However, I am also aware that moral relativism comes with it an objection that there can be no moral progress, and so that undermines any idea of making suggestion as core to this would be that there is no increased in 'goodness' by making the above changes - there is no room for progress.
Furthermore, my own arguments as to why we should be using moral relativism in this case (it increases autonomy, respect and dignity at the end of life) are all undermined by my previous argument that 'goodness' is not fixed and therefore the qualities that i am trying to promote are not inherently good. — AlexMcGram
I've been thinking that moral relativism can provide a good framework to suggest that one's idea of 'goodness' in death is individually determined based on ones cultural and individual factors, and therefore the only definition of goodness in death can be 'that which is satisfactory to those involved. — AlexMcGram
I generally agree with your sentiment there Athena, especially when talking about the relationship with medicine and death. My personal opinion on the matter is that death has become too medicalised, and this striving of society towards prolonging life at all costs is generally detrimental to those involved. Planning death, in my opinion, does not necessarily mean shortening life, but it does allow people to create their own narrative around death, and have more autonomy over how they die. — AlexMcGram
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.