Sarpedon said:
Now, you claim that you are just as good as the doctor to make a decision about a comatose person, provided you have all the facts. I'll let that flawed argument pass for now.
How is a doctor morally superior to a non-doctor? Given the same facts, and a clear explanation by the doctor of the implications of those facts, why should the doctor's judgment be preferred? You call it a flawed argument but point to no flaw. Should I take up your methods and start making claims about your motives?
I submit that the person in question, previously of sound mind, at that time, possessed knowledge, and the right to make these decisions that neither you, nor the doctor has. I don't see how their subsequent comatoseness (catatonia?) somehow invalidates this. Nor do I believe that the arrangements a person made before dying can somehow be invalidated, simply because they died. Their decisions don't become wrong just because they died.
I submit that it depends on if they are coming back. In that case they have interests to protect. It is much easier with the dead. The dead have no interests. The dead are not people. They are things. Unless you are making a spiritual argument that some part of you survives death, how can you say otherwise?
You can't take his stuff, it belongs to the people he left it to.
Why? If he wanted them to have it, he could have given it to them while he was alive and capable of having such intent. Objects, including corpses, don't intend anything.
I simply think the decisions he made 65 years ago before dying are better than the ones you can make now. Likewise, I feel all people are, in general, more fit to make decisions about their own affairs than other, unacquainted persons. The fact that they died subsequently is irrelevant.
The fact that they are dead doesn't mean that they were not intelligent when they made these decisions. That is true. But usually these decisions rest on their wants and interests, which do not exist after they die.
I defer to something Einstein wrote about relativity while he was alive (or maybe not; we've learned a lot since then so other experts may be preferable now) but I don't see much reason to still care about what he may have wanted based on his own personal preferences.
For example, you say wills should not be honored, and then are surprised when I conclude that you mean to seize the property of the deceased.
Where did you conclude this and where did I act surprised?
If you hadn't played that out exclusively in your head, we could have examined what to do with the property if not give it out according to the written will. One option, but not the only option, yes, is to have the state take the property and distribute it to those in need or pay for needed social services, etc.
And could a case not be made that taking the assets after somebody dies is preferable to taxing them while they are? In the former case nothing that the person earned is being taken from them.
You speak about the general lack of living wills as somehow justifying a massive intervention (by the state presumably) into the lives of those who are dying and their relatives
Not of the dying. Of the dead. And not necessarily the state seizing anything. That is just one idea to consider, that you yourself raised. There are other options we could consider.
Yes, one would be having family members decide what to do with the dead former-person's assets, but we'd have to form a good secular argument for that if you want it to make rational sense. I have heard a few such arguments and maybe you have too, or maybe this a good opportunity for you to think it through. We can start a thread to discuss it if you like.
when in fact it is legally not problematic that most people don't have such wills, because of the legal concept of 'next of kin' who is always empowered by default.
For a will, sort of (you'd get caught up in probate). For a power of attorney for personal care, no actually. The demands of the next of kin don't always carry the day, which is one reason why people are advised to have a power of attorney for personal care (and for property) even if the next of kin is clear and obvious.
Here is where your doctor and your family that you were advocating for above can and do come into conflict. Correct me if I misunderstood, but you seemed to be saying that the doctor has some sort of superior sense of morality better than that of a non-doctor. If so, should the doctor's moral judgment trump the wishes of the next of kin?
It just is generally better to have each person make their own decisions, rather than entrust it to some remote person
A dead person isn't making any decisions. A dead person has no interests. In other cases, if the person is capable and of sound mind, they should make their own decisions, I agree, about what should be entirely in their control. However if interests of other people come into play, those interests may be paramount (ie, your right to swing your fist ends at my face, etc).
I do not dismiss your arguments because I don't care for you. I take your arguments seriously, and recoil in horror from their logical conclusions.
Your emotional reaction is noted. But we need to get beyond that if you want to participate in a rational and productive discussion.
Perhaps this is just too emotional an issue for you, but could you try to explore and discuss the questions I have asked with logic and reason and show how you are reaching conclusions to instead of playing things out in your head, engaging strawmen, adhoms, insults and allegations of personal agendas?
If so, we may be able to have an interesting conversation with you. If not, we'll have to go on without you. I have taken the time to write long, polite and thoughtful responses to you thus far, but if you are just going to react to everything I write by attaching some imaginary personal agenda to me and lashing out, this becomes pointless.
