La interculturalidad como relación horizontal entre culturas

dispute only if there is clear evidence that the respondent is arguing for his own thesis. That is, the respondent must be declaring that his thesis is true and presenting argumentation to prove it is true. Unless the evidence on this point is clear, the case should be classified as a dissent.

In the next dialogue, Cassie and Fred have just read the news report about a retired Michigan pathologist, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who used a machine he had invented to help a patient with Alzheimer’s disease end her life. This machine connects a container holding lethal chemicals to a patient through an intravenous line. When the patient pushes a button, the chemicals are released and go into the patient’s bloodstream. A question posed by this widely publicized case is whether Dr. Kevorkian violated the code of ethical conduct for physicians (not meaning any actual ‘code’, or official set of rules, but only what one should take such rules to be, eth- ically speaking). In this case, Dr. Kevorkian was reported to have pushed the button himself. Thus the case is classified as one of active euthanasia, as opposed to passive euthanasia, in which the physician lets the patient with a terminal illness die by withholding or withdrawing treatment. It is one thing to allow a patient to die by discontinuing treatment that he no longer wishes to have, but it is quite another to actively intervene to bring about the death of a patient by carrying out actions that will cause that patient’s death. After reading about this case, Cassie and Fred expressed a disagreement on whether Dr. Kervorkian had violated the code of ethical conduct for physicians.

The Euthanasia Dialogue

Cassie (1): I think he did violate the code of ethical conduct for physicians,

because he pushed the button himself. If the patient had pushed the button instead of Dr. Kevorkian, I would say that the doctor did not violate the code.

Fred (1): I find this view highly dubious. What’s the difference whether he

pushed the button, or just set the whole thing up so the patient could push the button?

Cassie (2): It’s the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Active

euthanasia is causing an outcome to occur, whereas passive euthanasia is merely not intervening to prevent it. That’s why active euthanasia is always wrong, while passive euthanasia is not.

Fred (2): I don’t see how one can be wrong and the other not, because both

lead to the death of the patient. Anything that leads to the death of the patient is against human life. Anything that is against human life is wrong. It follows that both active and passive euthanasia are wrong. Anything that is

wrong should not be allowed in any code of ethical conduct for physicians. Thus I think that both should be against the code of ethical conduct for physicians.

Cassie (3): I don’t think that both should be against the code of ethical con-

duct for physicians, because I think there is a morally significant difference between active and passive euthanasia. In passive euthanasia the patient voluntarily carries out the act of killing himself. That’s suicide, and it’s no fault of the physician. However, if a physician were to kill the patient by administering the lethal drug himself, that would be murder.

Fred (3): Legally, there may be a difference, but ethically I don’t see that

there is. Both acting and not acting can lead to the death of a patient. Since both can lead to the same outcome, death, surely both kinds of actions are equally serious and are morally equivalent. So what’s the difference?

Cassie (4): Now wait a minute Fred! There is a difference here. Let’s begin

with a case where I shoot you. That is quite different, ethically speaking, from a case where I fail to save you from another party who shoots you. In the one case I am directly responsible for your death because I personally carry out the action that causes it. In the other case I merely stand by and fail to intervene, failing to prevent your death. My responsibility for your death is quite different in the two cases.

Fred (4): I don’t see the difference. If you fail to intervene when you could

have, and I die, then you are responsible for my death.

Cassie (5): Let’s look at this in a different way. Suppose a cancer patient is

suffering terrible pain, and there is no hope she will recover by continuing chemotherapy. Suppose she asks that the chemotherapy be discontinued. Shouldn’t her doctor be allowed to carry out her wishes? I think he should be allowed to stop treatment, according to the code of ethics for physicians. But I don’t think he should be allowed to give her a lethal injection.

Fred (5): But how does your argument fit with the view that human life is

sacred? Taking a human life should never be allowed, even if it is only a matter of collaborating in a killing, as opposed to actually carrying it out.

Cassie (6): Think of the case of animals. When your dog gets very old, and is

suffering terribly, you take it to the humane society and have it put down. Are you saying that there is a difference between human life, which is sacred, and animal life, which is not? This position is ‘speciesism’, the view that human life is special and uniquely valuable, simply because we are members of the human species.

Fred (6): Giving it a negative-sounding name doesn’t make it wrong. What

about the differences between dogs and humans? A human is a rational being with free choice, rights, and responsibilities. Dogs are dependent on us to make decisions for them.

9. Disputes and Dissents 39

One interesting thing about the euthanasia dialogue is that the argu- mentation gets hung up on a linguistic difficulty. At her first move in the dialogue, Cassie gives a reason to support her view that Dr. Kevorkian did violate the code of ethical conduct for physicians. The reason she gave is that he pushed the button himself. Fred is skeptical about this argument and subjects it to questioning. He asks what the difference is between Dr. Kevorkian’s pushing the button and the patient’s pushing it. To answer this question Cassie (at move 2) cites a distinction between active and passive euthanasia. She offers a definition of each term. She says that active euthanasia is causing an outcome to occur. She defines passive euthanasia, by contrast, as not intervening, meaning not causing the outcome. On the basis of this distinction, she argues for her conclu- sion that active euthanasia is always wrong, while passive euthanasia is not. It is not difficult to see how this conclusion is relevant to her thesis in the euthanasia dialogue. She is contending that what a physician did can be classified as passive euthanasia as long as he did not push the but- ton. Based on her argument just stated, passive euthanasia is not always wrong. Thus she can argue that what a physician might do by setting up his euthanasia machine was not wrong, if that’s all he did. What Cassie’s argument shows is that how terms are defined can be very important in argumentation.

At his move 2, Fred rebuts Cassie’s argument by presenting another argument that has the conclusion opposite to Cassie’s argument at her move 2. Fred’s argument has two premises, both generalizations.

FIRST PREMISE: Anything that leads to the death of a patient is against human life.

SECOND PREMISE: Anything that is against human life is wrong.

CONCLUSION: Both active and passive euthanasia are wrong.

Fred uses this argument for two purposes. The first is indicated in his remark at move 2: “I don’t see how one can be wrong and the other not, because both lead to the death of the patient.” In other words, Fred is giv- ing a reason to support his skeptical remark that he doesn’t see how one type of euthanasia, active euthanasia, could be wrong, while the other, passive euthanasia, might not be wrong. This is interesting because it shows that Fred is using an argument to back up his questioning of Cassie’s previous argument. In other words, what he is doing is not rebutting her argument but using an argument to question it. The second thing he is

doing is using his argument to lead to another argument, thus producing a chain of argumentation. The conclusion of his first argument was the statement that both active and passive euthanasia are wrong. This state- ment is now used as a premise along with an additional premise. The additional premise is the statement that anything that is wrong should not be allowed in any code of ethical conduct for physicians. These two generalizations, taken together, support the conclusion that Fred asserts. Fred says, “Thus I think that both [active and passive euthanasia] should be against the code of ethical conduct for physicians.” This statement is clearly relevant in the dialogue, as it goes directly against Cassie’s view- point.

At her move 4, and then again at her move 5, Cassie uses an argu- ment based on an example. Using an example can be a reasonable form of argument, because it not only illustrates your point but can show how it is applicable to a particular case. If the respondent is convinced that the generalization you are arguing for is true in this case, then he may be convinced to accept it. But, of course, simply using one case as your evidence is a weak form of argument if it is supposed to support a wide generalization. Thus argument from example, even if it is a weak form of argument, can still be a reasonable argument that carries some weight.

Another argument that Cassie uses at move 6 is an argument from analogy. She draws a comparison to the kind of case where your dog is suffering and you take it to the Humane Society to have it put down. Still another kind of argument that she uses at move 6 is based on her assertion that Fred’s argument can be defined as speciesism. Once again, the argument is interesting because it derives from the use of language. She is using what is often described as emotively loaded language. In other words, she uses a term that makes Fred’s view sound somehow unreasonable or wrong. Fred responds at move 6 by pointing out that such a negative use of language doesn’t necessarily prove that his argument is wrong. He backs up his point by putting forward another argument based on the statement that human beings are different from animals.

EXERCISE 1.9

1.Classify the following cases as a dissent or a dispute, giving your rea-