Solipsist wrote:
But is it so wrong for someone to let someone's life end early, avoiding most of the torture that life will undoubtedly give them?
Although I am not an advocate for suicide, I would certainly argue that it is very different, morally, ethically, and practically, to
let someone die who has chosen that course for themselves than it is to
decide to kill another person, and so make that choice for them.
In either case, I would argue against death. But I would say taking the initiative to cause another's death is certainly a step further than simply standing back and letting someone make their own choice. So you have, intentionally or not, confused two very different things here.
When, in addition, the initiative taken involves causing someone's death in a particularly painful and horrible fashion, thus being the active cause of torture inflicted on them, as in the case discussed here, I think your question is utterly off the mark.
A: Yes, I think it is wrong to let someone die, assuming you have the means to save them. (Those who are helpless in a particular situation - for whatever reason - cannot be blamed for "letting" anyone die, obviously.)
B: I certainly think it is wrong - and much more so - to decide yourself to deliberately cause anyone's death.
C: I think it compounds the offense if you decide upon a painful and slow method of killing anyone.
So, despite the lack of relation between your question and the incident under discussion, my reply to you would be,
YES, it is wrong. Much more so than your inaccurate summation of the act suggests.
_________________
AQ Test = 44 Aspie Quiz = 169 Aspie 33 NT EQ / SQ-R = Extreme Systematising
===================
Not all those who wander are lost.
===================
In the country of the blind, the one eyed man - would be diagnosed with a psychological disorder