would
> >>see considering *only* the overall sum of welfare as a potential
> >>slippery slope which can lead to very bad consequences for the
> >>minority victims.
>
> > This is where the concept of rights comes in - as a means to an end.
>
> >>>>I guess one major purpose would be to defend and define rights
> >>>>and assure they are not violated for purely utilitarian considerations.
>
> >>>I see rights as a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
>
> >>I see them as a means of defining how the inherent value of each
> >>individual should justly be respected, independent of utilitarian
> >>benefit to others.
>
> > I guess that's where we have to agree to differ. I am interested in
> > the whole.
>
> I understand. We can agree to disagree here.

Sure. You are welcome to present arguments in favour of your
position but my belief that it is the whole that matters is an axiom
to me.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>