Euthanasia Should Remain Illegal

In the recent decades there has been quite a bit of talk concerning euthanasia. The proponents of euthanasia say that every person has the right to die. On this point we might all agree, but this is not really at the heart of the issue. The question isn’t whether or not man has the right to die, but rather does man have the right to kill himself? Here, I will do my best to convince you that man doesn’t have that right at all. My purpose is to give you well founded and systematic reasons for why these practices are bad for society and the individual on various levels. Further, my intent is not to persuade you by means of rhetoric, but if I can win you over by reason then I have succeeded.

Euthanasia is defined in the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Also, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines suicide as the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally, especially by a person of years, of discretion, and of sound mind. However, for the purposes of our discussion we will use an expanded definition of euthanasia, which is inclusive of psychological problems as well. The reason being that those who believe euthanasia is a right, believe that the psychologically impaired should have equal access to euthanasia.

Immortalhumans.com says in its online article titled An Overview On Euthanasia; Are We the Master of Our Own Destiny, “In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize doctor –assisted suicide. Around 20% of the death toll in the country is from euthanasia and it is believed that out of this 12% is involuntary. The consent or acknowledgment of doctor-assisted suicide gave rise to illegal dilemma of falsified proof of death willingness. Imagine the ramifications of legalizing euthanasia. People would live in fear, instead of having doctors willing to treat patients, there would be doctors ready to kill them instead.”

Euthanasia is intended to be a way out for individuals who are faced with often incurable diseases, for the elderly who do not want to die in the due course of time, for those who are suicidal, and the depressed. The argument goes that these individuals have the right to do with their bodies what they please; they have a right to choose whether or not they will continue to live in such painful physical and psychological conditions. In fact, there is a wide array of arguments for doctor assisted euthanasia. This is partly due to the popularity of the issue. I’ll take a moment here to mention some of the pro-euthanasia arguments.

One very popular argument is that if man is allowed to choose how he will live, then it follows that he should be allowed to choose how he shall die. This argument seems reasonable, until we examine it further. Do we get to choose how we live? Are any of you living exactly as you would if you did indeed have the choice? The answer is no, because nature, circumstance, and society work in unison against us to put restrictions on our ability to do exactly what we want, when we want and therefore no one is living as they choose. Man does not have the right to live as he chooses, nature has not provided for that. So, if man does not have the “right” to choose how he will live, then it follows that he does not have the right to choose how he will die either. Therefore, this is a fallacious argument for euthanasia.

Another popular argument for euthanasia and suicide is that which appeals to nature. These people argue based on instances of suicide and euthanasia observed in nature across various species. The argument goes that often enough in nature there are instances where herds leave behind the elderly to die. They also make mention of the suicidal tendencies of various species. The purpose of this argument is to establish that suicide is a natural impulse, and euthanasia is a natural way for a community to deal with the eminent death of its members. They reason that if they can show euthanasia and suicide to be natural impulses then the government does not have the right to make them illegal or regulate them. 

The problem with this argument is quite simple. While animals both euthanize and commit suicide, they also have sex with their siblings and parents, lick their anuses, and not only eat each others children, but their own as well; and I might add that they do so with far greater frequency than they do euthanasia and suicide. So, if we are to allow euthanasia and suicide based off of natural evidences, we must first allow cannibalism, murder, and incest. Therefore, this is another fallacious argument.

Another very popular argument is that euthanasia doesn’t hurt anyone. Notice here that this argument is made only for euthanasia. This is in part because to say the same concerning suicide is ridiculous. Many of us know of someone who has committed suicide. Some of us have seen the sad slope into despair and the final self-destruction of our loved ones. No one can say that suicide only hurts the person who commits it.

So, instead the argument is made that “euthanasia” doesn’t hurt anyone else. When this argument for euthanasia is propounded it is coupled with images of the terminally ill, crippled individuals, and aging widows. It is far easier to stomach such an idea when we imagine a person suffering from AIDS in a doctor’s office receiving a painless shot that ends their suffering. It’s easier if we think of a person whose whole body is paralyzed from the neck down, choosing to end their hopeless life. Or the lonely 80 year old widow whose family never visits her; who has passed the last seven years alone without her lifelong husband.

Those scenarios are much easier for us to accept, because they appeal to our sense of mercy, hence the term “mercy killing.” They don’t involve a bloody bed spread that someone shot themselves on; they don’t involve someone vomiting to death while trying to dial 911, because they changed their mind and don’t want to die after all. It’s in a sterile environment, administered by a medical professional, and they just go to “sleep.”

But this proposition is yet another argument rife with errors of logic. Specifically, this is what is called a ‘pathetic argument’ and is an error of logic. This argument attempts to assert the rightness of itself by appealing to emotions while pointing at the pitiable and pathetic state of the object being argued; in this case a person.

We are compelled to agree with this argument, because it appeals to emotion; not because it corresponds with reason. To quote Socrates,” A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.” We are sold on this argument because it makes euthanasia out to be some sort of good for those who are suffering incurable and hopeless physical conditions. However, in the same instance they try to “shoe-horn” in psychological cases as well, for instance the lonely widow scenario. They try to gain the moral superiority by making a claim to mercy. 

Further, they are pretending that it is the same species of mercy by lumping all of their scenarios together. Can we truly compare a person with a mangled and paralyzed body to an otherwise healthy elderly person who is simply tired of living? This argument creates a plethora of moral, philosophical and ethical dilemmas and in no way levies an effective argument. For instance, are those who are psychologically impaired with suicidal depression fit to make such choices? No.

The argument that euthanasia doesn’t hurt anyone else is based on the idea that we are all sovereign; that we are independent individuals who have a right to do whatever we want with our bodies. Let’s say that we do legalize euthanasia based on this thesis, what will the second and third order effects be? How far can we take this philosophy and what will it do to society? How will it change our laws, our world view, and our social norms? If we are the masters of our own bodies and immune to government interference concerning what we do with them, then it follows that we should legalize all illegal drugs. We should be able to do heroine, cocaine, ecstasy, crack and LSD. Prostitution should be legalized. Further, the sale of human body parts should no longer be illegal.

Where does this philosophy end? If you open the door, what else must you let in? Why don’t we allow people to do or sell crack? Because it ruins lives, and those lives add up to make communities, which add up to make society. The sale of illegal drugs has an adverse effect on society; that is why people may not do what they want to with their bodies. Similarly, the sale of body parts is illegal because people would be performing operations on each other and thousands of people would die; people might even murder in order to sell off body parts at a high price if they could readily sell it in a free market. We don’t allow prostitution because of the spread of disease, the increase of crime and the moral decay it brings to society. 

The idea that a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own body is diametrically opposed not only to our laws, but to reason itself. The very idea promotes anarchy. Anarchy is the philosophy of “Do what thou wilt.” This selfish philosophy does injury to society which is a mutual necessity for the individual and the collective. 

In the end, all arguments for euthanasia and suicide are either fallacious, subjective, or both. The argument for euthanasia is not built on rational arguments or facts. Further, for the past 2,500 years the physicians and doctors of the West have take then Hippocratic Oath where in it is written: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” The very idea of euthanasia disagrees with the medical arts, and with our common ancestors

To recap, there is a difference between having the right to die and the right to kill oneself. We may choose to not be resuscitated; we may even decline treatment or cure for life threatening diseases. We may choose martyrdom over self-defense, or we may even prefer to be killed instead of killing. These instances differ from euthanasia, because we are not killing ourselves, neither are we hastening the inevitable. Man does indeed have the right to die, but he does not have the right to hasten the inevitable and take his own life, because it is against the natural law. Therefore, no government can make right what is inherently wrong in nature, even if they should legalize it; and if a government cannot make right what is wrong it most certainly should not try and give license to the people to do what is wrong. There is no sufficient evidence to support the right to kill one’s self in nature, in philosophy, in science, in antiquity, or otherwise. If anyone can effectively make the argument for suicide and euthanasia, proving that it is indeed good and beneficial for mankind to practice, then let them make their argument and better mankind. 

Otherwise, we must submit to the facts. It is a question of law and not of passions and opinions. To quote John Adams,” Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidences.” We must judge this matter based solely on the evidences produced for and against euthanasia. When our liberty is destroyed through the abuse thereof, we are returned to the tyranny of our passions. We have liberty for a purpose, and not for the sake of itself. Liberty does not give us the right to do whatever we want; liberty and lawlessness are not synonyms. Euthanasia, suicide and all other such practices must remain illegal, because we are a society of laws; laws which extend from and expound on our fundamental rights as human beings.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The End of Education

 The value of a college education depends on what you do with it and what sort of person you are. Summarily, however, education in itself, if educated in the truth can only have a positive effect on the whole of the person. As Juvenal the Roman poet said,” A healthy mind in a healthy body.”

        

In the beginning of higher education, as we are familiar with it, we see it as a means of bettering both the society around us and ourselves, it was a pious activity designed to enlighten one and all in antiquity. This seems to have changed, however, and while the benefit of college education is evident everywhere, it has popularly become a tool to be used only in becoming richer. In this case, we see that what was meant to free mankind, emancipate his soul, and move us forward as a society has become a means with which to exacerbate objectification.

         

 If our education only serves to enable our various base impulses, then all we see is the continual waxing of “blindness” to the truth, which only brings about unhappiness. The positions we earn via education become a yoke and do not help us. If a person gets educational honors in a process they loathed, so that they can do a job that is loathsome, simply so they can have a bigger house and more money… they are miserable. They are constantly tortured by their own wantonness, which they have enabled and inflamed, to do what they don’t want to do so that they can have what they want. When they finally get what they want they are concerned with keeping it, and the savor they should have enjoyed the thing with is marginalized by the excessive bitterness whereby they acquired it! This cycle is repeated indefinitely. The person is worse off than a slave, because a slave at least gets to do what he wants to sometimes, this person never does. 

In this instance, it is far better that a man, simply do good and be good and not go to college, lest he glut his passions and ruin his life. After all, Diogenes was right," Content is the wealth of nature." and," Whoever is content with the least, has the most."

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Oedipus the Akratic

The story of Oedipus is designed to inculcate into the hearers a two fold lesson; the first being that of the value of virtue and the second being of the value of reason. Oedipus lacks both virtue and reason, being of a highly akratic nature, or at least it can be argued so, especially in the Greek fashion, which I will make some attempt to prove. It is through the exposition of the consequences that arise from being bereft of reason and virtues that the man Sophocles attempts to establish their desirability in the mind of the hearer. As it is said, fear is a good.

So, proceeding from that thesis, having narrowed down our search to the akratic nature of a single man, Oedipus, I think that it is best to at first with brevity say what I mean in the main. Oedipus appears as a man of virtue, a savior even. By the priest he is called “noblest of men” (line 46). However, I will point out that he is not called this because he is in fact the noblest of men, but there is some duty in the words of the priest. It is not pedantry to point out that the priest is talking to the king and indeed I would be indolent if I did not so much as point out that Oedipus had in fact been the savior of their city. Hitherto, I have not brought down the virtue of Oedipus, but I will. It will become evident that Oedipus has very little control over his passions.
However, before I take in the hand the defamation of a character as great as Oedipus is said to be, let us first be certain of the general so that we might avail reason concerning that which is particular.

Here is my mean, we must be sure to identify precisely those things which I have claimed to be lacking in Oedipus, namely virtue and reason. Plainly, I do not say anything on my own authority, but I appeal to your own knowledge of the general and exhort you to use it in the particular. Is not virtue a vice when practiced without moderation? Can a person be just if their integrity is so great that they become merciless? Is not mercy a good? Only, again we see that mercy itself is a good, but not for all. When mercy is misapplied is it not a means of enablement for lawlessness and disorder? There can be no question. The discernment for the particular applications concerning these virtues requires reason.

Reason is precisely what makes humans human. It's the ability to think abstractly, to go beyond instinct. It's the necessity of logic and intellect to survive that makes us human; without intellect man dies. As a person Oedipus is extremely instinctual and this causes many problems for him. We see this when he is pushed off of the highway,” The driver, when he tried to push me off, I struck in anger… And then I killed them all (810-817).” Beyond this, reason is what makes virtue virtuous. As stated before, without some discernment of proper use, virtuous things cannot be applied appropriately without luck.

Where exactly does this impious nature in Oedipus come from? I say ‘impious’ because virtues and reason are holy qualities; at least they are to me and they were to the Greeks (lines 302-304). A writer for the explicator agrees, and points out the same, saying,” Light, to the ancient Greeks, was beauty, intellect, virtue, indeed represented life itself. The Choragus asks Oedipus, ‘What god was it drove you to rake black / Night across your eyes?" Further, I say impious because we discern that while they are holy things, this in fact denotes another characteristic, which is divinity. Things are not divine because they are holy, they are holy because they are divine and proceed corporeally and incorporeally, respectively, from the Divine. So, from whence does this impiety in Oedipus derive? Certainly, his impiety begins in his mother and father. In Nassaar’s exposition of Sophocles’ ‘Oedipus the King’, he points out that,” … his (Oedipus’) father Laius decides to kill Oedipus at birth, and his mother's scorn for Apollo and his prophecies is traceable to this terrible event. She defies and rejects Apollo and his priests for the sake of Oedipus, nursing a lifelong contempt for them.”

Lauis is guilty, insofar as he becomes impious by trying to thwart the gods. Instead of submitting to their omniscient ways, he rather arrogantly, from the god’s point of view, assumes he will make their prophecies come to nothing. Because of this impiety he “pierces the ball joints” of his son’s ankles and arranges to have the infant exposed, thrown out (line 1040).

So, it can be seen that Oedipus is of impious blood from the start, with many evidences in the story reiterated by many characters. However, this is only one sort of source and one source indeed for his impiety. There is another source of his impiety and it is the same as his father’s; namely fear. Despair is the mother of iniquity in these men's lives as it is in most people’s lives. Their despair and fear drive them to disrespect the gods. Instead of being fatalistic and stoic in facing their fate, they behave nihilistically. Their actions are arrogant, putting man too high; assuming that they could and would bring Phoebus’ prophecies to nothing. Oedipus tries to accomplish this by running away from Corinth.

Indeed, if there had been any flexibility and mercy to the prophecy, it would have been found in the reason of truth and the virtue of mercy. Assuming that the portent was not one of predestination, but rather of things foreseen, the prospect changes a bit. If Apollo was writing with a divine pen the destiny of the family of Laius, then such a thing is, in fact, what is called double predestination and man cannot fight such divine literature. If, however, Apollo was looking at the events of the future with time rolled out before him like a scroll, it all means another thing; I strongly suggest that this is the case.

Assuming that my theologoumenon is the case, that the god was actually doing a favor for Laius by telling the future, the onus is on Laius for all calamities. It seems unreasonable to assume that the gods would make Lauis impious only to destroy him, in order that fear be struck into the hearts of those they completely control anyway. That is asinine. It seems more right, and offends logic less, if the god solicits the use of reason. If someone says to another,” Something terrible is going to befall you.” which is better to do, act well or act evil?

The portent solicits no particular action. The portent merely “IS” and therefore, the portent being benign itself must be left aside in the question. A new question arises, namely, is it better to be good and do good or to be evil and do evil? It is clear that Oedipus, Lauis, and Iocosta repeatedly fail to attain to that which is good and because of it more sins occur. As often as possible they make twins of their sin. An example is Oedipus pronouncing curses imprudently as if it might alleviate the god inflicted suffering in the land, somehow. He foments ignorance in his own person and incenses himself, abandoning all reason and mercy. While he is making his reason less and less potent, he sins against the innocent and defames Creon with preposterous accusations of treason and plotting. Even, further, in his vain attempt to alleviate curses by pronouncing curses, he once again is found trying to bring the words of the gods to nothing. His sins are multitudinous against god and man. By these means he brings down the vengeance of a god whose judgment is sovereign and incontrovertible in Greek culture.

So, to the particular Oedipus abandons reason by first abandoning piety. Instead of making good his own goodness, he takes to cursing others in an attempt to abase them morally and lift himself likewise. This is a very “un-Greek” thing to do, isn’t it? We see that wherever an enemy is confronted in classical Greek literature, the protagonist makes a beatific litany of the antagonist’s accomplishments, virtues, honors, nobility of birth, heroisms, etc… in order that upon victory over such a person they deem themselves greater in all respects, though this person was great. Oedipus, very incongruently with the other myths, does quite the opposite and cheaply publishes a curse with his lips in order to separate himself from the sins which brought the plague. Let me point out that Oedipus’ attitude, while not only imprudent, espouses some peculiar divinity. Why do all of Oedipus’ contemporaries in the myths need other men in order to be great, but Oedipus does not? Look at mighty Hector, a man of respect, loved of the gods. Oedipus indeed is compared to other men, insofar as he solved a riddle and saved the city. But where is iron put to iron to prove his greatness? Nowhere, indeed! Not only this, but look at the prophet who is given vision from a god. Inasmuch as the prophet is a prophet the gods are glorified because it is precisely they who give vision. Or mighty Hector, slayer of men, he is great because of his loyalty to other men and because of his noble victories over many other noble men. Glory either comes from other men or from the gods, one is vanity and the other is true glory, but nonetheless does glory come from another.

So, what does Oedipus make himself out to be? When we say a man is "great," do we say it because he is greater than other men or do we say it because he is great and, therefore, better than other men? Surely, we say he is great because he is better than the rest, for he became this way and necessitates the need of others to be great by comparison. For, if and we say he is great and therefore better we make him a demigod. This is precisely what Oedipus has made himself out to be through his many vain pronouncements, one of which is when he points out the he solved the riddle with his own reason and not revelations from the gods or augury from birds (lines 400-405); this infuriates the gods. However, as stated before, logic is intrinsically a divine and holy object; notice, then, how irreverently boastful Oedipus is over his wit. He blurts this out while berating a blind prophet of the gods for being indolent with him to save Oedipus pain. He is impious in the midst of a tantrum and, of course, a tantrum is the bastard child of a person who lacks the four virtues of courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice. As Aristotle said so plainly,” Wit is educated insolence.” As it turns out, this is all that Oedipus ever had, educated insolence. In the poem we see that insolence exercised against god and man, and not until calamity befalls him is that insolence exorcised from him. So, one might say, when taken as a whole, the gods had done a sore but good thing to Oedipus. It is better for his flesh to corrupt and be destroyed than to be interned to Hades owing some great debt to the gods. The gods saved his soul and purged him of insolence and impiety. It is only horrific to men because they all at once in the corporeal see what happens to Oedipus because of impiety, which is in reality only what is regularly done in the House of the Dead.


"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~