Of course! All we need to do to avert climate change is to revoke the elderly’s driving privelages! What a ‘creative’ argument…

Doctor’s are supporting euthanasia.

I disagree that society is predicated on the sort of unadulterated utilitarianism that is promoted in the article (please note that there are different kinds of utilitarian thinking; I would agree that consequentialist thinking is predominant, but not to the extent conveyed in the article). If this were the case, then we would probably not have any property rights, due process rights, and host of other legal “rights.”

You misinterpreted what I said about accepting death. I did not say we would accept death because death is a guarantee- I said imposing a age limit would not make us accept death *any more than we already accept it* (and I agree- many people struggle accepting death as is). And yes, I have pictured myself having consciousness, existing only through the memories of living people. I’ve come to peace with that

Again, I think that having a death date would not help us understand death any more than we already do. Young people might “forget that it is a guarantee” to the same extent that they do so today. And as far as I’m aware, older people DO realize that it is a guarantee!

What alternatives methods are there for promoting healthier thinking about life and death?

also just thought I would point out that Society itself is predicated on the notion of utilitarianism- individuals must give up in order that the social organism may live.

I strongly disagree with your point that we accept death because death is a guarantee- I do not think we as individuals or societies internalize this truth I think we forget that it is a guarantee. Do you honestly picture yourself as one day being non-existent and live out the implications of that knowledge in your daily life? Some might say it is morbid to think about life in terms of death but opposites reinforce and define each other and I think to fully understand life we must be happier if we started to understand death…

I think you may be missing the point a bit here. I hate to spoil the mechanism of the satire, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal

In any case, the thesis of the article shows the dangers of subscribing to an unadulterated utilitarian perspective (i.e., thinking in terms of maximizing greatest happiness or some good for the greatest number of people). From a Kantian view, one could argue that the special status of rational beings places constraints on what actions are morally permissible, even if such actions bring about greater benefit. In order to be coherent and consistent in our reasoning about morality, we must respect each other’s capacity for rational choice. Rightness/wrongness of an act is determined, not by their consequences, but by whether or not rational agents can endorse acting in such a way as a law governing our behavior (read about the categorical imperative). In other words, mandating that we murder 65 yr olds would be wrong because it is not a principle to which people 65+ would reasonably consent. For a similar reason social contract theory (which is strongly based on consent) would probably be in opposition to the mandatory killing of elderly people.

Kant aside, there are other considerations for rejecting the “modest proposal.” Why value young people’s lives more than older people’s lives? What if many people make their greatest contributions to society past the age of 65? Euthanasia is usually practiced to relieve suffering. I doubt that all [insert some # > 65 here] year olds are suffering; some may be leading rather productive and happy lives! Lastly: the main thrust of the argument (to me) seems to come from worries about the allocation of resources. But why resort to such drastic measures when equally effective, more feasible alternatives are available? E.g., reform medicare.
Interesting article!