NewPhilosopherby Matthew BeardEthical dilemmaEthical
dilemma
extending life is – at least some of the
time – wrong.
Some might argue that there’s
something ‘unnatural’ about prolong-
ing life, but unless they’re also against
modern medicine, insulated homes
and dentistry, there’s something a tad
hypocritical about this argument. In-
deed, the history of morality is littered
with arguments that draw the line be-
tween ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ in ways
that have more to do with our personal
preferences than anything else.
Another argument might be to
say that continually prolonging life
would make our lives less fulfilling,
meaningful or ethical. New tech-
nologies tend to generate widespread
changes in what we believe and how
we behave (consider norms around
privacy and respect in the online age).
Perhaps we might worry that a tech-
nological project aimed at letting us
live indefinitely would change human
society for the worse.
For example, perhaps indefinite life
would make us less humble. The fear of
death is – according to many philoso-
phers – one of the key motivators for
living ethically and authentically. Our
species is prone to arrogance – consider
the way we have colonised the planet at
the expense of other species and now,even ourselves. If we already see our-
selves as ‘above’ nature, imagine what
might happen if we conquer death.
In response, we might argue that if
prolonging life creates a set of moral
beliefs, then it’s possible that refusing
to prolong life will have similar effects.
For instance, seeing people’s lives as
fixed – with a natural end point –
might inadvertently encourage us to
devalue the lives and experiences of
the elderly. When you consider that
across the globe, elderly people are
treated in ways that range from dis-
criminatory to outright cruel, this is a
significant point to consider.
Of course, as you note, there is also
a significant resource question to con-
sider. If we could spend resources either
prolonging the lives of those who have
already experienced decades of life, or
instead give them to emergency care
for babies and infants, which should we
prefer? If these resources are only avail-
able to the very wealthy, should they be
able to buy extra years of life?
Answering this question requires
us to consider the inherent value of
life and where it sits alongside other
values like justice and equity. This
means that answering the philosophi-
cal questions might help us tackle the
political ones.As those I love, and I, approach the
end of our lives, we’re going to be faced
with decisions about what we want
when it comes to end-of-life care.
Some people opt for extending life as
long as possible; others would prefer
a quick exit when it is clear there is
little hope for recovery. Some would
like assisted suicide if they suffer from
Alzheimer’s; others want to fight to
the very last breath even if it means
a faltering mind, multiple operations,
or incessant pills. The dilemma I face
is not so much a personal one, although
I face that too (how should I die?), but
rather a social dilemma: what type of
end-of-life care should be made avail-
able? With medical advancements it
is possible to extend life further than
ever before, but just because we can
it doesn’t mean that we should. Is it a
waste of resources to artificially keep
an ageing population alive just be-
cause we can? Should there be limits
on the degree of care available to peo-
ple when it comes to end-of-life care?
At first glance, prolonging life
seems like an obviously good thing
to do. After all, we are socialised
to think of death as bad and life as
good, and our evolutionary instincts
seem to agree. This seems to place the
burden of proof on those who think