Critiquing: Why Can We Euthanize Pets but Not People?

October 16, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Euthanasia Ethics — Parental Guidance — Biological Sex Debate — Suffering & Faith — Moral Distinctions

---

Introduction

The content raises ethical and philosophical questions regarding euthanasia, the moral distinction between humans and animals, and the implications of suffering. It also touches on issues of discussing biblical views with children and the terminology around biological sex.

---

Logical Inconsistencies and Fallacies

1. Double Standard on Suffering and Euthanasia:
   • The content asserts a significant distinction between humans and animals in the context of euthanasia: “The reason that they shoot horses is because they’re horses and they don’t shoot human beings is because we’re human beings.”
   • This statement lacks a clear rationale beyond species difference. The ethical basis for different treatments should be explicitly justified to avoid the speciesism fallacy, where one assumes humans’ higher moral status without argument.
2. Unsubstantiated Moral Claims:
   • The content states, “Human beings require a justification that is appropriate for taking their lives because they’re made in the image of God.”
   • This claim assumes a specific religious belief as a universal moral truth without providing evidence. For an argument to be compelling to a broader audience, it must be substantiated with more universally accepted premises.
3. Appeal to Tradition and Authority:
   • The discussion on capital punishment refers to biblical directives: “Capital punishment was established in the Bible in Genesis chapter 9 verse 6.”
   • Relying on religious texts as moral authority can be seen as an appeal to authority fallacy unless the authority of these texts is universally recognized, which is not the case for all audiences.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias:
   • The content repeatedly references scripture to justify positions on euthanasia and marriage. This approach can be indicative of confirmation bias, where the authors select evidence supporting their pre-existing beliefs and ignore contrary evidence.
2. In-group Bias:
   • The advice on discussing biblical marriage with children presupposes the correctness of a specific interpretation: “When we follow God’s purpose, things work out much better than when we disobey God.”
   • This in-group bias can alienate those outside the religious community, assuming their moral frameworks are less valid.

Claims Needing Substantiation

1. Intrinsic Value of Human Life:
   • The content claims human life has intrinsic value because “they’re made in the image of God.”
   • Without empirical evidence, this claim remains dubious. Ethical theories like utilitarianism or secular humanism can provide alternative views on the value of life that need addressing.
2. Purpose of Suffering:
   • The assertion that “God uses suffering to do…things that are working towards a long-term goal” lacks empirical backing.
   • Claims about the purpose of suffering should be approached with caution, recognizing the need for evidence or, at minimum, philosophical justification beyond religious doctrine.

Methods to Test Alleged Promises of God

1. Observational Studies:
   • To assess the claim that “God’s goal for us is to make us like Jesus” through suffering, one could conduct longitudinal studies comparing the moral and psychological development of individuals who endure significant suffering versus those who do not.
   • Such studies would need to control for variables like socio-economic status, support systems, and personal resilience to isolate the impact of suffering.
2. Psychological Experiments:
   • Experiments could measure the correlation between experiencing suffering and developing virtues like patience or empathy, which are often cited as outcomes of suffering in religious contexts.
3. Comparative Analysis:
   • Comparing communities with different levels of religious adherence and their responses to suffering could provide insights into the veracity of claims about suffering’s spiritual benefits.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

1. Moral Accountability:
   • Ethical discourse requires that all claims, especially those impacting policy or personal well-being, be substantiated with credible evidence or rational argument.
   • Claims like “suffering shapes who we are and shows us who God is” should be backed by psychological or sociological studies demonstrating these effects.
2. Mapping Belief to Evidence:
   • One’s degree of belief should correspond to the degree of available evidence. Strong claims require strong evidence, and in the absence of such evidence, a more cautious stance is warranted.
   • This principle ensures that beliefs are proportionate to their justification, promoting rational and coherent discourse.

---

Conclusion

The content presents several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases that undermine its arguments. Ethical discussions, especially those involving life and death, require rigorous substantiation and avoidance of fallacies. Engaging with a broader audience necessitates grounding arguments in universally accepted principles and evidence.

---

If you have any further questions or wish to discuss the arguments in more detail, please feel free to join the conversation in the comments section.