Death panels for the elderly

[The Fail Tracer]

If we know it's wrong, why would we want to even try to convince others (or ourselves) that it's right?

The whole thing about the elderly being disgusting and repulsive is your opinion anyway. Is it really a crime for someone to be disgusting in YOUR opinion?

 

[Battlecow]

Now, this is not a moral debate. I don't believe in morality, and I hope that some of you have been convinced by my most recent thread to adopt a similar stance, and are currently hiding it (good move, if so).

If you would like to know why I don't believe in morality, please see the thread in question, where I explain and argue my point in some detail. This is the last time I will respond to this question; any further simiilar posts will be greeted with this post, copy and pasted.

We want to convince others that it's right because then they'll let us do it. We want to do it because it will make life easier for us. (of course, the better option, as I now know, is simply cutting government aid to the elderly to nothing, and then abandoning our own elderly relatives while allowing the moral saps to take care of theirs.)

 

[pichuboy9]

Or we could keep the government aid for the elderly, and we could not execute them. I'd find it quite hypocritical to have laws banning murder, while having a policy of killing those based on age or work capacity.

 

[Battlecow]

Yes. Yes, it would be hypocritical. Also wrong. I think I've acknowledged this- what- five or six times now? Jesus H. Christ. Get it into your heads. This is not a moral issue. The theoretical reader of this thread is focused on achieving maximum felicity for himself, nothing else. We would make laws saying that everyone had to be our personal slaves and serve our every whim if we could. Are you people ********? How do you not get this yet?

 

[Theftz22]

I feel like Battlecow should be banned for either trolling or ***********.

 

[pichuboy9]

Battlecow, can you not go one thread without insulting someone?

 

[global-wolf]

Let's all be friends.

 

[Battlecow]

I was polite the first four times people said exactly what you said, pichuboy.

Underdogs, you're hurting my feelings.

ANYWAYS I'm thinking of leaving the PG for the Smash 64 social thread. There are only like 3 people worth debating in here, the rest of y'all are... well suited to arguing with each other. Maybe not with me.

 

[asianaussie]

Why should we discuss morals in this way? We have a fixed moral context in our current society: murder is wrong, respect the elderly, be polite, etc. If you had a way of eliminating everybody's sense of morality, you could come up with any moral stance to support your argument. At the current moment, there is no moral guideline on age. We respect people regardless of age, so being 'elderly' is not an attribute we can link with morality right now. You would have to either establish a universal moral guideline on age or look at other attributes that elderly people *might* have, such as increased risk of contracting and spreading disease. Neither is viable right now.

Anyway,

> Make topic about selfishly-motivated murder
> Ask people not to concern themselves with moral defences
> Stress that we should completely drop our senses of self and somehow be both overly selfish and moral
> Yell at people for not doing so

shrug

Why would anyone defend the vast majority of the elderly if we were uber-self motivated? Why would anyone defend anyone? Of course there is no debate here, there is nothing to debate. Once you eliminate one's given morals and focus everything on oneself, there is no such thing called morality. The only 'right' thing to do, in the hypothetical reader's mind, would be to overcome any obstacle for self-gain. The only moral stance a selfishly motivated person can come up with is one that benefits him or herself.

When you come into a thread like this you expect a slew of moral arguments matched up against practicality, not the OP trying to get everyone to be heartless and work in theoreticals on why we should kill old people for our own sakes. If people are misinterpreting things and frustrating you, it's likely because you aren't expressing your points well enough.

I'm thinking Battlecow may be fishing for points he can put in a petition and take to his local council.

 

[Battlecow]

Meh. This thread is supposed to be read in the context of my "Morals and the lack thereof" thread, where I explained my stance on morality and pretty much only practical arguments against law-breaking were presented. The place to argue the morality of killing the elderly was there, not here. Anyways, it just became so obvious that they weren't reading anything but the title... Eh. The point of this thread was to argue specifics, etc. Guess no one wants to do that. Anyways, the point has been moot ever since global wolf's 3rd post.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hey- you're kind of the fourth person to bring this up. This is not a moral argument. It's not about what people deserve, it's about what brings us (i.e. me and the theoretical amoral thread-readers) the most possible happiness.

I like my grandmother. Even if my family had to support her, I would still enjoy having her around. Killing her would cause my incredible unhappiness.

YOUR MOVE.

Also, at what point does a bad troll get kicked out of the proving grounds?

 

[Battlecow]

That's a fair point. It's moot as well, though, because we've already decided that simply removing government aid to the elderly was a better option.

And stop being so spiteful. Not everyone has to be as witty and wise as you in order to attempt, in their own small ways, to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Lord Chair]

In several cultures it was once considered proper manners to commit suicide once you had reached an age and the accompanying physical condition in which you could no longer satisfy yourself with your core needs.

Just a little bit of trivia.

 

[Aesir]

In several cultures it was once considered proper manners to commit suicide once you had reached an age and the accompanying physical condition in which you could no longer satisfy yourself with your core needs.

Just a little bit of trivia.

Yeah in certain societies it was also customary to leave babies out to die if they appeared sickly.

 

[Battlecow]

That's horrible. We really shouldn't judge other societies, I guess, because lord knows we have our own flaws... But I'm just glad we don't do that any more. I was watching a baptism of this little baby at my new church today and I just couldn't stop crying, it was so beautiful.

 

[Dre89]

Curious to know who these 3 people BC considers worth debating are.

I'm def gonna be heaps cut if I'm not one of them...just kidding...no really say I'm one of them...

 

[Battlecow]

Everyone on God's green earth is worth debating with, Dre, from the smallest child to the wisest sage. I was in a dark, dark place when I wrote those other horrible things.

 

[Sucumbio]

Also, at what point does a bad troll get kicked out of the proving grounds?

heh, to get kicked out of the DH is one thing, but the PG? Surely there's something worth salvaging in this user of which you speak... I'll admit I haven't paid any attention but I suppose I will have to now, since the claim has been made.l

 

[Sucumbio]

double post for super effectiveness.

so upon reading a lot of posts... yeah, no Battlecow seems fine to me. He's kinda funny actually, in a watching senior citizens fall down kind of way. >.> besides he's brought more attention to the PG than any other users since Dre. and that's saying something in and of itself. I think he's ready to be promoted to full dead, don't you think? At least that way the rest of you would be less apt to clutter up things in here and instead you could bring things back to the DH where it belongs. My support will go into the JC. :D

 

[Battlecow]

^^ Sucumbio knows where it's at.

 

[Crooked Crow]

In response to the original topic at hand:

Age should be irrelevant, but what should matter is the condition of elderly people. If they're terminally ill, should they be removed? Before I state certain scenarios, let me say it should (as much as possible) be left for the person at hand to decide.

In such a condition where they cannot speak for themselves, perhaps the decision should be weighed by medical practitioners.

Face it. You're in a -lot- of pain during bouts of old age when you're racked with disease, left to whither and die in an underfunded nursing home, neglected most of the time with a rampant lack of stimuli. (But that's another topic I'd be willing to create if people are interested?)

Battlecow may be controversial, but he makes very good points that, when the finicky moral compass mentality of thinking is removed, formulates logical conclusions fairly well.

The act of euthanizing these already suffering denizens would be painless, especially when in contrast to the insurmountable pain they face every day.

In the United States, health care is privatized, and therefore, costs more money than public healthcare systems such as Canada or England. But then again, we're not necessarily looking at anything new here- just in a different light.

 

[eschemat]

Yeah, Battlecow is making sense. BUT! On the other hand, in both healthcare systems, I think it's reasonable if we allowed them to live. It's totally the choices of the people, and when they paid taxes when they were in their 20s, they helped support the elderly. The young people of this day and age are paying for the old people, and when they become old, people pay for them. It's a social contract. That's in a public healthcare system of course.

In a private one - WTF they're still paying good money lol. They're the consumer, they buy it, no need to rob the company of the money from having that consumer and no reason of robbing the consumer of the product. Simple as that.

 

[Battlecow]

My man Yhii makes good points. Also, he's reppin' the 64-only samus main thingy, so he gets like +2 <3's from me.

Euthanasia is a slightly different topic, but I support it entirely.

 

[eschemat]

ok. if we're talking strictly death panels, the same logic applies in both cases.

 

[Daddy Ash]

If your talking about killing in order to keep the state, for lack of better term, financially prudent and leaving morals out of the equation, then there is more than the elderly to consider.
Let's start from the bottom up, firstly there are children; how many children should each family unit be allowed to have at one time? If you limit it to say 2 then there are triplets then how do you decide which to kill? The potential rocket scientist or potential troubled drunk/druggie? and how would you screen them to avoid killing the child more financially stable when they are old enough to work/pay taxes?
Then we move onto the parents, what should be done about the childcare, because a stay at home mother would not help financially, do you offer an ultimatum work or die? Then what happens to the children do they get sent off to a institutionalised playgroup where they are force-fed propaganda to be financially stable when older?
Not forgetting the children and adults that due to disabilities are unable for whatever reason to be financially stable, do we kill those as well?
Then there is the unemployment issue, if someone loses there job how long do you give them to find a new job; a day? a week? a year? if your aiming to keep financially prudent then a day would be most correct answer I presume
And finally we move onto the elderly, how old is too old? do we kill them when they reach pension age? when they stop working? or when they stop paying taxes? Also when should pension age be? 65-70 or keep them working until they're too ill/unable to continue?
I have just touched the subject and there are so many variables to consider let alone the moral implications we have omitted before we started.

On a final note, my first post since becoming a temp debater, I look forward to contributing around the proving grounds and debating with you all

 

[Alacion]

I would never endorse something like this. It's almost a little sad to me.

Also, ignore morals altogether? We are living in a world when morality plays a much more prominent role than in the past. How about all this going green stuff? Why are there protest groups such as PETA (though excessive in action)? Why do corporations make small contributions to charities? Why are wealthy people increasingly taking interest philanthropy? Morals plays such a large part in decision making these days that the very idea of abandoning morals and ethics is foolhardy. Anyway...

When we're kids, we're put through school so we can contribute to society.

When we're young adults, we jump into the work force or continue improving our education so we can use that knowledge to help society.

As adults, many of us work 5 days a week out of 7 slaving away. If not for money, who wouldn't rather spend that time relaxing?

I find it sad that those that have endured a lifetime of hard work would even have to face this paradigm of euthanasia. I think seniors' remaining time alive should be spent with as much joy and relaxation as possible.

As far as I know, there is some code among doctors not to do harm. I doubt many doctors would agree to this practice.

Good effort on Battlecow's part, but I really can not see this happening even in the future. But, when you reach retirement, feel free to PM me with your plans on committing suicide to better our society. You're quite the selfless person .

 

[eschemat]

Well, if we look at the harm principle and utility, killing the elderly would be extremely beneficial. Pragmatically, this is a really good idea that is an extension on the social contract as well lol, and if you honestly were a great worker in society, you should have the money to be able to purchase healthcare even with death panels in place.

 

[Crooked Crow]

I would never endorse something like this. It's almost a little sad to me.

Also, ignore morals altogether? We are living in a world when morality plays a much more prominent role than in the past. How about all this going green stuff? Why are there protest groups such as PETA (though excessive in action)? Why do corporations make small contributions to charities? Why are wealthy people increasingly taking interest philanthropy? Morals plays such a large part in decision making these days that the very idea of abandoning morals and ethics is foolhardy. Anyway...

When we're kids, we're put through school so we can contribute to society.

When we're young adults, we jump into the work force or continue improving our education so we can use that knowledge to help society.

As adults, many of us work 5 days a week out of 7 slaving away. If not for money, who wouldn't rather spend that time relaxing?

I find it sad that those that have endured a lifetime of hard work would even have to face this paradigm of euthanasia. I think seniors' remaining time alive should be spent with as much joy and relaxation as possible.

As far as I know, there is some code among doctors not to do harm. I doubt many doctors would agree to this practice.

Good effort on Battlecow's part, but I really can not see this happening even in the future. But, when you reach retirement, feel free to PM me with your plans on committing suicide to better our society. You're quite the selfless person .

Actually, morality is being pushed aside for capitalism and bureaucratic corporations. Money makes the world spin.

And contrary to what you're stating, those who are societal invested may claim euthanizing elderly people will save them individual pain, tax dollars in a state where they are unable to give back an equal amount to society, and cuts the consumption of earth's resources, which again can be correlated back to the second point.

 

[Alacion]

Money does make the world spin but when more of the population being aware and proactive in conservation and philanthropy, there's much for a business to consider. There is a rise in the awareness of green, fair trade, and organic products, to name a few.

All businesses rely on the consumer. Without the consumer, a business is nothing.

Consumers these days are beginning to appreciate the severity of events happening in the globe, and make adjustments in their consumption. Also, branding is so important. If a business can be associated with philanthropy, isn't that a huge benefit?

According to Karl Marx, socialism stems from capitalism which gives rise to communism. In western cultures, communism seems to be looked down upon. I certainly don't think the general population of consumers would want morality being pushed aside for capitalist ideals. In which case, the consumer may possibly look for a better provider of goods and services.

Morals aside, this sounds plausible, but it can never happen because morality plays such a prominent role in society. Corporations find ways to cut costs by finding loopholes in laws, morals, and ethics, which is a little sad. Greed is a very powerful sin indeed.

 

[Crooked Crow]

Sigh.

The "green" movement is primarily an advertisement technique, you're aware of that, correct?

Socialism is looked down upon because of capitalism being the main factor in the infrastructure of the American government. In Canada and other countries with socialized health care, medical services come from taxes. Which comes out of our own pockets. Why pay for someone to live a life in misery? Do you have grand parents? If they go to nursing homes, rest assured it's not a utopia.

The consumer has no power, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Alacion]

It's advertised because it's something consumers want. Why advertise something if people don't want it at all? If nobody cared about the environment, then nobody would market green products.

I always considered marketing to revolve around consumers. Goods and services must appeal to as many consumers as possible since a business can't survive without them. Marketing research exists to find out the ever changing preferences of the buyer and then find ways to attract the consumers to purchase the good or service.

I don't think the elderly are all suffering. Many are enjoying life still. Of course, there are those who are being affected by disease. By this age, I believe most seniors have accepted the fact they are to die soon but this doesn't mean they should be killed outright.

Why should the matter of life/death belong to anybody but to the individual him/herself? If one wishes to be euthanized, then I don't have too much problem with that. But even at old age, riddled with disease, there's something to look forward to. Seeing your grandchildren, seeing breakthroughs in any field of study, etc.

I admit my grandparents are probably not as hygienic and whatnot compared to earlier years but they still go out and have a great time everyday. My great grandmother, who is in her 90s, still goes out for walks everyday, plays mahjong with stakes and enjoys her life. She doesn't let the little things bother her.

I really do not promote taking away ethics and morality from these kinds of conversations. Logic is just logic. On paper this idea of death panels sounds good but add in morals and the idea is suddenly crippled. It's emotion, drive, and desire to do good that gets things done.

 

[Crooked Crow]

It's advertised because it's something consumers want. Why advertise something if people don't want it at all? If nobody cared about the environment, then nobody would market green products.

But you do know companies, deep down inside, could care less? Also, false advertising. For example, McDonald's claims their salads are low in fat, while in actuality, they have more calories than a Big Mac burger. See where I'm going with this? Consumers are little puppets, if the large scale corporation wants to lie without directly breaching any specific legal boundaries, they can do so. Very easily.

I always considered marketing to revolve around consumers. Goods and services must appeal to as many consumers as possible since a business can't survive without them. Marketing research exists to find out the ever changing preferences of the buyer and then find ways to attract the consumers to purchase the good or service.

Yes, but how is this related to death panels for elderly citizens again? I supported a claim that tax dollars will be essentially wasted to keep withered and defective parts alive. I'm not talking about all elderly citizens, just ones who are terminally ill.

I don't think the elderly are all suffering. Many are enjoying life still. Of course, there are those who are being affected by disease. By this age, I believe most seniors have accepted the fact they are to die soon but this doesn't mean they should be killed outright.

Euthanasia is typically consensual.

Why should the matter of life/death belong to anybody but to the individual him/herself? If one wishes to be euthanized, then I don't have too much problem with that. But even at old age, riddled with disease, there's something to look forward to. Seeing your grandchildren, seeing breakthroughs in any field of study, etc.

Terminally ill patients are usually so crippled and in tremendous amounts of pain, realistically, what options are there? You're very optimistic and liberal, but this situation is a lot more black and white than people give it credit for.

I admit my grandparents are probably not as hygienic and whatnot compared to earlier years but they still go out and have a great time everyday. My great grandmother, who is in her 90s, still goes out for walks everyday, plays mahjong with stakes and enjoys her life. She doesn't let the little things bother her.

Fascinating. And when she has a stroke, or suddenly becomes ill, who looks after her?

I really do not promote taking away ethics and morality from these kinds of conversations. Logic is just logic. On paper this idea of death panels sounds good but add in morals and the idea is suddenly crippled. It's emotion, drive, and desire to do good that gets things done.

Morality is an artificial system implemented and devised by religious institutions. This is a purely legal standpoint we're discussing here.

 

[Alacion]

First, thanks for coping with me here since I'm relatively new to argument and all that stuff

The McDonalds thing may be true (although it's just the dressing) but aren't there stores that bank on the consumer knowing that their products are ethical, such as The Body Shop? Consumer knowledge can also influence things too. For example, the documentary Supersize Me gave the public knowledge of how harmful McDonalds food can be and subsequently removed their Supersize option, in accordance to consumer opinions.

A main difference between us is that you feel that morality and emotions shouldn't play a part in this discussion while I think the opposite. These are two different playing fields. While it may be considered a waste keeping something barely alive, alive, I'd support keeping the individual alive unless he/she wanted otherwise.

I think I mentioned earlier that doctors have some kind of code against this. Back when the doctor foolishly said I had sleep apnea due to being exhausted day in and day out, I got directed to a somnologist and read the code that the doctor would not euthanize any individual. Even if the senior consented to euthanasia, I don't know if it could actually happen. (Unless this theoretical world did not have this either)

I do try to be optimistic because it's such a shame to see seniors having to suffer so much after a lifetime of hard work. Besides painkillers, euthanasia may be a good solution to ease the pain although this may be against personal/religious beliefs so many seniors end up enduring the pain to the end?

If my great grandmother has a stroke, I'm sure at least one of her many, many children will watch after her as well as other relatives. This isn't always the case but the family on my mom's side is very family oriented and will do anything to help each other out.

Morality may have come from religious institutions, and while I believe religion to be hokum, I'm glad morals has whatever effect it has at present. Morality exists to benefit humanity. It has influenced many decisions that may have gone against the religions that created this set of values.

From a legal point of view in Canada, none of this would be possible as Euthanasia administered by a physician or assisted suicide is illegal.

 

[Crooked Crow]

First, thanks for coping with me here since I'm relatively new to argument and all that stuff

I'm new too. Don't worry about it.

The McDonalds thing may be true (although it's just the dressing) but aren't there stores that bank on the consumer knowing that their products are ethical, such as The Body Shop? Consumer knowledge can also influence things too. For example, the documentary Supersize Me gave the public knowledge of how harmful McDonalds food can be and subsequently removed their Supersize option, in accordance to consumer opinions.

Not necessarily. On a scale that is politically correct, yes, consumers should bank on knowledge. This doesn't always happen though.

We're going off topic in tangents here.

A main difference between us is that you feel that morality and emotions shouldn't play a part in this discussion while I think the opposite. These are two different playing fields. While it may be considered a waste keeping something barely alive, alive, I'd support keeping the individual alive unless he/she wanted otherwise.

But we're discussing this matter in terms of the individual patient giving consent, and if the specific individual patient is unable to do so, whether they're comatose, or in a vegetated state, a qualified and professional medical practitioner will make the judgement. Rest assured, that this isn't unjustified, nor is it cold blooded murder, said patients can't even leave their beds.

I think I mentioned earlier that doctors have some kind of code against this. Back when the doctor foolishly said I had sleep apnea due to being exhausted day in and day out, I got directed to a somnologist and read the code that the doctor would not euthanize any individual. Even if the senior consented to euthanasia, I don't know if it could actually happen. (Unless this theoretical world did not have this either)

That's because it's not universally accepted or legal. Due to the government and general populace being split on the issue, a stalemate has been created, similar to gay marriage and abortions. Not a defining answer is available, but the issue clearly exists.

On another note, pharmaceutical companies, are responsible for a large proportion of a country's capita, and in the United States, they are even more powerful. If helpless, sick, and elderly people by the masses are not chomping down their medications, where is their profit coming from? The younger generations don't really require as much medication on a large scale basis that elderly citizens do. Now, while I personally stress that this is tax dollars wasted, remember these are extremely big companies with a lot of influence.

I do try to be optimistic because it's such a shame to see seniors having to suffer so much after a lifetime of hard work. Besides painkillers, euthanasia may be a good solution to ease the pain although this may be against personal/religious beliefs so many seniors end up enduring the pain to the end?

This is true. Not sure whether fundamental religious teachings play a direct, correlated role, but I'm sure it's at least slightly responsible. In the eyes of many, it's murder. Now, while not technically the same thing, euthanasia is regarded by society to be reminiscent of the same thing. And as you know, murder goes against every religion we've ever studied.

If my great grandmother has a stroke, I'm sure at least one of her many, many children will watch after her as well as other relatives. This isn't always the case but the family on my mom's side is very family oriented and will do anything to help each other out.

I can't elaborate, as I don't know your situation personally.

Morality may have come from religious institutions, and while I believe religion to be hokum, I'm glad morals has whatever effect it has at present. Morality exists to benefit humanity. It has influenced many decisions that may have gone against the religions that created this set of values.

Morality can also be extremely regressive and influence religious teachings that are detrimental. For example, being gay is a sin, and even in the Qu'ran, it states that killing all Jews and Christians is preferred. Now, while these testaments were obviously written in a different time period, and in a different state of mind, people misinterpret their own religon and take these texts literally, instead of metaphorically as they were intended.

This creates problems. Look around, I'm sure you can find more examples.

 

[T-block]

Nothing wrong with a little thought experiment, which is what we are doing when removing morality from the equation. Of course, morality will play a part in any decision that is actually made. But until then, it's interesting to run through a thought process without it. It shows which parts of our rationality are actually influenced by morality.

 

[eschemat]

Morality is BS in corporations. Read Milton Friedman, please. It's in the best interest of the government to save money from allocating resources that would go towards the elderly to people who's lives won't just be prolonged, but saved. The real question is what's in society's best interests, and with a completely unbias opinion, I think it's difficult to say it's bad for society to have death panels for the elderly.

 

[Battlecow]

Good effort on Battlecow's part, but I really can not see this happening even in the future. But, when you reach retirement, feel free to PM me with your plans on committing suicide to better our society. You're quite the selfless person .

The plan here was to selfishly kill one generation of elderly folks so that I, personally, could have more money and happiness. I find it simultaneously amusing and sad that so many people think they're clever when they find moral problems with this.

That being said, welcome to the PG I guess. I'm your eternal host, battlecow.

 

[Daddy Ash]

The problem with your death panel theory is that when you reach retirement age, there could be someone like-minded wanting to selfishly kill one more generation of the elderly to give themselves more money and happiness. And with your purging of the elderly when you were younger could act as precedent to carry out another purge of the elderly, in which you would fall under that category.

 

[Battlecow]

The "cons"

- We ourselves will one day become old, and we don't want to die sooner than we have to.
You don't want to die? That's why this is a one-time thing; we defend ourselves from the scourge of future generations by properly and strictly indoctrinating them into a moral system of our own creation- our own forefathers' mistake was to give us too much leash. Now they reap the whirlwind.

No one reads OP's anymore. It's like a lost art.

 

[Daddy Ash]

I did read the OP, you said it would be a one time thing, the point I am making is that the next generation, when we are old can use our one time purging of the elderly as precedent to allow another purge of the elderly. I think reading posts properly is becoming a lost art...