• DingoJones
    1k


    Lol, no...YOU dont know what Im talking about when I say it seems horrible to me. Im happy to clarify if you just ask.
    So you keep focusing on framing and semantics for some reason, but not really addressing the actual question. Maybe Im coming off as adversarial? Im sincerely asking about your view here, not even trying to object to your view per say. My questions aren’t meant to lead you anywhere or entrap you or any of that typical internet shit.
    Anyway, what seems horrible to me is the authoritarian nature of such a law, in the sense that an authority presumes to decide for someone else something that I consider a fundamental liberty. I know you may not agree, but that's what I mean.
  • S
    11.3k
    Anyway, what seems horrible to me is the authoritarian nature of such a law, in the sense that an authority presumes to decide for someone else something that I consider a fundamental liberty. I know you may not agree, but that's what I mean.DingoJones

    Okay...

    Well, I preferred you when you thought more like me, and less like Terrapin Station. But it's not even a liberty issue. People are at liberty to kill themselves. That's simply a fact, regardless of our views on the matter. I can go and jump off of a bridge or hang myself. It's just not something that I would say is acceptable simply because the person wants to do so. Have you even thought through the logical consequences of that? You realise of course that death is permanent, irreversible. And you also realise that feelings can be rash, impulsive, fleeting, or stemming from a disorder?
  • DingoJones
    1k


    Lol, well I have a range of views and sometimes they line up with other peoples. *shrug* (not that the free speech stuff is something I agree with Terra on, Im not a free speech absolutist.)

    Ive thought of the logical consequences yes, we probably mostly agree there. My issue is with the law part...when you make something a law it becomes a liberty issue. You are not at liberty to do certain things under the law, which is distinct from being at liberty to do them at all. (You are at liberty to kill someone if you can manage it, but not at liberty under the law to do so. Maybe thats not a distinction you make?)
    So Im curious about why you think its important that it be the law that people can’t kill themselves...keeping in mind that I understand that some people might need help or are not thinking clearly...We should help them or get them thinking clearly but ultimately it should be up to them, not some authority. But you disagree with that so, why exactly? (In principal )
  • S
    11.3k
    It should be up to who knows best, so medical professionals. If the person really does know best, then I would expect their case to be granted by the medical professions and get the go ahead in accordance with the laws I referenced. But that's unlikely in the case of that random guy from earlier who is probably just depressed and needs professional help treating his depression.

    Why would you simply leave it up to the person, with no safeguards whatsoever? You say that we should try to get them help and so on, but ultimately they could completely disregard that against their own best interest.
  • DingoJones
    1k


    Why do they know best? Are you saying that people (aside from your stated exceptions) who want to commit suicide are always mentally ill?
    I guess what Im wondering now is whether or not you think someone can decide to commit suicide rationally, and why dying of cancer or whatever legal exceptions you accept are different than someone elses equally strong desire to die if you dont believe in “rational suicide”.
  • S
    11.3k
    Why do they know best? They're medical professionals! If you're suicidal, then that's a symptom of mental illness. Who better to assess them? Themselves? Ha! Yeah, forget the medical professionals, let's let the patients diagnose themselves. They know best, after all.

    Yes, someone can decide to commit suicide rationally. But that's not most people, who think that they're being rational, but are just being emotional or not thinking clearly. Can you think of a better system that will somehow distinguish the rational from the irrational, when the latter can be subtle or convincing? It's complicated, but once again, it's a cost-benefit analysis. It's better to have safeguards than to risk all those people slipping through the net and wrongfully sanctioning suicide. It's not like they can't take matters into their own hands anyway. That's why the most prominent cases of assisted suicide are about those for whom it is physically very difficult, if not impossible, through disability.
  • DingoJones
    1k


    Alright, I understand. It seems pretty strange to me to call for a law to be in place and follow that up with how meaningless the law is (“its not like they cant take matters into their own hands anyway”) but I understand how your looking at it.
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.