Quality of life versus quantity of life

In any moral system, the big issues get top billing. Life, death, sex and children are logically the big issues for any reproduction-based self-organizing collection of atoms.

But in the pursuit of happiness and well-being, longevity and reproduction are the evolutionary ends, but the means is a brain and body that is capable of more nuance. What is it worth to extend life at all costs, if doing so only creates pain and hardship? This fundamental dichotomy between the goal of our genes versus the goal of our brains is at the heart of the biggest moral controversies of our time: abortion, euthanasia, war, overpopulation and the death penalty.

Taking the example of the Catholic Church which applies its moral absolutes consistently, "Thou shalt not kill" is given as a Trump good. Therefore, abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty are all against their moral code, and war is generally frowned upon except for the occasional crusade or Hitler. In all of these cases, the common thread is that the greatest good, so great that no justification can ever be given, is the extension of life at all costs. In other words "quantity of life".

The opposing viewpoint in all of these cases is that in certain circumstances, happiness and well-being is enhanced by things like not having an incest baby at 13, or dying naturally instead of spending years in constant pain and round the clock medical attention. In these cases the common thread is that the impact on "quality of life" must be the most important consideration in these moral decisions.

While there are many evidence-based reasons to oppose the death penalty in all cases, and war is easy to oppose unilaterally until someone is shooting at you, in all of these cases the utilitarian calculus that prefers the quality of life implications without using the extension of life as a Trump good will produce the greatest happiness and well-being for society.