Comments on: Better Off Dead? http://blog.michaelgruen.com/2009/12/better-off-dead/ Despite the precision, 'blog' is still a four-letter word. Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:23:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: mg http://blog.michaelgruen.com/2009/12/better-off-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-4382 mg Fri, 14 May 2010 04:57:32 +0000 http://blog.michaelgruen.com/?p=182#comment-4382 Barry— I think I peppered enough uncertainty in my statements as to not really declare a position either way. Regardless, I'm not sure I'm ready to reduce my thoughts to such an extreme as you've suggested. It's a slippery slope, for sure, and you've distilled one conclusion quite eloquently. Sorry for the delay in approving your comment; akismet picked it up as possible spam. `mg Barry—

I think I peppered enough uncertainty in my statements as to not really declare a position either way. Regardless, I’m not sure I’m ready to reduce my thoughts to such an extreme as you’ve suggested. It’s a slippery slope, for sure, and you’ve distilled one conclusion quite eloquently.

Sorry for the delay in approving your comment; akismet picked it up as possible spam.

`mg

]]> By: Barry Kelly http://blog.michaelgruen.com/2009/12/better-off-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-4337 Barry Kelly Wed, 05 May 2010 02:06:04 +0000 http://blog.michaelgruen.com/?p=182#comment-4337 I presume that you are aware that the utilitarian reductionist interpretation of what you just wrote justifies genocide and mass murder of people in society and in other countries that you judge unproductive. If reanimation were a possibility for some values of death, it would mean that certain values of death are medically treatable conditions. By arbitrarily saying that those people have accomplished all they could accomplish (and I don't see that you've justified your value judgement), it means that you support withdrawing medical treatment from accomplished individuals who are very likely to have reached their peak. But the value of a life isn't simply its instrumental effect on broad society. Not only is it worthy in its own right, but to be a "net benefit", a life need not be a whole lot more than economically self-sufficient. I presume that you are aware that the utilitarian reductionist interpretation of what you just wrote justifies genocide and mass murder of people in society and in other countries that you judge unproductive.

If reanimation were a possibility for some values of death, it would mean that certain values of death are medically treatable conditions. By arbitrarily saying that those people have accomplished all they could accomplish (and I don’t see that you’ve justified your value judgement), it means that you support withdrawing medical treatment from accomplished individuals who are very likely to have reached their peak.

But the value of a life isn’t simply its instrumental effect on broad society. Not only is it worthy in its own right, but to be a “net benefit”, a life need not be a whole lot more than economically self-sufficient.

]]>