Where life does not count, death may be worth a lot .
Sergio Leone
 |
| Peter Paul Rubens, The Death of Seneca |
Honourable Commissioners . Honourable members of the Assembly nationnale,
In the current debate surrounding the die with dignity, which is immediately striking is that it does not seem to agree on the meaning of terms. First, that means "dignity" in dying with dignity? The dictionary tells us that dignity concerns " respect due someone . There are over two thousand years, you may be aware that Aristotle noticed that if everyone agrees on is that everyone should receive according to what he deserves, no common consensus on the nature of merit ( Nicomachean Ethics 1131a 25). Hockey players professionals deserve their huge salaries? The welfare recipient he deserves his welfare? The people at the end of life they deserve for killing himself? Many of those claiming the legitimacy of suicide in late life because the contrary is a heinous form of disrespect.
Basically, the debate on the die with "dignity" precisely stumbled on the concept of dignity. What do we mean by hear human "dignity"? This concept appears in the Enlightenment, mainly from the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant argued that every human being has a dignity by virtue of its nature rational or reasonable, especially in that each is able to think and judge for himself what is good for him. This has not prevented Kant condemn suicide, quite the contrary, since ending his days in the eyes of Kant is a very irrational act, that is to say contrary to reason and thus contrary human dignity. Indeed, by giving me death, "said Kant, I deprived of my freedom, in short, I use my freedom to deprive me of freedom! Losing my dignity as a man, I cease to be a human and become an object. Thus, one who intends to kill himself, makes himself a simple way to achieve its purpose to avoid the evils of life.
According to Kant, the human person is an end in itself, is never merely a means for herself or for anyone. Kantian formulation that best expresses the idea of human dignity as an end in itself is " Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your person in the person of any other, always at the same time as end, never merely as means . "(1)
Supporters of euthanasia, you know, are not at all convinced of the Kantian argument limiting the dignity of the person in full compliance with its freedom and condemning, therefore, any attack against him. Instead, for the followers of euthanasia, killing himself in front of appalling suffering, is the supreme exercise of dignity. In this they recall the ancient Stoics who, what matters above all, this is not to live but to live well. Seneca (4 BC to 65 AD), for example, writes:
Die sooner or later no matter what matters is good or bad die. And that is why I find unworthy of a man ... the word "As long as you live, you can expect. ..." Moreover, if the longest life is not always the best, most death Long is always the worst. In death, more than in any other case, we must follow our taste for life ... We must seek the approval of others to die, ours is enough. The best death is that which pleases us. (2)
The ancient society had disappeared and Stoic ethics. We live Today in liberal democracies, and it seems normal conceptions of the good life and opposed end of life. Hence the social debate we have in Quebec surrounding the right to die. No doubt the philosopher John Rawls, who passed away in 2002, applauds the democratic process to which we are now.
For a proponent of political liberalism as Rawls, what matters is that the various conceptions of life and end of life are respected . The concept of self-respect appears central Theory Justice (1971). Indeed, in a just society, according to Rawls, self-respect " has the sense that individual's own value, his deep conviction that his conception of the good, his life project worth be made. "(3) Thus, self-respect, Rawls is not so much individual and societal or personal in the sense that self-respect includes respect for others. In the original position under the veil of ignorance, we would opt unhesitatingly for the "primary good" that is self-respect. Who, indeed, want to live in a society where have little or no respect for his life project and its own conception of the good life?
However, self-respect leads to what Rawls called later "the fact reasonable pluralism" as different conceptions of happiness, apparently equally valid as each other, moving in a democratic society liberal and deserve recognition and respect. (4) Also, a liberal state like Quebec does not have the prerogative to decide which of the plurality of conceptions of the good life facing each other, must be upheld. At least if we follow Rawls. In cases of conflict acute as the one about the death with dignity on which your Commission is looking, well-ordered society based on Rawls must engage in a (difficult) exercise of public discussion in order to reach a solution "just." The agreement among participants will be discussing publicly, according to Rawls, the way forward. The agreement "fair" uses what Rawls calls the procedural justice: "... pure procedural justice is exercised when there is no independent criterion for determining the correct result, instead, is a correct or fair procedure which determines if a result is correct or fair, whatever the content, provided the procedure was correctly applied. "(5)
One of the main issues arising from procedural justice is that it has a sort of vicious circle. How do I know if a law or policy meets the public reason and not a particular conception of the good life? Rawls says he must ensure that procedural justice has been "properly" implemented. However, on this crucial point, there may be litigation. Thus, whether justice is just procedural, it will appeal to procedural justice because there is no justice beyond the procedure.
Rawls suggests that we should conceive of legislation as meeting the Supreme Court opinion: " To check if we follow public reason," he wrote , we can ask ourselves how our argument we it would appear if we had presented in the form of the Supreme Court . "(6) Just as judges of the Supreme Court, you should put aside your own views on what is good and well, to ignore your own beliefs Personal you taking that every citizen should rationally accept. That is the liberal ideal of neutrality that animates your Commission.
But what is rationally permissible and legitimate? Rawls responds: consensus achieved by means of procedural justice. But how do we know that procedural justice is correct if not using procedural justice itself? "
With all due respect we owe you, ladies and gentlemen of the commissioners, you see with me that the Commission on which you sit is a kind of In forward flight, a sort of trap Constr. I urge you not to take the liberal path of Rawls, that is to say do not represent you as neutral arbiters in this debate. Nobody can be in this kind of debate, even if the liberal strategy is precisely to make us believe that it is possible to set aside our own beliefs to reach a solution politically neutral. That would be a vile lie.
It is expected that you as you fall into the booby trap of liberal thought. Given the apparent equality arguments pro and cons of euthanasia, you will seek to move the moral issue in order to provide a political solution. Like Rawls, you'll argue that it is impossible to rule in favor of one side or the other since the two positions at issue seem equally worthy of respect. You will then refer to the common good. You will save the goat and the cabbage by cutting in favor of a compromise acceptable to both parties. No doubt you will play in favor of decriminalization of euthanasia while accepting that citizens can use the following strict conditions. You will then rent your Judgement of Solomon, imbued with fairness generally liberal.
So please, ladies and gentlemen of the commissioners, to avoid the liberal path that is only deception, and urge you to dare to decide between the conceptions of the good life at issue in this debate.
I quickly mentioned earlier Stoic Seneca position against suicide. For Stoicism, what must be preserved at all costs, even at the risk of having to take his own life is under , Excellence (Greek: arete ). This is what lay "dignity" to the ancients. Instead, as we saw with Kant, among the moderns, "dignity" is the freedom . Lose his freedom, that whether or not the meanest, is the greatest disgrace that is, the ultimate indignity qu'exècrent the Moderns. As eloquently writes Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the guru of Kant, in the early Social Contract (1769): " Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains . The man is "good" in nature, provides Rousseau, it is society that corrupts by chaining, that is to say, by depriving it of its sacred freedom. With the Moderns, freedom dethrones virtue. That's what the moderns retain stoicism as this was the first philosophy "libertarian" to demand freedom, while leaving the background in the central reason for this claim: the sovereignty of virtue.
I urge you to reconsider the debate on suicide by returning to that which prevailed among the ancients and which focused on virtue. You'll learn that on the issue of suicide, the opponent of Stoicism was Aristotelianism who, on behalf also of virtue, had little use suicide as an act of excellence. To understand the thinking of Aristotle (384-322 BCE) concerning the virtue (or excellence), it should initially ask the following two principles:
1. Virtue is teleological . The definition of the virtue of an act lies in the definition of telos (goal or purpose) of the act in question.
2. Virtue is praiseworthy . Wondering about the telos practice is to consider virtue whose practice is commendable.
Here flutes. To whom should we give them? Certainly not for everyone and anyone, thinks Aristotle, but only to those who already know how to play well or want to play excellently. The telos, in fact, a flute is that by playing well. We must therefore distribute the flutes to the most deserving, that is to say to those who are able to realize this for what a flute is for (its telos ).
All properties obey the above two principles. So what is the telos of every human being? What is he for? The happiness, Aristotle answered. That is indeed what we seek in everything we do.
Happiness is said in ancient Greek eudaimonia . It is best to translate this Greek word by épanouissemen t rather than "happiness" since that word leads us to mistakenly believe that human happiness is a psychological fact of pleasure or pleasant sensation, which is not the case for the development, at least as understood Since Aristotle, rather than a state pleasing (without being necessarily unpleasant) self-development is first and foremost a activity. However, according to Aristotle, the activity leading to the development lies in the practice of virtue. So, the telos of virtue lies in human development, that is to say, good and beautiful. Since parailleurs, the end of virtue is beautiful and good, virtue is thus highly admirable and praiseworthy.
Aristotle wrote:
die to escape ... poverty, heartache, or something unpleasant is not the act of a courageous, but rather a coward. That softness in effect wanting to escape the painful things and then you face death, not because it's beautiful (kalon), but to escape an evil (kakon). (7)
death, we all know, is the most terrible evil. We rightly fear, because "there , it seems nothing when you're dead, that is neither good nor bad." (8) Unless the testimony of courage that endures- beyond death. However, the or that which, like the Stoic sage, facing death so imperturbable, without fear, not brave. Resolution to something inhuman. The stoic, like Seneca, certainly enjoys great determination, but, strictly speaking, he shows no courage. In the analysis of virtue - courage in this case - that offers Aristotle, virtue is conceived as a middle ground between two extremes. The brave man or woman is equidistant from the loose, on the one hand, and reckless, on the other. That is why the objection that we routinely address the Aristotelian analysis of the courage that so many want the criminal than the honest man be courageous. " Courage is not a virtue, but a quality common to the villains and great men " wrote Voltaire, for example, the good liberal. But these two scenarios evoked by Voltaire, certainly show the determination but no courage. It is indeed great firmness and determination to rob a bank and honest man also acts may be committed because he feared some retaliation.
Marc Lepine, to quote here a scenario of sad memory, has not taken the life of fourteen young student of Polytechnic simply, without purpose or reason for taking a life. He killed them in order to end the feminist " that [her] life tempered," he wrote before the massacre of fourteen young women, December 6, 1989. " 7 years that life brings me more joy, continued the unfortunate, and being totally blase, I decided to put a spoke in the wheels of these viragos. "(9) Where sadly Marc Lepine famous shows that human beings, in everything he always acts for the good. Very often, however, we do it badly, we deceive ourselves royally. We act blindly, which is either an excess or a deficiency.
There's insane in the firm resolution of the unfortunate fatal Marc Lepine. But there is no courage. The word "courage" logically operates as a term of appreciation when someone is praised for its action. Virtue is indeed praiseworthy. Its opposite is madness or unreasonable where we blame and condemn someone. For action to be described as courageous, it must, according to Aristotle, have two elements.
1) First, the person performing the action must do to achieve some good. The telos courage, indeed, as we have seen is always the beautiful (kalon ), that is to say good ( agathon ) because the property is so beautiful . The gesture of Marc Lepine does not satisfy this first criterion: it was good, he is in trouble there is the least we can say. All we aim Well, despite our great blunders; person does his own misfortune.
2) He who is courageous acts rationally, he strives for a balance. In other words, a courageous action is a middle ground between two extremes. In this regard, one could describe the action of Marc Lepine of "overkill " - as told in English - as the medium used by Marc Lepine to achieve his end was disproportionate. It may well be anti-feminist, it is still necessary that the means chosen to make his point of view is correct, neither excessive nor inadequate. An anti-feminist who would always afraid to assert itself, would be a coward, he would sin, not by excess, but insufficient. In the case of Marc Lepine, his blunder was that of excess. It is facille draw a circle and is much more difficult to find the exact middle. Shoot in the dark with a gun in order to reach the center, instead of using a compass, is insane.
The human excellence is therefore in the middle. It is that moderation and balance. It is a work of art carved from raw material. The human being is ravaged by all kinds of passions that is rarely the master. Education excellence aims instead to make human beings free and independent by accustoming to make good use of his passions in appropriate circumstances, not uproot them as a weed as recommended stoicism. The fuel of happiness are so much passion that constantly assail us. Education in virtue is precisely to make us master of the passions by finding their true value. It is the voice of reason. That is why education is so important virtue in the eyes of the master of the Lyceum " The importance of getting this or that habit soon early youth is not negligible, but quite decisive or rather, it is the whole of the case . "(10) Living Well, it is learned. Unfortunately, the Quebec government remains deaf education to virtue preferring liberal education for only the development of critical thinking. Once again we can see, the liberal avoided at all costs to meddle in moral issues in dispute.
What is the telos of euthanasia? Apparently, the end of terrible suffering that degrade the existence of the person dying. This is not what is virtue (courage). This, as we have seen, is not a state of well-being sensitive, comfort, but the beautiful, good. Despite appearances to the contrary, there is nothing fulfilling in the fact of suicide to escape suffering. Surprising as it may seem, and if we are to believe the master of the Lyceum, one who courageously fight against disease and suffering is a being in full bloom. He or she deserves our praise. He or she shows us that this is where life becomes fully fulfilling. Will we listen to that voice that was heard there are over 2300 years? Do not modify the current law on euthanasia. Opt instead for an education in virtue. __________________
NOTES
(1) Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Morals , # 429.
(2) Seneca to Lucilius Letter, Letter LXX.
(3) John Rawls, A Theory of Justice , Seuil, 1997 p. 479-480.
(4) See John Rawls, Political Liberalism .
(5) John Ralws, Theory of Justice, p. 118.
(6) Ibid., P. 305.
(7) Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , Book III 1116a 10-15. Translation by Richard Bodéüs, GF Flammarion, 2004, p. 165.
(8) Ibid., 1115A 25.
(9) Letter Marc Lepine, December 6, 1989.
(10) Aristote, op. cit., 1103b 24-25.
0 comments:
Post a Comment