Is it morally wrong to kill someone while they are asleep?

[RDKirk]

Not sure if you read through the thread or not.

It appears a dumb question, but it is difficult to justify. Perhaps instead of just bashing the thread, you could try to justify why it is wrong?

Its a question that raises further questions about what is the self, what is personhood, and what it actually means to kill someone.

Actually, your concept of "person" is flawed.

A "person" is a legal definition, like "insanity." A sleeping person is a person because the law says he is. There is no other social definition.

 

[variant]

Actually, your concept of "person" is flawed.

A "person" is a legal definition, like "insanity." A sleeping person is a person because the law says he is. There is no other social definition.

Rubbish, social definitions depend on their reasoning which can not be separated from the idea.

"because society says so" <- Is thoughtless and arbitrary. The why is what is important here in the justification for such definitions or else they are not just definitions.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

I had a great response but then I realized I read the title wrong. I seriously thought it said "Is it morally wrong to KISS someone while they are asleep?"

*sigh*
I hate you brain!

 

[RDKirk]

Rubbish, social definitions depend on their reasoning which can not be separated from the idea.

"because society says so" <- Is thoughtless and arbitrary. The why is what is important here in the justification for such definitions or else they are not just definitions.

Then you're left with the abortion issue.

 

[durangodawood]

Then you're left with the abortion issue.

There's no consensus about whether or when a fetus is a person.

But law aside, everyone knows a sleeping person is still a person.

So your example isnt very useful.

 

[variant]

Then you're left with the abortion issue.

I'm not really, as I already explained, abortion is wrong for the same reasons, but being a person doesn't matter if the question is whether or not you have the right to use someone else's body to survive against their will.

 

[RDKirk]

There's no consensus about whether or when a fetus is a person.

But law aside, everyone knows a sleeping person is still a person.

So your example isnt very useful.

"Everyone knows?" Not everyone. The OP has just given his personal definition of "person" that excludes anyone who is not immediately conscious, and I haven't seen a competing definition given by anyone that isn't just as personally subjective.

The fact that there is no consensus about whether or when a fetus is a person means precisely that there may not be a consensus of whether anyone is a person.

"Everyone knows" isn't very useful. There have been a lot of things "everyone knows" that hasn't been so.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not really, as I already explained, abortion is wrong for the same reasons, but being a person doesn't matter if the question is whether or not you have the right to use someone else's body to survive against their will.

Does an unconscious person have a will? How unconscious? Comatose?

 

[variant]

Does an unconscious person have a will? How unconscious? Comatose?

I'm not sure I grasp the idea behind your question. It doesn't seem to relate to what I am talking about. Please elaborate.

 

[durangodawood]

1. "Everyone knows?" Not everyone. The OP has just given his personal definition of "person" that excludes anyone who is not immediately conscious, and I haven't seen a competing definition given by anyone that isn't just as personally subjective.

2. The fact that there is no consensus about whether or when a fetus is a person means precisely that there may not be a consensus of whether anyone is a person.

3. "Everyone knows" isn't very useful. There have been a lot of things "everyone knows" that hasn't been so.

1. Do you really think even for a moment that the OP guy actually doubts that a sleeping person is still a person? He's just trying this idea out. But in real life he will treat a sleeping person like a person.

2. Reality proves you wrong. Pretty much everyone in real life treats a sleeping person like a person. And not just under threat of law. It simply feels natural and right. Yet you cannot say the same about abortions, at least early ones.

3. "Everyone knows" is pretty useful for moral principles if that knowledge is proven over time. These basic moral principles arent exactly passing fads.

 

[Nithavela]

I am most certainly not nonexistant when I am asleep.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I am most certainly not nonexistant when I am asleep.

What about if your body was in a coma?

What about if your body was knocked unconscious?

 

[variant]

What about if your body was in a coma?

What about if your body was knocked unconscious?

In comas we often have other people make decisions on whether or not to continue life support if you haven't left written instructions.

 

[Nithavela]

What about if your body was in a coma?

Then it would be moral to kill me if there was little to no chance of my reawakening AND I had left a written statement of my wish to be killed in this case.

What about if your body was knocked unconscious?

Even knocking someone unconcious would be immoral without good reason.

Do you really support the viewpoint that it is okay to kill someone just because don't appear to be concious at the moment?

 

[durangodawood]

Do you really support the viewpoint that it is okay to kill someone just because don't appear to be concious at the moment?

OF COURSE the OP guy thinks its wrong to kill a sleeping person.

Its just that he cant find the rational basis for that feeling, that moral rule. So I found it for him!

 

[selfinflikted]

OF COURSE the OP guy thinks its wrong to kill a sleeping person.

Yea, but I get the feeling the intent was to segue that argument into the abortion argument.

 

[durangodawood]

Yea, but I get the feeling the intent was to segue that argument into the abortion argument.

Well, that doesnt work.

Its obviously not sleeping that's the issue. Its what is a "person" in the first place.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, that doesnt work.

Its obviously not sleeping that's the issue. Its what is a "person" in the first place.

I think it was a very odd way to incorporate the pro-choice argument about a fetus into a different situation.

The flaw was that no one really agrees with the premise that we don't exist when we're sleeping. Or something like that.

I get where he was going...he just wasn't taking a route I'd take.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, that doesnt work.

Its obviously not sleeping that's the issue. Its what is a "person" in the first place.

Well, I agree to the extent that the two arguments are apples and oranges. But my position on the abortion argument has shifted slightly over the years. For me now, it's more a question of bodily sovereignty than anything else.

 

[RDKirk]

In comas we often have other people make decisions on whether or not to continue life support if you haven't left written instructions.

I know a guy who was in a coma for five days after a severe auto accident (in fact, I was having an IM with him just this morning), and his family was having that discussion when he woke up.

So while he was unconscious (but in hindsight his body was obviously working full time to bring him back to consciousness) his "personness" was being decided by other people. So was he really a person or not? What if they'd decided earlier that he was no longer a person and removed his life support on the fourth day?