The law on the end of life is presented as a humanist response to suffering and distress, this is only its appearance; in its reality it emerges from a philosophy of existence and of the world, one which wants everyone to be the absolute master of themselves. Failing to be able to decide on his birth and his genes – let’s not despair, AI and post-humanism could allow this – he can, at least, choose his death and decide on the time and conditions.
This philosophy has its titles of nobility; it has high-flying thinkers; so, why not say clearly that the law on the end of life is more a choice of philosophy and meaning of existence, without disguising it as altruism and generosity? We must say what the laws are called for. Altruism and generosity are in care, support, even humble, and the search to alleviate all forms of suffering.
Verbal urgency contradicted by natural urgency
In many areas, post-truth is flourishing. While the end-of-life law was passed in the National Assembly – the Senate opposed it – another law is being debated which intends to unravel a certain number of rules limiting the use of inputs in agriculture, the development of water reservoirs (mega-basins) and the control of these practices like others by state agencies: this is the law described as “agricultural emergency”, or Duplomb 2 law, the first Duplomb law having been partly unraveled.
Where is the emergency? Return to what governs the use of chemistry and water pumping? Here again, a word is diverted from its meaning: the emergency, here verbal, is contradicted by the physiological and natural emergency that everyone experiences and from which many suffer: climate change and its multiple consequences. But, rather than questioning, to call into question, the model that we inherit, to put it quickly “agro-industry” and the use of fossil fuels, we want not only to defend it but to develop it.
Sacrosanct individual freedom
Europeans have retained some restraint in their expression; when reality contradicts actions, shows their irrelevance, we seek to argue. Across the Atlantic, the Trump administration is not afraid to assert something even if it is false. The truth then becomes the discourse, the facts being what can only support this discourse; anything that contradicts it is qualified as fake news.
It must be recognized: lies, because that is what it is, often have more appeal than the truth, especially if the latter constrains our sacrosanct individual freedom. This is not new: from the first chapters of the book of Genesis, it is the lie which leads to consider God not as the one who gives life and freedom, but as the one who limits, even prevents them. Today, as yesterday, human beings are in mortal danger when they choose to listen to the whistle of deception rather than to the Word of truth.
About opinions
This text is signed by a guest author. He expresses his opinion and not that of the editorial staff. Our Live section aims to allow the expression of pluralism on religious, social and current affairs subjects, and to encourage dialogue, according to the criteria set by our editorial charter.
Share your opinion in comments or by writing to us at: readers.lacroix@groupebayard.com
