• Purple Pond
    566
    No one had a choice to be born. Some people are really grateful for their birth that they yearn to celebrate each birthday. Others are absolutely miserable about life that they wish they've never been born. Most of us have ups and downs where at times life is awesome and at other times where life is terrible. Most of us want to be alive, and that's great. Other people aren't as fortunate and wish to end their lives. Is it an act of kindness to grant them that wish?

    There's an argument why you shouldn't grant sufferer the wish to end their lives. When someone wants to end their life they are suffering from severe pain. You can argue that they are in no position to make rational choices. Letting them end their lives would be doing them a disservice because their wish for death is irrational. They could get better, and once they do they will be grateful to be alive and that they didn't make such a poor decision.

    Some might argue that you should be free to choose what you do with your own body. That means that you should be free to make irrational choices, such as taking your own life. The question is should we as a society grant people the freedom to do whatever they want to with their own body as long as it doesn't physically harm anybody else. Let's not forget that suicide is rarely a harmless act. Think of all the loved one's that get hurt.

    There are cases where it is rational to end your life. An example where you are going to face a severe terminal illness that there's no chance of getting better. Why should a person go through unnecessary pain without prospect for a better life? Indeed there are countries where assisted suicide is legal for those truly hopeless situations.

    What's your opinion? Should society grant us the right to take our own lives? Or should we put in our best efforts to take away the ability and save those from committing suicide? It might depend on the situation, or it might not. These are very serious questions, and whichever argument happens to persuade you, there's is no prospect for a universal agreement.
  • Bitter Crank
    8.1k
    Where the question of a "right to die" comes to the fore is when someone wishes to end their own life, but is not physically able to do so independently. Is it permissible to help someone die?

    If one is ambulatory and isn't overly fussy about how one might die, it would seem like the "right to die" is inherent--not relying on the action of a state. If I decide to jump off a bridge, or wade into deep water, or fill the garage with carbon monoxide, or blow my brains to smithereens, what does the state have to do with it?

    That said, I am in favor of discouraging people from committing suicide, rather than enthusiastically encouraging the suicidal.
  • fishfry
    716
    One argument against the right to die is that it will inevitably become a duty to die. Old and sick? Your "loving" heirs will say, Hey Dad, how about those Youth in Asia! Every old person will become subject to social pressure to hurry up and die. It's expensive to keep geezers alive you know. So one can make a slippery slope argument against the right to die. We can easily imagine a future in which the right to die turns into mandatory suicide past a certain age. The movie Soylent Green illustrated the process beautifully.

    It doesn't have to be that explicit. You can simply ration health care. What do you think "Medicare for all" will become? Resources are finite. Look at the National Health Service in England. When Mick Jagger needed heart surgery recently he didn't get on the NHS waiting list. He had the surgery performed in New York City. People of lesser means don't always have that choice.
  • Despues Green
    16
    The "right" to die deals with whether or not the ability to die is given to us. Which implies that the State itself has a hand in whether or not we can be alive in the first place. That means that some external figure that isn't the individual is meddling in another person's decision(s).

    We already can see even in today's Time how much the State meddles in minuscule things it has nothing to do with and shouldn't.

    Dying IS a duty. It is inevitable. Even throughout the course of being alive itself, we lose our faculties at different rates, there are predicaments and circumstances we wind up in; the former being the reason why Immortality is ultimately overrated.

    Humans have an incredible ability to procreate. So even in the case where we have People who decide to end their family Legacies, it matters none to what I perceive as the overall goal of Humanity, which is to harness the Powers of the Universe/Multiverse as a resource. We're supposed to die, the forthcoming generations and their manifestations are symbols of Evolution. How else would we have gotten this far?

    I say, if someone wants to die, they should be at their own Liberty allowed to end their own Life. Yes, there are countless people who claim they wish they were never born, but wouldn't dare make even the slightest attempt at putting themselves in an uncertain situation that could cost them their Life.

    I agree we should be Optimistic as Good always prevails over Evil (even though many people struggle with getting out of their own versions of Hell), but People.should be allowed to suffer independently of the State or their "Emotional Family/Friends". No one matters but the individual in this case, so if anything, asking them questions is [almost] always an interesting road for their thought processes.
  • Frank Apisa
    896
    My opinion is that if a person wants to end his/her life...he/she should be able to do so without the mess that accompanies putting a gun into one's mouth and blowing a hole through one's head.

    YES...one should have the right to die...and to choose to die at a particular time and place.

    Just my opinion.
  • MrSpock
    9
    I can only add that in Poland (where I live) suicidal thoughts are punishable by life placement in a psychiatric hospital even though the person is fully healthy and suicide is not a crime. If a neighbor reports that you have suicidal thoughts, the police break into your apartment and take you by force to a psychiatric hospital.
  • Waya
    1k
    I suppose it also plays a part in beliefs in religion and the afterlife. Everything is interpreted subjectively. Objectively I don't know if there really is an answer.
  • Purple Pond
    566
    I suppose it also plays a part in beliefs in religion and the afterlife.Waya
    That reminds me of what someone. A former friend of mine once told me that the reason he doesn't commit suicide is because he's afraid of going to hell.
  • Wallows
    8.7k
    Let's not forget that suicide is rarely a harmless act. Think of all the loved one's that get hurt.Purple Pond

    Does someone want to die? So be it. No point in guilt-tripping a troubled mind already.
  • Purple Pond
    566
    Does someone want to die? So be it.Wallows
    I don't agree in every case. What about the case where someone wants to die when they're in severe pain, however in the future they will be grateful that they're still alive when the pain goes away?

    No point in guilt-tripping a troubled mind already.Wallows
    If it prevents someone from committing suicide, why not?
  • Wallows
    8.7k
    I don't agree in every case. What about the case where someone wants to die when they're in severe pain, however in the future they will be grateful that they're still alive when the pain goes away?Purple Pond

    That's not really the point I was trying to make. If there are arguments to be made for or against suicide, then bringing up a suicidal person's family or friends as some form of a deterrent from committing the act is just plain and simply dumb.

    If it prevents someone from committing suicide, why not?Purple Pond

    Well, there's no point in arguing from a moral high ground and sermonizing the moral wrongness of committing suicide, don't you think?
  • Wallows
    8.7k
    Or to put this another way, why blackmail someone out of suicide. Has that ever worked out in the past? I'm not quite sure, doubtful...
  • Purple Pond
    566
    The question is should we as a society grant people the freedom to do whatever they want to with their own body as long as it doesn't physically harm anybody else.Purple Pond
    That was the context of the quote on suicide not being a harmless act. My point wasn't to guilt trip anybody. My point was to state a fact, that although suicide my not physically harm others, it may harm others emotionally.
  • Purple Pond
    566
    Or to put this another way, why blackmail someone out of suicide. Has that ever worked out in the past? I'm not quite sure, doubtful...Wallows
    It worked for my friend.
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/281999

    I'm not sure if that's what you meant, though.

    My dad used to guilt trip me. He used to tell me to think of all the people I would hurt by committing suicide. I guess he'll try anything to keep his son alive. Whether it works, or not, isn't a different story.
  • Frank Apisa
    896
    Purple Pond
    466

    Does someone want to die? So be it. — Wallows

    I don't agree in every case. What about the case where someone wants to die when they're in severe pain, however in the future they will be grateful that they're still alive when the pain goes away?

    No point in guilt-tripping a troubled mind already. — Wallows

    If it prevents someone from committing suicide, why not?
    Purple Pond

    Why on Earth "prevent" a suicide?

    Someone works up the courage to jump off a bridge...and someone saves them!

    I cannot conceive of anything more disgusting.

    If someone wants to die...that person should be allowed to die.

    Your later comment that it will hurt someone psychologically...is correct, but so what?

    The person wanted to die. The person being psychologically hurt has to get over it.
  • Txastopher
    169
    A right, in social contract theory, has a corresponding responsibility. It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed 'right' to die.
  • Frank Apisa
    896
    Txastopher
    162
    A right, in social contract theory, has a corresponding responsibility. It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed 'right' to die.
    Txastopher

    It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed right to eat oatmeal with creamer in morning.

    So what?

    Are you suggesting that limits one's right to eat oatmeal with creamer in the morning?
  • Txastopher
    169
    It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed right to eat oatmeal with creamer in morning.

    So what?

    Are you suggesting that limits one's right to eat oatmeal with creamer in the morning?
    Frank Apisa

    You appear to be using the term 'right' in a non-technical sense. Given the nature of this forum, your question requires acknowledgement of the philosophical use of 'right'.

    You have no 'right' to eat oatmeal with creamer, which doesn't mean that you are not allowed to, but rather that it is a choice not contemplated by rights theories.

    You may, however, have a right to your physical integrity, but if you do, you also have a corresponding duty to respect the physical integrity of others.

    As with breakfast choices, there is nothing to stop you ending your own life, but if you wish to claim this as a 'right', the first step would be to identify a corresponding duty.
  • Frank Apisa
    896
    Txastopher
    163

    It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed right to eat oatmeal with creamer in morning.

    So what?

    Are you suggesting that limits one's right to eat oatmeal with creamer in the morning? — Frank Apisa


    You appear to be using the term 'right' in a non-technical sense. Given the nature of this forum, your question requires acknowledgement of the philosophical use of 'right'.

    You have no 'right' to eat oatmeal with creamer, which doesn't mean that you are not allowed to, but rather that it is a choice not contemplated by rights theories.

    You may, however, have a right to your physical integrity, but if you do, you also have a corresponding duty to respect the physical integrity of others.

    As with breakfast choices, there is nothing to stop you ending your own life, but if you wish to claim this as a 'right', the first step would be to identify a corresponding duty.
    Txastopher

    Really?

    Because you say so?

    Is it written on a tablet somewhere?

    Or is it something you have invented...and are obligating everyone else to honor?
  • Txastopher
    169
    Really?

    Because you say so?

    Is it written on a tablet somewhere?

    Or is it something you have invented...and are obligating everyone else to honor?
    Frank Apisa

    Because that's how philosophy talks about rights.
  • Frank Apisa
    896
    Txastopher
    164

    Really?

    Because you say so?

    Is it written on a tablet somewhere?

    Or is it something you have invented...and are obligating everyone else to honor? — Frank Apisa


    Because that's how philosophy talks about rights.
    Txastopher

    I think it does not.

    I'd be interested in a link to something written by a philosopher that suggests I am wrong.
  • Wallows
    8.7k
    I'm not sure if that's what you meant, though.

    My dad used to guilt trip me. He used to tell me to think of all the people I would hurt by committing suicide. I guess he'll try anything to keep his son alive. Whether it works, or not, isn't a different story.
    Purple Pond

    Yeah, I guess there's more than one way to skin a cat here. But, I guess what I'm saying is that it's a poor way to deter suicide to blackmail someone out of it.
  • Purple Pond
    566
    I agree. When someone is hurting, you want to help them alleviate the pain, not add to it.
  • Wallows
    8.7k
    I agree. When someone is hurting, you want to help them alleviate the pain, not add to it.Purple Pond

    To be excessively pedantic, it's not so much adding to their pain as much as telling them to suppress it.
  • Shamshir
    425
    Every person has the ability to die, thus every person has the right to die.
    People breathe and live, because they choose to breathe and live; and if they choose to die prematurely, the only way to stop them is to convince them that life is more desirable than death.
    Indeed, people may be influenced one way or the other, but withholding their right to die is impossible, lest they are already dead.

    I reiterate; Society may at best influence one to live and never enforce one to live.

    Now, as to whether one should be influenced to change his course or be allowed to fall - who knows?
    Yet, there is no reason not to live and die in ejoyment, no? And mutual enjoyment greatens one, whilst singular enjoyment contains one.
  • Txastopher
    169
    Every person has the ability to die, thus every person has the right to die.Shamshir

    Great example of a non sequitur

    People breathe and live, because they choose to breathe and live; and if they choose to die prematurely, the only way to stop them is to convince them that life is more desirable than death.
    Indeed, people may be influenced one way or the other, but withholding their right to die is impossible, lest they are already dead.

    I reiterate; Society may at best influence one to live and never enforce one to live.

    Now, as to whether one should be influenced to change his course or be allowed to fall - who knows?
    Yet, there is no reason not to live and die in ejoyment, no? And mutual enjoyment greatens one, whilst singular enjoyment contains one.
    Shamshir

    Utter nonsense.
  • Shamshir
    425
    Great example of a non sequiturTxastopher
    Every living thing dies and every person is a living thing. This much is self-evident, no?
  • Frank Apisa
    896
    Txastopher
    165

    Every person has the ability to die, thus every person has the right to die. — Shamshir


    Great example of a non sequitur

    People breathe and live, because they choose to breathe and live; and if they choose to die prematurely, the only way to stop them is to convince them that life is more desirable than death.
    Indeed, people may be influenced one way or the other, but withholding their right to die is impossible, lest they are already dead.

    I reiterate; Society may at best influence one to live and never enforce one to live.

    Now, as to whether one should be influenced to change his course or be allowed to fall - who knows?
    Yet, there is no reason not to live and die in ejoyment, no? And mutual enjoyment greatens one, whilst singular enjoyment contains one. — Shamshir


    Utter nonsense.
    Txastopher

    If anyone's thoughts are nonsense (no reason any should be nonsense)...they are yours.

    You made a claim to me earlier. I challenged you to show where that claim is written or promulgated.

    No answer so far.

    Perhaps you did just make it up.
  • Txastopher
    169
    You made a claim to me earlier. I challenged you to show where that claim is written or promulgated.Frank Apisa

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
  • Txastopher
    169
    Every living thing dies and every person is a living thing. This much is self-evident, no?Shamshir

    Great example of pseudo-profundity.
  • Frank Apisa
    896
    Txastopher
    167

    You made a claim to me earlier. I challenged you to show where that claim is written or promulgated. — Frank Apisa


    Oh, because some German philosopher said so.

    Listen, T...because Kant says something does not mean it is so.

    In any case, if YOU think one enjoys rights only if first able to identify a "corresponding duty"...defend that proposition...or identify it as a preference...NOT A DUTY.
    Txastopher
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.