Di fronte ad un malato terminale, la società tende a premiare (Often implicit moral messages using well-stitched together the story) a sympathetic and somewhat selfish attitude towards the victim, a kind of euthanasia specifically reduced by light of everything that is not part of the dictates of their Lord, the meaning remains the final same, but totally changes the way to present it. With a clever marketing move, in short, the objectivity of reality - namely the fact that someone dies in the end - is deftly dissolved, and the attention of the viewer (which each of us is, as related both to the victim) is cleverly conveyed to the emotion, sentimentality, the memory of the victim, falling down, down up to the general morals, existentialism, civilization and the meaning of death and so on. All participants in the discussion they feel so entitled to socially shared sadistic individualism, which takes strength and vigor from the fact that, very banal, who is dying is not us. In this way, so instead of focusing on the crux of the ethical dilemma concerning euthanasia around which our presence - symbolic or otherwise - at the bedside of the poor man who is leaving us pens, we focus on their life romanticized by the media. And despite what they tell the news, politicians and priests, the crucial point has to do with reason, not emotion: That is why any attempt to win over the public dance pulling sentimentality implies a willingness to deceive, to drive ethics, an action that in turn implies a form of dictatorial control on culture and society. Moreover, the choice to prefer the emotions as a way of gaining popular support is not stupid, in fact: the emotion is self-contained, and a bit 'like drugs leads to other emotions. Servants of the reason for breaking the vicious circle, to go out and see things from a different angle, to fly and to analyze the dilemma riding centuries. Servants of the reason for choosing death rather that the suffering (in the case relates to the choice themselves) or compassion (in case you need to choose someone else).
The big pole that precludes any possibility of reaching a reasonable decision on it (or even a compromise, provided unique and makes sense) is as usual religion. Religious education subtly reinterprets the value of things: the new provision of the values \u200b\u200band viewpoints, infallible because of allegedly divine nature, is thus rendered untouchable, and then right. Such as his claim to value life itself, giving it to God and God alone his paternity: This position is reflected accordingly in the life social and culture, and each "worshiper of God" can not help but equate the suicide of a crime, or disease, both to be pursued. Just as abortion, infanticide is worse. Clearly the absence of this constraint would lead to an instant solution to the dilemma of life is living, so it has full power to decide independently what to do, as well as the fetus is the woman's (being in fact an extension of your body ), which then can decide independently what to do.
In this as in many other cases, the real problem is not the problem itself but all quell'ingarbugliato superset of structures, beliefs and prejudices with which we surround each dilemma apparently to make it easier to deal with, more presentable, or better than usual. Life is nothing but time flows, and the way in which the employee will increase or diminish its value. If we allow the life the way that nature has given, we shall see who is in the hands of the individual that is taking a walk in existence, and no other: it is not the father, not mother, is not of the country, not the Church, is not of God If we consider then that a life without the possibility to live the way nature presents it trivially is a waste of time, as banalmente si può intuire che non ha senso vivere. Banalmente si sta zitti, e si lascia ad ognuno la libertà di decidere di morire.
Tanto c’è la vita dopo la morte, no?
...no?!
0 comments:
Post a Comment