Moral Fictions

Here's what I should have said:

The difference thesis (that killing is different from letting die) is not meant to obscure the _cause_ of death.  It's meant to characterize the nature of the death.  So although TBM argue quite correctly that it is evasive to say that "X was allowed to die" when we removed his ventilator, if saying that is meant to hide the _cause_ of death.  The cause was the removal.  It was also his condition.

The difference thesis is meant to say whether or not the death is an unjust one.  So it isn't about cause, it is about responsibility.

No one should say, "I'm not a murderer--I just removed the ventilator, and his condition ended his life--I didn't cause it."

It is perfectly possible to murder someone by removing their ventilator.  Happens in movies all the time.

My view is that it is clearer to say that this deadly act was, or wasn't unjust.  Either way, we should be clear eyed about the cause.  All causes are equal this way.


Now, the real question is:  which deadly acts are unjust.  And we are not all agreed about that.  That's the real question, not the cause of death (in these contexts).


(Let me just nerd out philosophically for a moment on a relevant issue.  What counts as a cause?  You made it to class today.  What caused that?  Your alarm clock?  Your commitment to class?  The continued existence of the planet?  Your not-getting-hit-by-a-meteor?

See, we're used to thinking in a very science-y way about cause and effect.  But it's not really like that.  An infinite number of things, since the beginning of time, had to happen for you to make it to class.  We don't call them all causes.  "Cause" really picks out some particular moment, when really the moments are endless.  You tell me:  "I missed class because I incorrectly set my alarm for 7:58PM, not AM."   

Why don't I respond:  "No, you missed class because you didn't set alarms on five different devices, eliminating the possibility of error."?   Think about that.)