That depends on how long I thought I was going to live without the drug and what quality of life I would have with the drug.
If I was already going to live a long life, I doubt I would want to take a drug to live even longer. I don't want to live for a long period of time after Mick dies and I certainly don't want to outlive my children. I might be interested if I found out I had a terminal illness while still relatively young.
I've been thinking about this question a lot. The question raises many other questions which there is no way to answer, like how much longer would I live and what would be the quality of my longer life? Would this 'drug' be generally available? Also, I would like to stipulate that immortality is not an option. Putting all these questions aside, my answer is, no. I do not want to interfere with the order of things as God has set them, even if it could mean a longer life for me.
I see this as different from medical intervention to cure diseases which would otherwise shorten one's life. The goal of this 'drug' is only to lengthen life.
also, one must ask if the drug preserves one's youth and health. otherwise one would end up like the sybil of cumae, who wished for eternal life but not eternal youth, and ended up in a decrepit state forever.
4000 questions on the blog 4000 questions on the blog... if one of the questions should happen to fall...... 3999 questions on the blog... 3999 questions on the blog... if one of the questions should happen to fall.................
youre not being true to the question. you are altering the parameters of the question to suit your wants desires etc. the question is: If there was a drug you could take to lengthen your lifetime, would you take it?
the question as posed....i would answer yes.
3998 questions on the blog 3998 questions on the blog.... if one of those questions would happen to fall............
"I see this as different from medical intervention to cure diseases which would otherwise shorten one's life. The goal of this 'drug' is only to lengthen life."
So then you don't think someone should make a medical decision that will lengthen their life even though they are most certainly terminal? For example, let's say a 12 year old girl has terminal cancer and there is nothing that medicine can do to help her. If the girl and her mother choose to keep on taking her cancer fighting medicine in order to allow her to have as long a life as possible, they have done something immoral in your eyes? The girl should be required to die as soon as possible once it is known that she is terminal and that there is no way, short of a full body transplant, to "cure" her?
It is impossible to answer the question without context unless you would always or never take such a drug. I would never be forced to answer the question without context, so there is no point in trying to the impossible. If you told me that I was going to die tomorrow but I could take a special drug that would extend my life for 20 years and that I would have a reasonably good quality of life, I would take it. If you told me the same thing (that I would die tomorrow) when I was 100, I wouldn't want to take the drug.
respectfully disagree. there are no guarantees in life. so adding context to the question is convenient but not what i surmise the intent of the questioner to be. this isnt a case where foundation needs to be carefully crafted.
so while context is interesting and makes for good conversation, i disagree that it is necessary to answering the question.
in effect by adding conditions you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. for example: "if you told me that i was going to die tomorrow...." then you would take the pill. come on. where is the adventure in that. of course if i knew for sure that death was coming for me tomorrow i would take the pill.
by taking the pill i would be responsible for the chain of events that flow from such a decision. no guarantees no context.
by forcing conditionality where it wasnt intended, in this hypothetical, you are in effect saying that you wouldnt take the pill. this is a fair and easily defended position. in fact it is more easily defended than the position i chose, taking the pill.
the reason being that by taking the magic-pill you are altering history. this is a serious responsibility that i didnt fully consider when i earlier said that i would take the pill. i should therefore change my view. i would not, afterall, take the pill
Larry, You do not need to worry that I will ask all 4000 questions in my book as most of the questions aren't suitable to a conversation on the blog in my opinion, or they are just not that interesting. For instance, Why do moms and dads fight? or Do you photograph well? are two questions you'll never have to answer. I hope you'll sleep better tonight knowing this:)
“there are no guarantees in life. so adding context to the question is convenient but not what i surmise the intent of the questioner to be. this isnt a case where foundation needs to be carefully crafted.” Yes, this is a case in which a foundation needs to be carefully crafted. You are acting like the only acceptable answers are “I would take the pill in all circumstances” or “I would never take such a pill.” But those are NOT the only two possibilities. I don’t understand why you think I need to answer a hypothetical question without using context when I would never have to answer such a question in real life without context. I didn’t add anything to the question, I just have a more complex answer than you do.
“so while context is interesting and makes for good conversation, i disagree that it is necessary to answering the question.” For me, the circumstances of the pill being offered DO matter. I wouldn’t take the pill in all circumstances and I laid out which circumstances I would and would not take the pill. I don’t understand why that is “cheating?”
“in effect by adding conditions you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. for example: "if you told me that i was going to die tomorrow...." then you would take the pill. come on. where is the adventure in that. of course if i knew for sure that death was coming for me tomorrow i would take the pill.” No, I’m not asking to have my cake and eat it too. I am pointing out the obvious: In real life, I wouldn’t have to make such a decision without context so there is no point in making a hypothetical decision without context.
“by taking the pill i would be responsible for the chain of events that flow from such a decision. no guarantees no context.” I never said I wasn’t willing to take responsibility for the events associated with my decisions. I suggested that when I wasn’t willing to take responsibility for certain events I wouldn’t do the action that caused those events to occur.
“by forcing conditionality where it wasnt intended, in this hypothetical, you are in effect saying that you wouldnt take the pill. this is a fair and easily defended position. in fact it is more easily defended than the position i chose, taking the pill.” Nope. I don’t understand how you have come to the conclusion that life decisions are made in a vacuum without context. I didn’t force conditionality on anything. This question BEGS for conditional answers. Most people are not black or white Larry. There are relatively very few Universal Truths.
If this were a real possibility (taking a drug to extend one's life) context would be everything. There are many things to consider in answering this question, but since it is a hypothetical, each person is free to consider any or none of these contextual possibilities when responding. The process one uses to arrive at an answer is the point of the question, and the purpose of the conversation.
have there been double blind placebo trials and is it FDA approved? do they sell it cheaper in Canada? - these are important conditions as well. Cmon people. -m
13 comments:
That depends on how long I thought I was going to live without the drug and what quality of life I would have with the drug.
If I was already going to live a long life, I doubt I would want to take a drug to live even longer. I don't want to live for a long period of time after Mick dies and I certainly don't want to outlive my children. I might be interested if I found out I had a terminal illness while still relatively young.
I've been thinking about this question a lot. The question raises many other questions which there is no way to answer, like how much longer would I live and what would be the quality of my longer life? Would this 'drug' be generally available? Also, I would like to stipulate that immortality is not an option. Putting all these questions aside, my answer is, no. I do not want to interfere with the order of things as God has set them, even if it could mean a longer life for me.
I see this as different from medical intervention to cure diseases which would otherwise shorten one's life. The goal of this 'drug' is only to lengthen life.
also, one must ask if the drug preserves one's youth and health. otherwise one would end up like the sybil of cumae, who wished for eternal life but not eternal youth, and ended up in a decrepit state forever.
4000 questions on the blog
4000 questions on the blog...
if one of the questions should happen to fall......
3999 questions on the blog...
3999 questions on the blog...
if one of the questions should happen to fall.................
youre not being true to the question. you are altering the parameters of the question to suit your wants desires etc.
the question is: If there was a drug you could take to lengthen your lifetime, would you take it?
the question as posed....i would answer yes.
3998 questions on the blog
3998 questions on the blog....
if one of those questions would happen to fall............
I didn't alter the parameters of the question, I suggested that the context in which I was presented the question would affect my answer.
"I see this as different from medical intervention to cure diseases which would otherwise shorten one's life. The goal of this 'drug' is only to lengthen life."
So then you don't think someone should make a medical decision that will lengthen their life even though they are most certainly terminal? For example, let's say a 12 year old girl has terminal cancer and there is nothing that medicine can do to help her. If the girl and her mother choose to keep on taking her cancer fighting medicine in order to allow her to have as long a life as possible, they have done something immoral in your eyes? The girl should be required to die as soon as possible once it is known that she is terminal and that there is no way, short of a full body transplant, to "cure" her?
fair enough.
now how would you answer the questions without condition and caveat?
It is impossible to answer the question without context unless you would always or never take such a drug. I would never be forced to answer the question without context, so there is no point in trying to the impossible. If you told me that I was going to die tomorrow but I could take a special drug that would extend my life for 20 years and that I would have a reasonably good quality of life, I would take it. If you told me the same thing (that I would die tomorrow) when I was 100, I wouldn't want to take the drug.
respectfully disagree. there are no guarantees in life. so adding context to the question is convenient but not what i surmise the intent of the questioner to be.
this isnt a case where foundation needs to be carefully crafted.
so while context is interesting and makes for good conversation, i disagree that it is necessary to answering the question.
in effect by adding conditions you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. for example: "if you told me that i was going to die tomorrow...." then you would take the pill. come on. where is the adventure in that. of course if i knew for sure that death was coming for me tomorrow i would take the pill.
by taking the pill i would be responsible for the chain of events that flow from such a decision. no guarantees no context.
by forcing conditionality where it wasnt intended, in this hypothetical, you are in effect saying that you wouldnt take the pill. this is a fair and easily defended position. in fact it is more easily defended than the position i chose, taking the pill.
the reason being that by taking the magic-pill you are altering history. this is a serious responsibility that i didnt fully consider when i earlier said that i would take the pill. i should therefore change my view. i would not, afterall, take the pill
Larry,
You do not need to worry that I will ask all 4000 questions in my book as most of the questions aren't suitable to a conversation on the blog in my opinion, or they are just not that interesting. For instance, Why do moms and dads fight? or Do you photograph well? are two questions you'll never have to answer. I hope you'll sleep better tonight knowing this:)
“there are no guarantees in life. so adding context to the question is convenient but not what i surmise the intent of the questioner to be. this isnt a case where foundation needs to be carefully crafted.”
Yes, this is a case in which a foundation needs to be carefully crafted. You are acting like the only acceptable answers are “I would take the pill in all circumstances” or “I would never take such a pill.” But those are NOT the only two possibilities. I don’t understand why you think I need to answer a hypothetical question without using context when I would never have to answer such a question in real life without context. I didn’t add anything to the question, I just have a more complex answer than you do.
“so while context is interesting and makes for good conversation, i disagree that it is necessary to answering the question.”
For me, the circumstances of the pill being offered DO matter. I wouldn’t take the pill in all circumstances and I laid out which circumstances I would and would not take the pill. I don’t understand why that is “cheating?”
“in effect by adding conditions you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. for example: "if you told me that i was going to die tomorrow...." then you would take the pill. come on. where is the adventure in that. of course if i knew for sure that death was coming for me tomorrow i would take the pill.”
No, I’m not asking to have my cake and eat it too. I am pointing out the obvious: In real life, I wouldn’t have to make such a decision without context so there is no point in making a hypothetical decision without context.
“by taking the pill i would be responsible for the chain of events that flow from such a decision. no guarantees no context.”
I never said I wasn’t willing to take responsibility for the events associated with my decisions. I suggested that when I wasn’t willing to take responsibility for certain events I wouldn’t do the action that caused those events to occur.
“by forcing conditionality where it wasnt intended, in this hypothetical, you are in effect saying that you wouldnt take the pill. this is a fair and easily defended position. in fact it is more easily defended than the position i chose, taking the pill.”
Nope. I don’t understand how you have come to the conclusion that life decisions are made in a vacuum without context. I didn’t force conditionality on anything. This question BEGS for conditional answers. Most people are not black or white Larry. There are relatively very few Universal Truths.
If this were a real possibility (taking a drug to extend one's life) context would be everything. There are many things to consider in answering this question, but since it is a hypothetical, each person is free to consider any or none of these contextual possibilities when responding. The process one uses to arrive at an answer is the point of the question, and the purpose of the conversation.
have there been double blind placebo trials and is it FDA approved? do they sell it cheaper in Canada? - these are important conditions as well.
Cmon people.
-m
Post a Comment