- This topic has 8 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
Whisper.
-
AuthorPosts
-
10/01/2017 at 13:51 #17712
This is perhaps one of the hardest topics in philosophy. After reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I concluded I am Libertarian on this matter. Suicide is morally permissible because individuals enjoy a right to suicide. (It does not of course follow that suicide is necessarily rational or prudent.) but I am not sure about the non-intervention aspect, it depends on the situation and how limited my understanding of another’s suffering is I suppose.
I will say I am against the state permitting or criminalising suicide, but suicide may be honourable, a means to overcome unimaginable suffering in either a rational or irrational state of mind.
The question of right to suicide and the sanctity of life is very difficult to frame – define ‘living’ first of all, because Persistent Vegetative States don’t fall into what I call ‘alive’.
It’s a grim as hell topic, but one that opens up interesting questions and answers, it also intersects science with philosophy.
10/01/2017 at 15:16 #18266
The question of right to suicide and the sanctity of life is very difficult to frame – define ‘living’ first of all, because Persistent Vegetative States don’t fall into what I call ‘alive’.
First of all why not? What do you call alive? I see a biologically receptive aspect to humans which also exists in persistent vegetative states. I just think there is more to human existence.I personally disagree. Assisted suicide is permissible for me, but otherwise I think that institutional help is a good thing and stems from a more basic act that would occur regardless of the law (in tribal communities, for example).
10/01/2017 at 15:56 #18262I’m referring to someone like Terri Schiavo. I’m all for assisted suicide as long as it’s in the interest of the one who is yet to die. How that can be sorted out I don’t know. Being only bodily functions with no self preservation, or no possibility of returning to consciousness is not ‘alive’ to me.
10/01/2017 at 16:21 #18275
I’m referring to someone like Terri Schiavo. I’m all for assisted suicide as long as it’s in the interest of the one who is yet to die. How that can be sorted out I don’t know. Being only bodily functions with no self preservation, or no possibility of returning to consciousness is not ‘alive’ to me.
Broadly speaking, self preservation or reproduction its the only function necessary.
I think the idea of criminalizing it is pretty outdated, and generally requiring care for the suicidal seems to be the dominant perspective in first world western countries.
Edit: I don’t think a conscious, able human being should take their own life. I still think that the idea of “committing” suicide comes from Catholic Moralism, and doesn’t stand up.
10/01/2017 at 18:43 #18263True, being biologically alive is alive, but a life worth living?
The deontic version of suicide looks into whether suicide should be considered a rational option, then you have to ask how it can be rational, taking into account cognitive and interest factors, possible future outcomes etc. What if an able bodied human being is in such an oppressive situation that they would be better off? I recently read a few stories about transgendered people being sent to prison and they commited suicide to avoid rape.
There’s an old joke where a Scotsman is going to be made into a boat, so he pokes holes in himself to render the ‘boat’ useless.
10/01/2017 at 23:12 #18267In many instances life can feel that way itself. Especially as a trans person. But we cannot possibly truly take into account those factors, they are beyond our own reach. Therefore I can’t rationalize that, and I also withdraw my judgement. Suicide is a tragedy. Who is to say they are better off or not? The person could after they have survived most likely.
I stand by my earlier statement.
11/01/2017 at 08:35 #18264I gave that as an example to show where institutional help does not even begin to occur. Who knows, which is why I’m libertarian on this matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
12/01/2017 at 05:50 #18268I am claiming on the contrary, that intervention to prevent it is is a good action to be taken by the state, authority, or just general society. This requires treatment. Society isn’t able to solve the problem in that example. But I am suggesting they should be willing to. Whether they treat it or not has no bearing on whether or not the person will successfully kill themselves in that instance. The suicide was immediately resultant. I am talking about suicide preventation, generally.
12/01/2017 at 08:39 #18265If human life is sacred, would you say that killing in self defence is rational?
I think intervention is a good move, but on the other hand, I can also see good in projects like Dignitas.
I guess the worst outcome of ‘legalising’ suicide, is that people might kill themselves because society isn’t caring enough for vulnerable people.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
