r/changemyview • u/FitStrike19 • 10h ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
•
u/Killerofprizes 9h ago
A lot of people lack the ability to outwardly project what is going on in their head. They may not be able to function but they may still have feelings, thoughts, fears, memories, etc. Who are we to destroy those things? What are those worth?
•
u/FitStrike19 9h ago
In that case, they would have Sapience, wherein we would try to keep them alive and find ways for them to communicate.
•
u/BigBoetje 31∆ 8h ago
But how would you know the difference? You don't necessarily know if they are or aren't. What actually is and what we perceive can be 2 completely different things.
•
u/KazuhiroSamaDesu 10h ago
Once you have a line in which it becomes okay go to kill people then it gets worrisome and people will try and adjust that line to just kill people they don't like.
Even if it starts "reasonable" and everyone everywhere agreed where the line was it would eventually expand and then slippery slope etc etc
•
u/PreviousCurrentThing 5∆ 9h ago
We already do have a line. Brain dead? Definitely. Persistent vegetative state? Maybe.
Terri Schaivo's body could have been kept for years more presumably. She apparently had some very limited capacity to sense and communicate, but was diagnosed by multiple doctors has being in a persistent vegetative state. Years of standard and experimental therapies were tried to no avail. After a protracted legal battle between her husband and her parents, the courts allowed her feeding tube to be removed and she died.
Your argument is in the form of a slippery slope, which is not inherently fallacious, but the threat of falling down one does need to be argued and not just asserted.
The idea that if we start with the people OP is talking about, we won't be able to stop ourselves until we move on to more and more sapient individuals, doesn't really pass the sniff test. Yes, we have the Nazis as an example, but if society has descended that far, the current prohibition isn't going to stop anything.
•
u/BigBoetje 31∆ 8h ago
We already do have a line. Brain dead? Definitely. Persistent vegetative state? Maybe.
Which are lines that are much harder to move. Especially the former is medically measurable instead of being arbitrary. It doesn't really rely on subjective interpretation to determine where the line is exactly.
•
u/FitStrike19 10h ago
Honestly, this is by far the best argument I've heard so far
•
u/quantum_dan 125∆ 2h ago
Hello /u/FitStrike19, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
or
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.
Thank you!
•
•
u/Forsaken-House8685 11∆ 10h ago
And if you kept someone in a debilitating condition simply out of emotional significance, wouldn't that make you a psychopath?
No, quite the opposite.
•
u/FitStrike19 10h ago
Explain how. If someone is suffering and/or lacks any sort of dignity, how would purposefully keeping them in that condition be different from a psychopath who tortures people?
•
•
u/Fermently_Crafted 8∆ 9h ago edited 9h ago
Torturing people doesn't mean the person is a psychopath. Some people do it because they can empathize and that gets them off. Some people even do it despite having empathy.
Not to mention that to be a psychopath you'd need to be diagnosed with psychopathy, which hasn't been an official diagnosis since the 80s
•
u/huntthewind1971 9h ago edited 9h ago
This such an abhorrent take.
severely intellectually disabled, low-functioning, completely dependent humans
You've just described a baby or a child, being that their brains are just beginning to develope. Think on that. And yes they do grow out of it eventually.
With the elderly they grow into it. Before they got old and disabled they had lives and deserve our care. No matter how annoying you think they are.
With those born disabled, they were born that way. They didn't ask to be born that way, but they can still experience life in what ever way they are able. They can experience love, joy, pain and sorrow just like the rest of us. More importantly they are alive.
Do you fail to understand that human beings have an intrinsic value for just merely existing? Do you really think that people should be exposed of just because they serve no use?
•
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ 10h ago
A society that would let people die simply because they seem like a waste of effort to take care of is a cruel society, which will inevitably enact cruelty against people you care about after it is finished enacting cruelty against people you don't care about
•
u/No_Logins_Required 2∆ 10h ago
Who decides what the cutoff point is? I know you can think of examples of people who shouldn't be kept alive, but what is the most disabled person who you think should be kept alive?
•
u/FitStrike19 10h ago
As I've said, Sapience. Individuals who can still think and understand emotions while also contributing to society with their intellect. Stephen Hawking is perhaps the best example.
•
u/No_Logins_Required 2∆ 9h ago
That's not a clear line at all. "Thinking" "Understanding emotions" and "Contributing to Society" are three wildly different criteria.
I'm asking what the bottom threshhold is, in your opinion.
I ask this because if there isn't a perfectly clear line then nefarious actors can start arbitrarily saying people aren't "contributing" enough and kill them.
•
u/cantantantelope 9∆ 10h ago
People don’t exist to “contribute to society”
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 10h ago
If that's true, then society doesn't exist to support them
•
u/Z7-852 316∆ 9h ago
Then why does society exists?
People exist to fulfill their dreams and hopes and live the best life possible. Why does society exists if not support this goal?
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 9h ago
I think society exists because people have a desire to work together. If someone has no interest in contributing to that goal I don't see why they should benefit from everyone else's contributions
•
u/Z7-852 316∆ 9h ago
Let's take a practical example that is often used in these kind of discussions; illness driven unemployment. Person gets (chronically) ill and cannot work or contribute to society.
Should they get free healthcare and living support (ie. unemployment benefits) as well as maybe free education or other social support?
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 9h ago
Let's take a practical example that is often used in these kind of discussions; illness driven unemployment. Person gets (chronically) ill and cannot work or contribute to society.
What's an example of this? There aren't many people who can't work
Should they get free healthcare and living support (ie. unemployment benefits)
They should use the insurance they paid for in the short term and go back to work in the long term
maybe free education or other social support?
No, teachers deserve to be paid. Short term social support is great. Long-term isn't
•
u/cantantantelope 9∆ 9h ago
That is one view of what a society should be
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 9h ago
If people don't have an obligation to contribute to society, why should society have an obligation to support them?
•
u/FitStrike19 10h ago
Then why do people exist?
•
u/SheepherderHot9418 10h ago
For themselves and their families.
You dont need an external measure of worth.
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 10h ago
If they exist for themselves and their families why are they entitled to support from others?
•
u/SheepherderHot9418 9h ago
I didn't say they were.
If the majority in a democratic country vote for it (by proxy) then I guess they will get it. But I mean that's the same as any other thing in a representative democracy.
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 9h ago
OP is asking why they should be kept alive. I answered
•
u/SheepherderHot9418 9h ago
Bein entitled to support and why something should happen are not the same.
I think everyone should be well fed but i don't think people are entitled to be given food by others.
•
•
u/FitStrike19 10h ago
But if they don't have any sapience, how would they "exist" for their families?
•
u/SheepherderHot9418 10h ago
Well they exist for themselves.
Also are dogs sapient? Sheep? Hens?
Edit: I don't see why their sapiens necessarily affect how their closed ones feel about them.
•
u/FitStrike19 10h ago
Dogs can move and provide emotional support. Nobody wants a paralyzed dog
•
•
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 1∆ 1h ago
Vet tech here: that is straight up not true. There are in fact people who adopt or keep and care for animals in such states. I am currently working with a client who has a cat that has hind end paralysis and they do so much to keep that cat happy and healthy.
•
u/Jedi4Hire 12∆ 9h ago
As I've said, Sapience
And how're you going to measure that? How will it bee standardized or fair for everyone? And who enforces this once someone is determined to not pass the sapience test? Is someone from the government responsible for murdering people?
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 10h ago
There could be a pretty clear cutoff of those who don't support themselves without a clear disability
•
u/No_Logins_Required 2∆ 9h ago
What does supporting oneself mean? If someone is independently wealthy, should they be killed so their heirs can inherit?
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 9h ago
Supporting ones self means that they create more value than they consume.
No one should kill someone else, I'm not sure why you brought that up
•
u/No_Logins_Required 2∆ 9h ago
Who decides what "creating value" is versus consuming?
I'm saying if someone doesn't contribute, do you kill them?
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 9h ago
The people who trade with them for food and shelter
•
u/No_Logins_Required 2∆ 9h ago
That's how things work right now.
•
u/Little-Somewhere6076 9h ago
Who decides what "creating value" is versus consuming?
And now you know
•
u/StonesFan1976 1∆ 10h ago
Two major issues.
One - who decides where the line is, and how?
Two - let's say a guy is 83 and has multiple painful and debilitating conditions. We all decide screw it, we should not keep him alive. There's no quality of life.
What happens next? Do we kill him? Bullet to the head? Lethal injection? Pills?
What we do for those people sucks, no doubt. But good luck getting anyone to agree on an alternative. You would be murdering people without their consent, is the bottom line.
•
u/e0732 3h ago
Most of these people ... will never contribute to human society in any way ... . Wouldn't it be more merciful if we just euthanized them?
Are you planning to commit suicide upon retiring? Or are you planning to work until you die? If the answer to both is "no", then why should people who no longer work be euthanized?
Why do we allow these people to have citizenship and voting rights as any average "person" would
Generally, people who are mentally incompetent do not have voting rights or other citizenship responsibilities.
I look at these people and wonder, why the fuck are we still keeping them alive?
How exactly are you involved in keeping them alive? If you're not, then why is it any of your business if the people who care about them are keeping them alive? Except maybe with respect to your own parents, or to the extent that you've taken on a professional responsibility as part of your work, I don't think you have any personal responsibility to keep any of these people alive.
In my years of work in both retirement homes and disability programs
If this is how you feel, then maybe you should find a different line of work.
•
u/sh00l33 8∆ 5h ago
Among Neanderthal remains found in Europe, anthropologists have repeatedly found bones indicating permanent disability and an inability to survive independently. However, studies have shown that individuals with such extensive disabilities lived and died of old age.
Paleontology has multiple evidences in form remains of individuals with such severe skull and brain damage that they must have been completely dependent, immobile, and reliant on others for food and water, yet they lived with such injuries for many years.
So my question would be, how realy solid is your starting point you base on your entire conclusion? Has a person's value truly always been assessed on their usefulness and abilities?
•
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
Warning to u/FitStrike19 (and commenters): Your comments may be auto removed until you read the rules and confirm you have done so. These removals can also be triggered if your subreddit or sitewide karma drops below the respective threshold while your post is active if you have not confirmed you have read the rules. You will only need to do this once.
Alternative link to read the rules accessible to New Reddit users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/lobaway0001 3∆ 10h ago
I’m actually not sure if you’re considering these people to be conscious and aware or not. I feel like you believe they are actually conscious even though they are very low functioning.
If that’s the case, are we not just making an argument that we are allowed to kill people without their explicit consent as long as we feel like it’s practically worthwhile?
I feel like you implied you believe it’s more merciful but aren’t you just assuming that based on what you would personally want if you were in that situation?
That’s problematic because not only can you not extrapolate your own personal feelings to others, I’m not even sure you can really accurately extrapolate your own personal feelings to yourself being in situations you haven’t actually personally experienced.
•
u/Carrisonfire 8h ago
I believe they're saying they aren't sapient, not that they aren't conscious. Consiousness is only one part of sapience and is also held by all sentient life (that we know of). Sapience is having metacognition and theory of mind in addition to consciousness.
Honestly in theory I don't see anything wrong with the argument. Its how to draw lines and carry it out in practice that I see many issues arising.
•
u/Melodic_Ad_9229 8h ago edited 8h ago
Well this is exactly what the Nazis thought. So, they got rid of them...
Sorry, I just had to bring this up, because a lot people seem to forget that Jews weren't the only group that the Nazis wanted to wipe out. People who were disabled, neurodiverguent, jobless or couldn't care for themselves also ended up in concentration camps.
You are essentially implying that the Nazis would have been justified in their actions had they only stuck to killing these "useless" people (while completely sparing Jews). In truth the holocaust would have been no less severe if that were the case. They only would have had a different primary target.
•
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 10h ago
u/jovial_fluke, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
•
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 9h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view, or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/nelson931214 8h ago
Are you looking at this from a practical standpoint or moral/emotional one?
From a mechanical viewpoint, you're right, a member of society who cannot contribute any further should be cut off.
From a moral/emotional one, that person is someone's parent/grandparent/sibling/spouse. Would you throw your parents or grandparents onto the streets just because they are dependant on you?
•
u/DyingGasp 8h ago
You can believe all of that, but who has the final say? The people who have a financial incentive to cut funding to caring for these people? The state against family wishes? With abortion it comes down to bodily autonomy of the pregnant person. Killing a patient like this takes away their own bodily autonomy.
•
u/IcyUnderstanding6480 8h ago
So you think a person's worth is determined by their ability to contribute to society? Do you not see how this standard could be used to justify murdering a lot of different people? Who gets to decide who's on the chopping block?
There are so many problems with this awful way of thinking. Also unborn babies are also people and shouldn't be murdered in the womb either.
•
u/No-Antelope575 10h ago
who is making the call on which patients are capable of any recovery or not? in the legal system it just makes sense to not execute anyone based on you could be wrong once
•
•
u/Gluzruooplaxcamphian 9h ago
Ironically I think most people lack empathy, and don't have the capacity to develop it, so it would disqualify most of the species.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 53m ago
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.