[lit-ideas] Re: Right to Life, Right to Die

  • From: Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:42:09 -0800

Eric Yost wrote:

> Philosophically, or just as one human being to another, what's most 
> important:
> 
> The longevity of life or its intensity?
> 
> Is it a question of time or is it a question of virtue?

> Is it found in mere duration? Or something else?

The question leaves a number of things underdescribed, I think, Eric. I 
would not say, e.g. that poor Terri Schiavo has 'lived a long life.' 
Just being alive is not living a life. This is a distinction that isn't 
made in the wrangling over her case but it's one that people who make 
their own wishes known about end-of-life care do think about. I've 
always thought that there was an intuitive difference between mere life 
(which is what the drowning man wants and what paramedics provide), and 
having—living—a life in which one's mind is active and one's body one's 
friend. In expressing my own wishes to my family and friends about what 
I'd want done or not done in extreme, but no doubt inevitable, 
circumstances, I've tried to spell out what I mean by living or having
a life, such that if there's no prospect of my having it I wouldn't want
my life (in that diminished sense) prolonged.

This is of course not the Church's view. For the Church, mere life is 
enough. I somehow think Aristotle would disagree.

Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: