Why is death tragic and how tragic?

[Barry]

Excellent discussion on the morality of death on the Moral Maze this last week.
I found it interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000p1hb
Although Covid features, there is other discussion on how death can be considered a failure of health services, even though we all have to die.

[T00ts]

Ok. Fair enough.

I think your previous post should have said modern WESTERN society.


Life is dirt cheap in many of the world's shitholes.


My colleagues working alongside me in my UK freelancing days could have attested to this from their personal experiences in Saudi, India, China, Africa and South America.

But it seems those attitudes have reached some ghettoes in the UK too these days.

Christianity will and has already started to spread across the world, but as you rightly point out other religions are quite difficult to understand when compared. I believe that the time will come, again promised in the Scriptures, when the whole world will know for certain that Jesus is the Christ, the long awaited Messiah still awaited by the Jews, and that day there will be much sorrow as well as joy. It is not an idle warning that we should be prepared.

[johnofgwent]

'Beware of false prophets' is something we are warned of in the Scriptures. It is not for me to judge another's choice or decisions except that on a purely human level it does seem a bit crazy. We are taught that our lives are important. Do not kill is not a thoughtless command. I am a Christian, and believe in one God, the Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ his only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't put me in any position to question any other belief, just explain my view as well as I can.

Ok. Fair enough.

I think your previous post should have said modern WESTERN society.


Life is dirt cheap in many of the world's shitholes.


My colleagues working alongside me in my UK freelancing days could have attested to this from their personal experiences in Saudi, India, China, Africa and South America.

But it seems those attitudes have reached some ghettoes in the UK too these days.

[T00ts]

Ok. A poor choice perhaps as it requires direct human action.

So. How about this. From my days fitting INMARSAT Comms systems. Worked with two Indian guys who told me if there were requirements to install ground stations on the Indian subcontinent to communicate with the indian ocean region satellites, I should resign before accepting as the religious practices in the area were so accepting of fate that they drove like maniacs knowing their God of the dead either had their name on his little list, or did not, and nothing would alter that.

And that's still going on today 30 years on....

'Beware of false prophets' is something we are warned of in the Scriptures. It is not for me to judge another's choice or decisions except that on a purely human level it does seem a bit crazy. We are taught that our lives are important. Do not kill is not a thoughtless command. I am a Christian, and believe in one God, the Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ his only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't put me in any position to question any other belief, just explain my view as well as I can.

[johnofgwent]

Yes I can see why you would counter with that. I can only come back with 'Thou shalt not kill' that supersedes any other notions put out there by the father of all lies. My point was that modern society fears death to the point of almost denying it certainly in the young etc.

Ok. A poor choice perhaps as it requires direct human action.

So. How about this. From my days fitting INMARSAT Comms systems. Worked with two Indian guys who told me if there were requirements to install ground stations on the Indian subcontinent to communicate with the indian ocean region satellites, I should resign before accepting as the religious practices in the area were so accepting of fate that they drove like maniacs knowing their God of the dead either had their name on his little list, or did not, and nothing would alter that.

And that's still going on today 30 years on....

[T00ts]

I don't think that death is tragic, but it could be pretty dull. I mean, imagine spending eternity standing at God's right hand and singing His praises. No laughs or asking Him where he got the nightie, just never ending arse licking.

It would be like being back in HMRC.

Or that Buddhist bollocks where you are going through a continual cycle of improvement. It would be like a never ending repeat of the Annual Performance Review where you have to promise to do better next time. The only difference is that in heaven you will be expected to mean it.

When you are on your allotment minding your own business planting potatoes or whatever it might be worth thinking about installing a really good quality lightening conductor. You're impossible!   

[Borchester]

I don't think that death is tragic, but it could be pretty dull. I mean, imagine spending eternity standing at God's right hand and singing His praises. No laughs or asking Him where he got the nightie, just never ending arse licking.

It would be like being back in HMRC.

Or that Buddhist bollocks where you are going through a continual cycle of improvement. It would be like a never ending repeat of the Annual Performance Review where you have to promise to do better next time. The only difference is that in heaven you will be expected to mean it. 

[T00ts]

I have just ploughed through the 2nd half of the video and nothing there has changed my mind.

[papasmurf]

Ethically, is it better to save the life of a 20 year old or an 80 year old?

That depends, I know 20 year olds the World would be a better place without.

[T00ts]

That concept by itself has serious issues.  The historical decision to "slay all as god will know his own in the next life"  being the biggest example

Yes I can see why you would counter with that. I can only come back with 'Thou shalt not kill' that supersedes any other notions put out there by the father of all lies. My point was that modern society fears death to the point of almost denying it certainly in the young etc.

[johnofgwent]

If we believe in an after life then we must surely accept that death is not a waste at any age.

That concept by itself has serious issues.  The historical decision to "slay all as god will know his own in the next life"  being the biggest example

[T00ts]

Indeed.

This exact moral issue forms the entire basis of the first lecture "The morality of Murder" in the political philosopher Michael Sandel's lecture series "Justice".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&t=1495s

I highly recommend watching this lecture series as it's very thought provoking, if a little disconcerting as you point out.

It's not surprising that you find this as very disconcerting because that's exactly what you see in the students in this lecture year after year as they realise that they system of morals is based on some kind of unexplainable intuition rather than something that can be rationally or logically explained.

Once you start trying to code this into a computer, you fact the exact decision points that you are discussing with Nalaar.

You could argue that it's immoral to even discuss this or make an opinion about it, but this is exactly what decision makers all around the world do every day of the week.  A few examples:

1) During the first wave Covid-19 there was an clear decision made in many hospitals that anyone who suffered cardiac arrest who had Covid would not be given CPR, in order to protect the lives of the medics and other patients around.

2) We could cut road deaths to almost zero by putting a speed limit of 20mph on all roads in the UK and fitting all vehicles with speed limiters.  However we decide to sacrifice some lives by having a speed limit 70MPH.  As a small additional point, if the speed limit was 20MPH organs for organ donation would not make it on time and some people would die - another trade off.

3) If all aircraft were fitted with an individual ejector seat and parachute for all passengers, which is technically perfectly possible, many thousands of lives would have been saved by now, but airline tickets would probably cost an order of magnitude more than they do - again, we sacrifice lives to efficiency.

4) In the NHS, NICE makes judgements about which medicines and treatments should be funded based on outcomes and value, and in particular in many cases they will approve a treatment that helps a big portion of patients, even if they know that in very rare cases it would make the patient worse or even kill them.  These are real decisions that people must make since there is not unlimited money and all treatments have side effect.

5) Individual families and societies make decisions about interventions based on some kind of odd moral code - for example I could tell you of situations where entire families allowed children to be left in a home with highly neglectful, arguably abusive, parents because they see the option of "grassing up" people in their village or family as unacceptable and worse than letting those kids live in misery.  Their moral code tells them that the damage of intervention will be worse (wrongly in my view but that's a different debate).

Thank you for this I have so far gone through the first lecture and can't at this moment spend more time. Later. These are not concepts that are new but I do come at them from a different place which for anyone without faith may seem strange.

I believe that the stories at the beginning omit something which I believe is called 'the agony of the moment'. That split second when right or wrong we make a decision in a purely instinctual way. It is only after the event that we allow ourselves to take time to consider, by which time outcomes will dictate whether the decision was right or not. Of course it would also depend on who was judging. eg the loved ones of those who die most would probably not agree with the choice in either scenario. Hopefully though they would be able to forgive on realisation of the circumstances.

We are persuaded (particularly the young vulnerable faces in this student body) that we can somehow rationalise most things in life. If not to everyone's satisfaction, at least to our own. I question very often where these influences originate and before I watched the video I prayed that I would know if the influences were right in the sight of God. The jury is still out but I suspect that there is an essence that I should avoid.

The human mind is very adept at rationalising actions. We find excuses for all sorts of wrong doing and feel even better when someone with charisma and apparent unequivocal knowledge stands up with a mike and makes us laugh while we consider some of the worst potential deeds possible.  Don't get me wrong, we all should question the meaning of life and why we are here, and what impact our life will have on others around us. However my trust is in the still small voice that I listen for constantly which I believe guides me in the right path. I only hope is that this lecturer does not leave out what I feel is that very large part of the philosophical meaning of life.

There is only one question at all times for me. Is the theory being shown to me as truth from God or Satan? In essence the principal that to kill someone as a calculated decision, can somehow be presented as a good and right decision has to be flawed, and to accept it as a forethought outcome, regardless of circumstances, is wrong.

Having said that, a doctor may have to choose one to save, that I accept, a decision based on the circumstances he/she is faced with at that time, but if that were to become a directive, a tick box, regardless, then it is wrong.

[johnofgwent]

Most certainly. I would expect the person who programmed the truck to build in a response that would kill neither person. It's a machine for goodness sake put together by human beings - although leaving out human might be a better description. The fact that you appear to quite glibly accept such a scenario is quite disturbing.

Add me to that queue disagreeing.

I was the tester who found the London Underground Jubilee Line automated train service would have shot from the sidings at full speed onto the main line disregarding everything including red signals and adverse points.

I discovered this six months from delivery using a computer simulation and a big train set.

I was paid a six figure sum to do that work. Frankly, had I sat on my arse for every second from that day to the contract end date and done sod all else I would have considered the client more than amply rewarder for my fee.

There are occasions when one must decide who lives and who dies. I've not had to make that decision yet. I have pointed out to my eldest if she gets herself stuck in a rip current in the kayak I'm not coming to get her and I told my youngest if she was effing stupid enough to scuba dive anywhere where the sea bed was more than 45 metres I wasn't going to kill myself to fetch her up if she got in shit. Because most such rescued just end up recovering two corpses

[Javert]

I realise that this is coming but for someone like me there is a moral issue here which I find impossible to reconcile.

Indeed.

This exact moral issue forms the entire basis of the first lecture "The morality of Murder" in the political philosopher Michael Sandel's lecture series "Justice".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&t=1495s

I highly recommend watching this lecture series as it's very thought provoking, if a little disconcerting as you point out.

It's not surprising that you find this as very disconcerting because that's exactly what you see in the students in this lecture year after year as they realise that they system of morals is based on some kind of unexplainable intuition rather than something that can be rationally or logically explained.

Once you start trying to code this into a computer, you fact the exact decision points that you are discussing with Nalaar.

You could argue that it's immoral to even discuss this or make an opinion about it, but this is exactly what decision makers all around the world do every day of the week.  A few examples:

1) During the first wave Covid-19 there was an clear decision made in many hospitals that anyone who suffered cardiac arrest who had Covid would not be given CPR, in order to protect the lives of the medics and other patients around.

2) We could cut road deaths to almost zero by putting a speed limit of 20mph on all roads in the UK and fitting all vehicles with speed limiters.  However we decide to sacrifice some lives by having a speed limit 70MPH.  As a small additional point, if the speed limit was 20MPH organs for organ donation would not make it on time and some people would die - another trade off.

3) If all aircraft were fitted with an individual ejector seat and parachute for all passengers, which is technically perfectly possible, many thousands of lives would have been saved by now, but airline tickets would probably cost an order of magnitude more than they do - again, we sacrifice lives to efficiency.

4) In the NHS, NICE makes judgements about which medicines and treatments should be funded based on outcomes and value, and in particular in many cases they will approve a treatment that helps a big portion of patients, even if they know that in very rare cases it would make the patient worse or even kill them.  These are real decisions that people must make since there is not unlimited money and all treatments have side effect.

5) Individual families and societies make decisions about interventions based on some kind of odd moral code - for example I could tell you of situations where entire families allowed children to be left in a home with highly neglectful, arguably abusive, parents because they see the option of "grassing up" people in their village or family as unacceptable and worse than letting those kids live in misery.  Their moral code tells them that the damage of intervention will be worse (wrongly in my view but that's a different debate).

[johnofgwent]

Couldn't agree more.
Fixed that. AI is what it is. We program the systems for our needs and use it to society's advantage. From what you are suggesting this might result in disadvantage to an individual based on applied parameters. So true. That's why I mentioned N.I.C.E. in a thread the other day as they decide on what expense can be paid for a short extension to a life. I wouldn't want to be making those decisions.Bit below the (suicide) belt, that one. I've not seen any Christian suicide bombers, though I'm sure Google can find one somewhere.

Ahem,


https://naijagists.com/nathaniel-daniel-christian-suicide-bomber-arrested-winners-chapel-kaduna/