ethics

"“I also have an interest in exploring the ontological status of Blackness,”"

"“I have humbly learned not to plan for the future, as tomorrow is a mystery that will only become known to me when it manifests,” she concludes."

"“I am a guardian to a group of students who form an executive committee of the Faculty House in Humanities, an academic mentor for some students on the Student Representative Council, and I am a consultant at Redhill School in Johannesburg, which runs a project on philosophy for children.”"

"Bushido () offers us the ideal of poverty instead of wealth, humility in place of ostentation, reserve instead of reclame, self-sacrifice in place of selfishness, the care of the interest of the State rather than that of the individual. It inspires ardent courage and the refusal to turn back upon the enemy. It looks death calmly in the face, and prefers it to ignominy of any kind. It preaches submission to authority and the sacrifice of all private interests, whether of self or of family, to the common weal. It requires its disciples to submit to a strict physical and mental discipline, develops a martial spirit, and by lauding the virtues of courage, constancy, fortitude, faithfulness, daring, self-restraint, offers an exalted code of moral principles, not only for the man and the warrior, but for men and women in times both of peace and war."

"The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that dying without reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivolous way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death, it is not necessary to gain one's aim. We all want to live. And in large part we make our logic according to what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to live is cowardice. This is a thin dangerous line. To die without gaining one's aim is a dog's death and fanaticism. But there is no shame in this. This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai. If by setting one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead, he gains freedom in the Way. His whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling."

"The harm inflicted by the suicide upon himself must be the deprivation of possible future experiences (keep in mind that sacred harms, such as religious harm, belong under different moral foundations). However, by committing suicide, a person affirms that, in his evaluation, the expected future gains from living are not worth the expected costs. Many people intuitively support this line of thinking when it comes to people dying of a terminal illness. But why would people dying of a terminal illness be the only people miserable enough to rationally want to die? Hope is not necessarily rational. Prohibiting suicide amounts to substituting one’s own (poorly informed) judgment for the suicide’s own (immeasurably better informed) judgment of the degree to which his life is worth living."

"The most commonly cited harm inflicted by suicide is the harm to the surviving friends and relatives. What, exactly, does that harm consist of? Certainly, it is not merely the fact that the person has died. Everyone dies eventually; suicides are not unique in this. Our surviving family and friends must eventually come to terms with all of our deaths. The only special harm attributable to the suicide is that he has died early, depriving the survivors of an expected period of his company and support—specifically, that period between the time of suicide and the time he would have otherwise died. During that time, the lover or spouse no longer enjoys the affection of the suicide; the relative no longer enjoys his visits and presents and sidewalk-shoveling; the friend no longer enjoys his opinions and companionship; the parent may no longer hope for grandchildren. The problem is that little of this “company and support” (and reproductive capacity) is morally obligatory. A person may, without committing a moral wrong by modern standards, leave his spouse due to irreconcilable differences or move away from his friends and relatives to pursue a career or refuse to have children. Providing our company is a voluntary act, and we are under no moral obligation to do so. The company and support of a person is best viewed as a privilege, not a right."

"They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice; that only a madman could be guilty of it; and other insipidities of the same kind; or else they make the nonsensical remark that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person."

"There exists a right by which we take a man's life but none by which we take from him his death: this is mere cruelty."

"Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death."

"Over the years, the way in which society views the taking of one’s own life has varied enormously. Suicide has not always been seen as the act of a sick and depressed person. In ancient Greece, Athenian magistrates kept a supply of poison for anyone who wanted to die. You just needed official permission. For the Stoics of ancient times, suicide was considered an appropriate response, if the problems of pain, grave illness or physical abnormalities became too great. With the rise of Christianity, however, suicide came to be viewed as a sin (a violation of the sixth commandment). As Lisa Lieberman writes in her book Leaving You, all of a sudden ‘the Roman ideal of heroic individualism’ was replaced ‘with a platonic concept of submission to divine authority’."

"If suicide is a crime, only cowardice can drive us to it. If it is not a crime, both prudence and courage should lead us to rid ourselves of existence when it becomes a burden. If that time comes, suicide is our only way to be useful to society—setting an example which, if imitated, would preserve to everyone his chance for happiness in life, and effectively free him from all risk of misery."

"Suicide can often be consistent with self-interest and with one’s duty to oneself; this can’t be questioned by anyone who accepts that age, sickness, or misfortune may make life a burden that is even worse than annihilation. I don’t believe that anyone ever threw away his life while it was worth keeping. Our natural horror of death is too great to be overcome by small motives. It may happen that a man takes his own life although his state of health or fortune didn’t seem to require this remedy, but we can be sure that he was cursed with such an incurable depravity or depression as must poison all enjoyment and make him as miserable as if he had been loaded with the most grievous misfortunes."

"All I ask of persons to whom any form of euthanasia is morally repugnant is tolerance and understanding of the feelings of others who want the right to choose what happens to their bodies in a free society. To every person their own way of death."

"Suicide is sometimes morally wrong, and it is sometimes the consequence of psychological problems. However, it is not always susceptible to such criticism. If we step back from our powerful survival instinct and our optimism bias, ending one’s life may seem much wiser than continuing to live, particularly when the burdens of life are considerable. Moreover, it would be indecent to condemn those who, having deliberated carefully about the matter, decide that they no longer wish to endure the burdens of a life to which they never consented. They ought to take the interests of others, especially family and friends, into account. This is particularly true of those (such as spouses and children) to whom obligations have been voluntarily undertaken. The presence of such connections and obligations will trump lesser burdens, morally speaking. However, once the burdens of life reach a certain level of severity (determined, in part, by the relevant person’s own assessment of his life’s value and quality), it becomes indecent to expect him to remain alive for the benefit of others."

"If your pet is dying in pain, you will be condemned for cruelty if you do not summon the vet to give him a general anaesthetic from which he will not come round. But if your doctor performs exactly the same merciful service for you when you are dying in pain, he runs the risk of being prosecuted for murder. When I am dying, I should like my life to be taken out under a general anaesthetic, exactly as if it were a diseased appendix. But I shall not be allowed that privilege, because I have the ill-luck to be born a member of Homo sapiens rather than, for example, Canis familiaris or Felis catus. At least, that will be the case unless I move to a more enlightened place like Switzerland, the Netherlands or Oregon. Why are such enlightened places so rare? Mostly because of the influence of religion."

"I shall argue that although suicide is always tragic (because it always involves serious costs), we ought to be less judgmental about it, whether psychiatrically or morally, than people usually are. Suicide is sometimes a reasonable—even the most reasonable— response to a particular human’s predicament (rather than to the human predicament in general)."

"In quixotically trying to conquer death doctors all too frequently do no good for their patients’ “ease” but at the same time they do harm instead by prolonguing and even magnifying patients’ dis-ease."

"All our obligations to do good to society seem to involve doing something in return: I get the benefits of society, so I ought to promote its interests. But when I withdraw myself altogether from society, can I still be obliged to serve it? And even if our obligations to do good did last for ever, they certainly have some limits; I am not obliged to do a small good to society at the expense of a great harm to myself; so why should I prolong a miserable existence because of some trivial advantage that the public may perhaps receive from me? Suppose I am old and unwell: can’t I lawfully resign from whatever jobs I have, and spend all my time coping with these calamities and doing what I can to reduce the miseries of my remaining years? If so, why isn’t it lawful for me to cut short these miseries at once by suicide, an action that does no more harm to society? Now try three other suppositions. Suppose that I am no longer able to do any good for society, or that I am a burden to society, or that my life is getting in the way of some other person’s being much more useful to society. In such cases it must be not only lawful but praiseworthy for me to take my own life. And most people who are at all tempted to commit suicide are in some such situation; those who have health, or power, or authority, usually have better reason to be on good terms with the world."

"In popular imagination, at least, the 1970s was the golden age of excess in Hollywood. This was the decade when the studios were taken over by a new generation of maverick, mostly male, artists and film-makers, whose creative brilliance was matched by their wild feats of self-indulgent hedonism when they were off duty."

"I fear that in a few years there may be a kind of 'panic', in this form: 'since Millet' we have sunk very low — the word decadence, now whispered or pronounced in veiled terms (see Herkomer), will then sound like an alarm bell. Many, like I myself, now keep quiet, because they already have the reputation of being awkward customers, and talking about it doesn't help. That — namely, talking — isn't what one needs to do — one must work, though with sorrow in the heart. Those who later cry out the loudest about decadence will themselves belong to it the most. I repeat: by this shall ye know them, [from: Matt. 7:16.] by their work, and it won't be the most eloquent who say the truest things. See Millet himself, see Herkomer, they're certainly not orators, and speak almost reluctantly."

"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."

"If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

"I will respect the privacy of my patients"

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."

"If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

"If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men..."

"I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

"if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot."

"I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being..."

"I swear by... all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath...:"

"To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him..."

"I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure."

"To regard his offspring as equal to my brothers.. and to teach them this art — if they desire to learn it — without fee and covenant..."

"I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings..."

"I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery."

"I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice."

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."

"Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves."

"What I may see or hear...in regard to the life of men...I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about."

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:"

"I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow."

"I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug."

"If there is a single element within Catholic casuistry that characterizes its analyses, it is the doctrine of the double effect. This doctrine originates in Aquinas’ claim that killing in self-defense need not involve the intent to end the assailant’s life. Thus, killing in this case does violate the prohibition of intentional killing this doctrine can be applied to many issues in bioethics, including mutilations whose intent is not to destroy bodily function but to save the patient’s life, terminations of pregnancy where there is no intent to kill or harm the fetus (or even precisely to end the pregnancy); decisions to withhold treatment whose intent was not to shorten life but to avoid other evils; and actions in which support is given to wrongdoing, but not for the sake of fostering wrongdoing. Recent analysis of the case of the conjoined twins of Malta, for example, makes use of the doctrine of double effect to determine whether the loss of one twin’s life, in an operation to separate the two, was intended as a means, or accepted as a side effect. There has been much dispute over the doctrine of the double effect among Roman catholic theologians since the debates over contraception began in the 1960s (Boyle, 1993, pp. 11-18). These are part of the larger controversy over moral norms and the conduct of Catholic casuistry, which has dominated catholic moral theology for the last sixty years. The view of the Vatican on these matters has been stated in Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor (1993, pp. 108-127)."

"At first, no Catholic theologians supported even this qualified endorsement of the pill for contraceptive purposes. Until the end of 1961, Catholic theologians concurred that oral contraception constituted a deliberate act of direct sterilization and consequently was illicit. As Pius XII made clear in a 1958 speech to the Seventh International Congress of Hematology, the individual’s intentions determined the morality of ingesting an ovulatory medications: “If the woman takes the pill with no intention of preventing contraception, but solely for a medical purpose as a necessary remedy for a disease of the uterus, she brings about an indirect sterilization, which is permissible according to the general principle concerning actions that have a double effect. But a direct sterilization and consequently an illicit one, is brought about whenever ovulation is impeded with the goal of protecting the uterus and the body from a pregnancy that it cannot support.” If the aim was contraceptive, the Church condemned the use of the pill. December1961 witnessed the first significant modification of this position. In response to reports of multiple rapes of nuns stationed in the Congo, the Italian Catholic theological journal Studi Cattolici posed the following theoretical question: Could an unmarried woman (particularly a nun) who had reason to fear being raped take the pill as a means of protection?"

"The use of contraceptives can be morally acceptable in other contexts as well, again, because such uses do not constitute acts of contraception. For example, when a woman has severe menstrual bleeding, or pain from ovarian cysts, the hormonal regimen contained in the Pill may sometimes provide a directly therapeutic medical treatment for the bleeding or the pain. This use of contraceptives is an act of medical therapy to address a pathological situation, not an act of contraception. The secondary effect from the treatment, namely, marital infertility, is only tolerated, and should not be willed, desired, or in-tended in any way by the couple. It is worth noting that it would not be acceptable to make use of contraceptives like the Pill for these medical cases if other pharmacological agents or treatments were available which would offer the same therapeutic benefits and effects without impeding fertility."

"The first application of the principle of double effect, and one of the most consistently important issues in medical ethics, is that of abortion. Gradually, Roman Catholic medical ethicists arrived at a consensus as to the exact application of double-effect physicalist criteria, which enabled them to make clear and precise judgments in each kind of abortion situation. These distinctions and judgments are now questioned in part by some proportionalist/revisionist Catholic scholars, but they remain the basis for official Catholic teaching (National Conference of Catholic Bishops 1995, dir. 45-50). Direct abortions are those in which the act-in-itself is the removal of the fetus “directly” from the body of the woman, or the “direct” killing of the fetus by any other means while still within the mother’s body. These acts are never permitted and are considered gravely immoral, identical to murder. Indirect abortions are, however, permitted according to the principle of double effect. Here the act-in-itself is specified as an operation or other procedure whose directly intended effect is the preservation or restoration of the mother’s health. The foreseen but unintended death of the fetus is “indirect”. The two classic cases are the removal of a pregnant cancerous uterus and the removal of a fallopian tube in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Other cases are the use of certain medications or operations where there is some danger that the fetus may die as a result, but where the procedure is directed at some other effect. Thus, for example, an appendectomy may be performed on a pregnant woman, even though some (perhaps even great) danger exists of a consequent abortion (miscarriage)."

"The Roman church argues that although the death of the fetus is foreseen, it is not intended because the intention is to preserve the health and life of the woman. Isn't it just as reasonable to assert that the intention of most women is the separation of the fetus from the woman, not the killing of the fetus, though its death may be foreseen?"

"It is important to note once again that the prohibition of murder and abortion must be appreciated in a therapeutic, not a juridical or punitive light, with which such offenses are often regarded in most Western moral, philosophical, and theological systems: the goal is not to subject the sinner to just punishment, but to bring the sinner through repentance and God’s grace to holiness. Because of this perspective the Orthodox Church never endorsed a doctrine of double effect, such as developed in the West, which allowed Roman Catholicism to approve of indirect abortions. The doctrine of double effects holds that when an action produces two effects, one good and one evil, one may nevertheless act, as long as the act is not evil in itself, the good effect is not produced by the bad effect, the evil effect is not intended,, and there is a proportionate reason (more good will be produced than evil). According to the doctrine of double effect, when these conditions are fulfilled, one is held to be juridically innocent. In contrast, the Orthodox Church recognizes that close causal involvement in the death of another, whether a guilty or an innocent person, may harm one’s spiritual life. Orthodox Christianity recognizes harms from both involuntary and “justifiable” homicide, including homicide in a just war, both of which incur excommunication not as punishment, but as spiritual therapy (Basil, 1983, Canon 13, pp. 801-802). It is in this spiritually therapeutic context that one should understand the absolution of women who miscarry. The absolution expresses the Orthodox Christian healing approach to the involuntary loss of life."

"It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby's life. The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her unborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention. In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death."