Extreme situation:if a criminal asked you how would you prefer to be killed (let’s the options were by shot at point blank,poisonous injection,flamethrower or thrown into a crocodile pit) and presuming that any of actions will 100% result in your sure death, would it be moral to actually/even *pick *an option?.
This is what I mean/why I think this/why I ask. I’m guessing that most ppl would answer (pick) the least painful way (lethal injection) but then it occurred to me that (wouldn’t you) by the simple volitional act of choosing the methods that could be done onto you laid out before you (with the reason/intention, I might add of picking a method that is effective at being an expedient/“deliverer” of death).
Wouldn’t the lesser evil in this case by to say to the killer “do whatever you want” ,b/c you would not be participating in the taking of your own life ?, (even if the outcome that they choose is a painful one;like being thrown into a crocodile pit).
B/c it’s occured to me and I wondered,“how many who have found themselves at dispoistion of a cruel person who lays out options on how it’s going to end,have picked the least painful method possible to lessen suffering…*…one justification brought up by advocates of euthanization (?),I’m guessing…”
*I also thought to myself how [wikipedia quote] "Origen wrote: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer…[dying that way;choosing to die that way;choosing to be killed that way;for the special reason being that he did not feel worthy of being crucified like Christ]
By extention I wonder:would choosing the least painful way to be killed/die if I killer laid out the method he could do before me,make me no better than those who choose to pain in a less painful way?,(lethal injection in some hospice?)
the thought in my mind that it’s better to “to die than to be killed”–makes me think this here is something related/having to do with meta-ethics b/c I’m looking at the language and logic here.