It's how we frame the issue of euthanasia

As usual, and as expected, my letter to The Straits Times Forum page was not published. Fortunately, Blogger exists, so here it is.

I refer to the letter “Consider legalising euthanasia” by Seah Yam Meng (The Straits Times, 1 Aug), and wish to contribute just one point to the discussion.

Some objectors will base their objection on the claim that putting someone to death is murder – the worst and most immoral thing one person can do to another. I wish to question this claim.

There is a fate worse than death. It goes by the name “torture”.

Imagine a patient suffering a painful terminal illness, while undergoing costly and hopeless medical procedures, and who knows he is burdening his family with financial and emotional distress, while being personally unable to contribute anything meaningful or useful to anyone or anything. He cannot see any justification for his continued existence.

When we deny this patient the facility to be put to sleep (let’s use the humane phrase here, the one we use when we do the same thing for suffering animals), we can reasonably be described as forcing this patient to suffer torture – until he dies of bodily damage or exhaustion. And then we heave a sigh of relief – glad that he is now “at rest”.

I believe that when the issue as framed as “put to sleep” versus “torture”, we will react differently to the suggestion of legalising euthanasia.

END

Misunderstanding the Michelin Guide

The latest Michelin Guide for Singapore has added five new one-star restaurants to the list. Columnist Wong Ah Yoke ("Questions remain over selection process", The Straits Times, 27 July 2018), and other critics, have bemoaned the exclusion of other deserving restaurants.

This complaint arises from the interpretation of "not in the list" to mean "not worthy to be in the list".

This inference is illogical -- because there is no suggestion that all restaurants in Singapore were visited, and only five were found to deserve a Michelin listing. All that a listing in the Michelin Guide means is: Michelin visited these restaurants, and found that they deserve to be listed. It says nothing about any other restaurant in Singapore.

This illogical leap (fallacy) has a name: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to ignorance). Its argument form goes this way: "If there is no proof that X is true, then X is false". In this context, "Since there is no proof that Restaurant A is worthy to be listed in the Michelin Guide, then Restaurant A is not worthy to be listed in the Michelin Guide."

This fallacy has a mirror version: "If there is no proof that Y is false, then Y is true".

All we need to do when we encounter a logical fallacy is to expose the argument as a fallacy. We do not need to mount any kind of rebuttal, counterargument or alternative argument to the claim.

END