(A super-quick, type-up-my-thoughts post before I start work. . .)
The Economist went to press too soon to be able to report on the Obergefell decision, but in another way, their timing was pretty good, as they came out with a cover announcing: “The right to die: Why assisted suicide should be legal.” The gist of their argument was this: allowing assisted suicide would further the goal of greater liberty/autonomy, and the feared harms have either not come to pass or are of minor concern. Now, any reader of Wesley J. Smith (now blogging in the National Review) will know that the concerns (about individuals using doctor-assisted suicide when not terminal, and not befallen by intractable suffering, but suicidal for the same reasons that, well, motivate others to commit suicide — grief at a death, for instance; about doctors making the decision for patients; about patients feeling/being pressured to commit suicide so as to not be a burden to others) cannot be so easily dismissed.
But nonetheless, the core issue is the same as in same-sex marriage: on the one side, a liberty interest in maximizing autonomy; on the other side, concerns about long-term and indirect harms.
It also strikes me that my first point in my prior post on morality and atheism was generally accepted: that the relevant question is not “are atheists moral?” but, well, at least, that the starting point is that there are differences in moral reasoning and conclusions even among those who consider themselves to be “moral people” striving to behave morally. It also strikes me that there are two different issues:
The first is what sort of moral principles and reasoning one follows, and how it’s arrived at (“God said so” or “this feels right to me/doesn’t go against my conscience”).
The second is what motivates one to follow those moral principles.
In the extended discussion on pedophiles in the comments on my prior post, you’ve got a couple issues. Does a pedophile — defined as someone with pedophilic desires, regardless of behavior — come up with a sort of moral reasoning that justifies his actions? (It’s out there: “children aren’t really harmed by sex at young ages; it’s only if adults tell them it’s wrong that they perceive it that way,” for instance, though I have no idea whether pedophiles genuinely believe this.) Or does a pedophile, not believing that any Higher Power commands otherwise, simply decide that “morality” is irrelevant?
Discuss among yourselves. . .
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In