Tag: morality

Morals and virtue

As Franklin explained, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In other words, if we don’t govern ourselves, we have no choice but to be governed from above.

Virtue (Latin: virtus, Ancient Greek: ἀρετή “arete”) is moral excellence. A virtue is a trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness. In other words, it is a behavior that shows high moral standards. Doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong.

The Founders Warned Us: With Loss of Virtue Comes Loss of Our Republic.

It is the secret at the heart of America’s founding—one that we have largely forgotten. Unlike other countries, America is not defined by a particular ethnic or religious group. Instead, our country was formed around an idea: liberty. But what does it take to maintain liberty?

Now, in order to find the answer to this question, we have to go back 229 years, to 1787. Having won the American Revolution, our founders went about creating a new form of government—one that would be strong, but not TOO strong; one that relied on self-government.

As their summer-long convention finished, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” He famously replied: “A republic, madam—if you can keep it!”

And what could cause us to lose the republic? Well, that’s simple: the loss of virtue.

John Adams wrote that “the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue.” Have you heard that lately? Me neither.

What Franklin understood—and what modern crime statistics tragically bear out—is that if citizens do not voluntarily practice virtue, the authorities have no choice but to attempt to enforce it.

As Franklin explained, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In other words, if we don’t govern ourselves, we have no choice but to be governed from above.

Beginning tomorrow I will be starting a series of blog posts outlining the Golden Triangle of Freedom. The argument boils down to this: Freedom requires virtue; virtue requires faith; and faith in turn requires freedom. Remove any one of the triangle’s sides, and the whole structure collapses. In the posts following I will begin outlining the first leg of the “Golden Triangle”, virtue.

Down a slippery slope

I posit that if a person is considered to be of sound mind when deciding to commit suicide then they should have their decision honored. HOWEVER; once of the precepts of the medical profession is; “First, do no harm”. Expecting a physician or other medical professional to become an accessory to murder is, in the least, placing an untenable burden on the doctor/patient relationship.

A Dutch court acquitted a doctor on Wednesday, September 11, 2019 of all charges for the euthanasia of an elderly woman who suffered from dementia but may not have wanted to end her life when her life was taken.

The landmark case received widespread media attention because prosecutors claim the doctor, who remains unnamed, did not properly consult her patient before injecting her with a lethal dose of drugs. The unnamed 74-year-old patient was given a sedative in her coffee and had to be restrained by her husband and daughter as the doctor injected her with the deadly drugs.

“We conclude that all requirements of the euthanasia legislation had been met. Therefore the suspect is acquitted of all charges,” Judge Mariette Renckens said at the court in The Hague.

The case tested the interpretation and scope of the Netherlands’ euthanasia laws after the country became the first nation to legalize medical euthanasia in 2002.

This is the first case of a doctor being accused of wrongfully causing her patient’s death, but Wednesday’s ruling determined that the doctor correctly followed her patient’s instruction to end her life despite her having to be restrained at the time of her death in 2016.

One inherent consequence that so-called “Death with Dignity” advocates seem to ignore is the possibility that doctors and family members will pressure people into euthanasia or assisted suicide for convenience. This case in the Netherlands takes that one step further, as an elderly woman was euthanized against her will.

A thought occurs to me regarding a person’s “right to death with dignity” and a medical professional facilitating the termination of life.

I posit that if a person is considered to be of sound mind when deciding to commit suicide then they should have their decision honored. HOWEVER; once of the precepts of the medical profession is; “First, do no harm”. Expecting a physician or other medical professional to become an accessory to murder is, in the least, placing an untenable burden on the doctor/patient relationship.

If you want to “off” yourself then have the guts to do it yourself without placing the burden of responsibility on another person.