Landmark decision, is what they are all calling it, concerning the Supreme Court upholding the Oregon law upholding the 'Death with Dignity' act. Assisted Suicide is an interesting subject, because of its various ethical complications.

Suicide

According to the Maxims of Deontological Ethics, suicide appears to be unpermissible (with the assumption that life has value, obviously). Thus is because if everyone committed suicide (being that to commit suicide, you must treat it as a law of nature), then all life would end, and it is therefore unethical. However, if the rule of nature was described as suicide when life was too painful to derive happiness, or anything else of value, then it might be possible even in deontological ethics to find grounds to permit such an act.

However, when dealing with the utilitarian, interested in suffering, then their is a very different outcome. Facing the pinprick argument (all life should be painlessly destroyed in order to avoid a single pinprick), it is difficult to prove that assisted suicide is ok while both arguing that life has positive value, and that pain must be so great as to override that value, while still saying that humans have the right to live.

Arguing on merits of assisted suicide

Now, the arguments against assisted suicide often note the worse attributes of society (individuals might try to convince their parents to die, in order to get them out of the way, etc.). However, in order to avoid these (as the Oregon law definitely attempts to do), I will create a specific situation.

We will make the assumption that we are dealing with an individual that is in terrible pain that cannot be treated with by modern medicine. We will also assume that they are within six months of the end of their life. I would like to ask a series of questions about this individual.

Should the individual be allowed to end their own life? This is the key question - a yes or no answer.

What attributes of this individual give them value that they must live? This is necessary for the argument against assisted suicide. If you do not believe that assisted suicide should be allowed, then it is assumed that you must be able to answer this question, logically.

If the individual is allowed to end their own life, what are the necessary attributes that must be in place for it to be ethical? This is necessary for anyone who wishes to allow assisted suicide to answer. Some might feel that anyone should be allowed to end their own lives, but that clearly breaks the deontological maxims of Kant, however, the utilitarian point of view might allow more room for argument.

The pinprick argument

I have also introduced you to the pinprick argument. For an interesting discussion (key to this discussion, of course), I would also like to know Is the pinprick argument against utilitarianism valid? This takes utilitarianism and makes the argument that all life should be destroyed because suffering could then end. This logic can be easy to reach, and a web search will result on arguments on both sides. I would like to see it disproven, because it can arguably (and logically, as well), be held as true.

Everyone be polite and have fun. If you find yourself not enjoying yourself when commenting here, than do exactly what I would do, end what causes you pain. Please, enjoy yourself, because logical argument is to be enjoyed. Socrates enjoyed arguing more than he was tied to any belief system, and Benjamin Franklin notes that when you stop changing, you are dead. If you find yourself searching to defeat someones argument simply because it doesn't agree with your own, then you are incapable of change. Many comments here have changed me in profound ways - and I look forward to your continued involvement here.

After spending a weekend in Kentucky, and a week of hard work otherwise, I haven't had much to say, but I return with a most arguable subject, stem cell research.  Because this subject has such a religiously motivated past, it will be difficult to argue on each side with logic, but that is what I will be asking you to do.

Arguments for Stem Cell Research

Arguments for the legal status of stem cell research - or more importantly, the method of retrieving stem cells - also must include any possible medical advancement that would exist because of it, not just the nature of the research itself.  Because of this, the implication of value is only derived as a possibility of that value coming about multiplied, in 'real' terms, by the actual good that could be derived.  Of course, this could be completely unnecessary, based on my 'indifferent' argument later in the post.

Those who look at modern stem cell research, with the scientifically valuable stem cells 'harvested' from fetal tissue (generally derived from unused in-vitro fetuses, if I'm not mistaken), has a decent possibility of having great impact on future generations from a medical point of view.  Thus would one have to possibly look upon the value of the unused life (in vitro fertilization generally results in the destruction of many fetuses) with a certain grain of salt against the possible gained value that would be returned.

For instance, if the study of stem cells in relation to nerve cells in the spinal column could guarantee that 80% of all spinal column injuries could be completely repaired with a 70% likelihood that we could actually develop the technology within the next decade, then that gives an individual grounds from which to argue on either side, if they have such a point of view that inherent value is there.

Even in the absence of inherent value, however, many would defend stem cell research simply on the scientific gains that could be made.  I will enjoy hearing these arguments, in some logical format, but I will also enjoy reading...

Arguments Against Stem Cell Research

No one is really arguing against stem cell research, but more or less the method of harvest, as it involves the destruction of a living thing.  Because arguing that a human soul is being denied would force the arguer to prove that the human soul exists, it is more pertinent that we prove that the good possibly gained by harvesting the cells is less than the good gained by leaving them intact, and here is where the arguer will run into problems.

Because of the large number of destroyed fetuses every year in the name of in vitro fertilization (multiple fetuses are a requirement of truly successful fertilization), it would almost be required that the anti-destruction proponent to deny the entire in-vitro fertilization method.  Therefore, the couple unable to have children would be denied the 'right', but at the same time, it would end the apparently 'useless' destruction of many unused fertilized fetuses throughout the United States and around the world.

Trying to argue that stem cell harvesting should not be allowed without ending the above is extremely difficult, because then it must be resolved on what to do with the 'left overs' of manual fertilization efforts.  Without a meaningful adoption program that can guarantee them all life, it must be proven that the standard destruction method is better than the stem cell harvest, or that life in stasis is somehow superior to death (which might be simpler).

The Indifferent Point of View

I detect an indifferent point of view to the fertilization methods of the modern world, however.  Without needing to prove the good of the system, and without the want to end our modern in vitro fertilization methods, the indifferent individual could argue that it might be senseless to destroy cellular material that could advance science, no matter how much or little is gained.

I imagine that many will hold to this view point, and with it will need little argument.

Conclusion

I expect arguments to be sound, and unlike the arguments about drugs (containing many personal accounts), it is not likely that such a thing will occur here.  I would expect someone who is against stem cell harvest to ask for a proof of good, but the best that we can offer is percentages and chance, and perhaps scientific argument would be sensible in that case.  Perhaps a pro-harvesting arguer could find that information and post it in order to prove their argument.  Sans that, it will be difficult for the pro-harvesting argument to win.

However, sans the argument that in vitro fertilization is flawed, it will be unduly difficult for the anti-harvesting arguer to prove their statement, and then it will be necessary to possibly prove that in vitro fertilization causes more harm than good, and that will be equally interesting.

Pundit, as described as dictionary.com:

1. A source of opinion; a critic.
2. A learned person.

I am going to discuss the modern use of political punditry that we see in the United States, and the ethical ramifications of the entire situation.

The United States Political System

Today, we have but two major notable powers in our political system.  Ridiculously enough, they are called Republicans and Democrats.  Thus, any issue is, at a minimum, generally dichotimized or agreed upon by the two sides, creating the 'two sides' arguments or the possibility of 'partisan' politics.

The fault of this is that in our modern news system, political pundits are treated as newsworthy characters, getting time on actual news shows to give their opinions, while they are simply using political speaking points to advance the beliefs of their own party.  Unfortunately, this dichotomization leaves out some of the more important voices of our world.

Fact and History: The Ignored Voices

Generally, as a political pundit, it is not important or it may actually be damaging to note historical precedent or scientific evidence when trying to prove your point.  This happens often with arguments about global warming.  While neither Republicans nor Democrats (haha) are pushing for more curbs on greenhouse gases, scientists are in almost absolute agreement (we are talking 99.9% here) about global warming.  Unfortunately, because scientists are not given equal time in our modern news system, there is, once again, a partisan dichotomization.  This division is not good for our knowledge of the world, and makes us less informed on scientific fact, or the information from the most knowledgable of our world.  Each side is able to find a scientific paper to defend their beliefs, although it is not necessary for that paper to have been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.  This creates misinformation.

In addition, there are several millenia of recorded human history, and many millions of years of geological history for humans to work with in the modern argument.  Scientists, historians, and geologists have pored over muc of this data time and again, and over many issues (like, once again, global warming), there is consensus.  Too often, this consensus is ignored over the partisan ramblings of the two party system.

Layers of Political Punditry and Fault

The right of the individual to ignore 'fact' and spout what they want to believe, sometimes twisting science, history or law, has moved to the news station.  Political Punditry has many levels, however - the major political bodies, the representatives, the pundits, lobbying groups, and most importantly the news stations that cover politics more than most other offerings.

The question then emerges, first, is political punditry, or the creation of a political dichotomy for an argument, unethical or simply a flaw, or neither?  I have already offered up global warming as an exercise, and both parties have failed to note scientific fact, but how about sex education in our country.  The modern 'abstinence only system' has shown to be a total failure.  Girls who make abstinence pledges have been shown to be less likely to use condoms when they do have sex, more likely to have anal or oral sex, and have the same disease rates as their counterparts who have not made the pledges.  In addition, there have been no notable drops in teenage pregnancy rates.  How can you then defend the abstinence only system with any kind of logic?

Next, you have the news stations who continue to refer to the opinionated pundits as 'news'.  Is this unethical?  Perhaps they mention that these representatives of partisan suggestion are opinion, but they are on the news station and given equal time.  Is it flawed to allow these arguments equal time and then not give equal time to the interests of science?  Of course, that being said, science is less interested in the opinions of the people, and more interested in discovery, so their voices will often be lost.  Politics, on the other hand is completely formed on the beliefs of the people, and not heavily reliant on fact.  This brings us to our last point.

The people.  Are the people committing an unethical act by not practicing Critical Thinking on the arguments of the pundit system?  This requires research and time, but it is absolutely possible for any one person to find the required factual information in order to make these discoveries beyond the information offered by pundits.  This could be considered an unethical act by making the simple follow:  There is a possibility that global warming could have bad consequences on future generations.  By failing to do anything and aid research, we could be committing an unethical act against our own children.  This could, of course, be seen as a problem in the education system.  The lack of skill to do such a thing, but then the entire system is weighed against the individual.  There are so many layers of ethical thought here, it is disturbing.

Conclusion

The false dichotomization of information in politics is has many laters of fault.  The real question is, is their any real level of ethical necessity that would make our modern system ethically challenged OR unnacceptable as it is?

I do not want to see any argument like, Republicans are Right or Democrats are Right (We Are Right = WAR, that sucks, don't it?), because that doesn't concern me here.  I am interested in punditry being referred to as news, or the nature of the dichotomy, or the lack of interest of the people.  There is always the possibility that there is nothing unethical about all of this, and that might be the opinion of the many, but it interests me nonetheless.

To argue the issue of drugs objectively is extremely difficult in the US, because so many arguments can end with the simple statement that drugs are illegal.  However, sans the legality argument, is the use of drugs by any individual unethical?  There are several ways to argue on either side, and I would like to take a look at some of them, and leave the floor open for discussion on this topic.

Before we begin, we must limit the discussion to the 'recreational' use of drugs - the use of any substance in order to achieve an effect that is not related to health but instead related to a physical state of euphoria or any other purely recreational state of intoxification that has no medical benefit, regardless of whether it does in fact have medical benefit or if it has detriment.

Now that the discussion has been limited in scope, but expanded to include fan favorites like prescription painkillers and alcohol, we come to discuss the actual subject matter at hand - the ethics of being on the demand side of the recreational drug debate.

Access to Free Will

Advocates for those who believe we should be free to use drugs as we please would argue that our use harms no one, and that with many drugs it is arguable whether or not we actually hurt ourselves in use.  There are those, of course, who can become so heavily addicted to a substance that they might be in need of assistance to discontinue self desctructive behavior, but this can be said of almost any substance or act, as the body can become chemically dependent on the hormones that it releases itself (sex and working out can both create chemical dependencies).

Therefore, the use of drugs becomes an act of free will that should not be controlled by the government any more than sex or working out.  However, this argument could and should be considered within the scope of the extreme nature of the addictive qualities of some drugs, as compared to the hormonal dependencies that result from normal human activity.

Also, those who believe that drugs should be a basic right argue that drugs do not contribute the societal 'decay'.  Because societal decay is so difficult to define, one must instead prove that drug users pose a threat to those who do not use drugs in a society where drugs are legalized.  As was stated before, as for many other things there should, and hopefully would, be support for those who became heavily dependent upon drug use.  However, there are situations where drug use might in fact harm someone who does not use drugs through some kind of action, drunk driving being a perfect example (especially because alcohol is legal).

There are many other arguments for the legalization or decriminalization of drugs, and I await your responses to this entry.

Arguments against Legalization or Decriminalization

Some possible arguments against legalization involve the societal decay and harm to others, as stated before in the arguments for allowing drug use.  Sans economic argument, it is far easier to defend the laws against drugs, although I have not seen a study that marks the economic loss that results from hours lost to drug addiction each year.

First, the belief that drugs are not only harmful to the user but to those who are indirectly attached to the user in some way.  In this sense, if it can be proven, then the act of taking drugs could be arguably unethical simply because it creates a negative effect on those around you - but this negative effect could be extremely negligible.  For instance, some people would be offended if you were a little tipsy walking down the street.  Others wouldn't be offended until you tried to grope them.  However, the nature of the first offense is such that it might need to be ignored, however, some wouldn't want their children to see you in that state (however, I would consider such a sight one of the best methods to convince your children to avoid drugs).  I have already mentioned drunk driving.

The social decay argument also exists, stating that it is not possible to maintain a cohesive society when some are using drugs, or that drug use creates crime.  Unfortunately, there would have to be comparative work done between a state that has complete decriminalization and one that has complete criminalization of drugs in order for this to be completely proven one way or the other, as scientific experimentation often would argue.  Thus does the ethics need to be reduced to the individual level.

The Final Question

Thus, with so many portions of the argument 'inarguable', there comes the point where one must finally ask, is it unethical to use drugs as an individual if the external effect is negligible enough as to be no effect at all?  Meaning, if individual A smokes a joint once a week, and has no degredation of work and does nothing illegal in order to get money in order to smoke, then is that an unethical act?

If it can be proven that it is ethical to maintain ones health and mental state for individual improvement, than I imagine that to make the argument that it is unethical to use drugs no matter the purpose would be far easier, but even then, to prove that drug use (especially in the case of marijuana) has a permanent detrimental effect on the mind and body is difficult, at best.