If A Were Not Allowed His Better

Of Course, We Know That Not Everyone Agrees With Assisted Suicide, But People Might Agree That One Has The Right To It, Even If They're Not Themselves Going To Exercise It.

Any Comprehensive Doctrine, Religious Or Secular, Can Be Introduced Into Any Political Argument At Any Time, But I Argue That People Who Do This Should Also Present What They Believe Are Public Reasons For Their Argument. So Their Opinion Is No Longer Just That Of One Particular Party, But An Opinion That All Members Of A Society Might Reasonably Agree To, Not Necessarily That They Would Agree To. What's Important Is That People Give The Kinds Of Reasons That Can Be Understood And Appraised Apart From Their Particular Comprehensive Doctrines.

What's Important Is That People Give The Kinds Of Reasons That Can Be Understood And Appraised Apart From Their Particular Comprehensive Doctrines: For Example, That They Argue Against Physician-assisted Suicide Not Just By Speculating About God's Wrath Or The Afterlife, But By Talking About What They See As Assisted Suicide's Potential Injustices.

The Naturally Advantaged Are Not To Gain Merely Because They Are More Gifted, But Only To Cover The Costs Of Training And Education And For Using Their Endowments In Ways That Help The Less Fortunate As Well.

At Best The Principles That Economists Have Supposed The Choices Of Rational Individuals To Satisfy Can Be Presented As Guidelines For Us To Consider When We Make Our Decisions.