It is murder to disconnect a patient who can only survive with a ventilator without consent and in order to inherit from them.
Every murder is a killing.
So, it is a killing to disconnect a patient who can only survive with a ventilator without consent and in order to inherit from them.
Whether an act is a killing does not depend on consent or intentions.
So, it is a killing to disconnect a patient who can only survive with a ventilator.
Of course, whether such a disconnection is permissible or not is a further question, since not every killing is wrong (e.g., an accidental killing need not be wrong).
5 comments:
I fear that killing will become acceptable in this culture. As technology allows the mother to see their baby, pro-abortionists will make the case that it is a baby, but killing it is allowable. Justifiable killing. Same with euthanasia.
Is the difference between "murder" and "killing" the same as the difference between "permissible" and "not permissible" killing?
Michael:
No, I don't think so. Some killings that are non-murders are impermissible. A reckless accidental killing is impermissible. My own favorite example, though, is cases of killing that are wrong for reasons other than that they are killings. For instance, suppose I make a vow of nonviolence to God, and then I kill in self-defense. It's not murder, but it's impermissible as it's a violation of a vow.
A killing that is impermissible for reasons of murderousness is a murder, but that's circular.
300:
Ordinary (non-philosopher) pro-choice people currently tend to accept the following two theses:
1. A fetus a week before birth is not a person and may be permissibly killed.
2. A baby a week after birth is a person and may not be permissibly killed.
These theses just don't go well together. There are two theories that resolve the tension while remaining pro-choice:
A. Some (innocent) persons may be permissibly and intentionally killed.
B. Infants are not persons.
Among pro-choice philosophers, I think B is the preferred solution to the tension. But I think the non-philosopher is unlikely to want to go for B. So, they may go for A.
Of course, I think both A and B are terrible ideas.
Alex
I think you are begging the question here, because whether it is murder to disconnect a patient who can only survive with a ventilator without consent and in order to inherit from them depends, on whether this entails killing the patient, but that is what you want to prove.
So, yes, if disconnecting the patient is a killing, then it is murder.
Post a Comment