Not so simple ...

... Bryan looks at Assisted suicide: Whose life is it anyway?

Pope Pius XII gave a talk to physicians sometime in the 50s about the treatment of terminally ill patients suffering grievous pain. In it, he reminded them of Thomas Aquinas's principle of double effect. One administers the dose of medicine necessary to alleviate the patient's suffering even though the dosage will have the secondary effect of shortening the patient's life. The primary aim - alleviating pain - is good, so the secondary consequence is morally acceptable. This has the advantage of allowing one to actually die more or less naturally. I would myself prefer to just drop off one day, but if I had something that was slowly killing me I would prefer to experience that provided I was not unduly distracted by discomfort. As for the law, this seems to me another of those areas where the state should simply butt out. One does not have to have a law about everything. In fact, the fewer the better. And those should be clear and simple.

Bryan also links to a characteristically muddled piece by Daniel Dennett: Dennett Among the Loonies. What is so muddled about it? Well, the question as to whether we should believe in belief is not the same as the question of whether we should believe in God. Moreover, there is no need to believe in belief, anymore than there is a need to believe in hope. People do believe. People do hope. These are facts of life. Dennett believes lots of things, as do we all. Which still leaves us with having to decide whether a given belief - in God, for example - is sound or not. But before he writes another word on the subject, Dennett should acquaint himself with the difference between belief and faith.