Take 1,000 random human beings from everyone that is alive right now. How many of them want to kill themselves right now? Certainly less than 0.000001%.
Stop being a troll. Refusing to acknowledge reality is the same as trolling the internets.
-
Cite!
-
Ahh, the argument from popularity.
Take 1,000 random human beings from everyone that is alive right now. How many of them want to be priests, right now? Certainly less than 0.000001%. Which proves that being a priest is irrefutably related to the result of severe mental stress. Right?
Do you actually have any arguments that are *not *based on proven logical fallacies?
Reported
It would be an interesting philosophical experiment using game theory.
Take 1,000 random Dopers and ask them “What is reality?”. Certainly 66.6% of them will simulapost the correct answer.
Do you read what you type?
Being a priest does not end one’s existence, you reporter, you!
If it is a human right, than it is constrained by human obligations like any other human right.
Do not accuse other posters of trolling outside The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
If the person is in sound mind (which might be the difficult part), I completely agree.
I believe they would be denied that right anyway because committing suicide when you’re facing death is still perceived as honourable. Society wouldn’t want to grant an honourable death to people sentenced. It wants to see them hanging at the end of a rope (compare the reactions to the suicide of the Nazi leaders and to the suicide of the leaders of the Warsaw ghetto revolt)
What he means is that the fact that a desire to take one’s own life is uncommon doesn’t mean that it’s pathological, in the same way the fact that a desire to become a priest is rare doesn’t mean it’s pathological, either.
It’s not pathological because it’s rare, it’s pathological because it goes against the fundamental drive of all living things to keep on living.
It’s his analogy that is faulty and out of context, not mine.
They were probably under pretty severe mental stress once they were on fire.
-
You were the one that said that its rarity and absence in other species is evidence of pathology. Are you now retreating form those claims?
-
By this new argument, wanting to lose weight is also pathological. After all it goes against the fundamental drive of all living things to keep on acquire resources. Right?
-
Can you provide evidence for this claimed “fundamental drive of all living things to keep on living”? How do you reconcile such a drive with the numerous species in which reproduction invariably results in death?
I laughed at that. I am so going to hell.
I disagree, if I, as a rational creature, can determine that barring extraordinary circumstances my life is only going to get worse or have a negative net happiness from this point on (whether this means going to prison, being unhireable, being unloved, or any other myriad of things is up to the individual) then death is the only sensible, rational choice, especially if I’ll be a burden on society by continuing to live. Now, the argument then moves to “how well can a single person evaluate their own life such that they can determine that it’s sufficiently worthless?” That I can’t answer, especially since there are ALWAYS unknowns, but I don’t think it’s something that should be outright banned. Basically, I agree with Socrates here.
The anti-suicide world view isn’t the only world view. I know there was at least one case in Japan where an anti-suicide hotline that was advertising got so many angry calls from people telling them that suicide is a personal choice and that they should mind their own business that they had to shut down all advertising except for business cards through therapists.
OP Summary – People of sound mind should be allowed to kill themselves with no interference.
Summary of the two quotes above – Whether life is worth living or not is completely up to the individual, and if they want to end their life, that’s not a sign of an unsound mind.
Summary – Whether life is worth living isn’t totally subjective after all and if after a first arrest someone feels their life isn’t worth living then they are of unsound mind.
OK, I’m confused. How do we judge is someone is of sound mind or not? I’m not a mental health professional or trained in psychology or anything like that. If someone tells me that they will kill themself, or I catch someone in the act, should I just ignore it, risking the chance that they are of unsound mind, or do I intervene, get them psychologically evaluated, and if the evaluation says that they were of sound mind, from then on out no longer interfere if they try to kill themselves again?
Why? Alzheimers and Parkinsons runs in my family, and I have an excellent chance of ending up with both, on top of my arthritis in pretty much every joint south of my waist with type 2 diabetes and a cardiac condition.
Why should I exist shaking, braindead and unable to care for myself and costing over $100 000 per year on society? I am perfectly blunt that when my mind starts going, I am going to wrap up my affairs, say my good byes and commit suicide. They can use my body for scientific research, and part me out for transplants.
Presuming sanity to mean “the average human mental state”, I suspect that you can find cases where the average person would generally vote that in that one specific case, it would be a reasonable (regardless of whether they would choose it for themselves) choice to end theirs or someone else’s life. As an example, if someone is trapped in a burning car and you have a gun, it is probably reasonable to expect that the person who is on fire would rather you shot him dead. Most people would agree with that, which shows that there is at least one instance where it is provable that a person of sound mind could reasonably wish himself dead and be right for thinking it.
And I’ll note that the question is about the person with the gun, not the person who is on fire. The person who is on fire can’t be said to be thinking rationally. We are all just agreeing with the guy with the gun that if the person who is on fire could think rationally, he would still rather be shot.
We can also point out that a large percent of people who are perfectly sane put their pets down when the pet is old and in pain. That causes grief on the part of the family whose pet it was, but they would prefer to relieve its suffering because they do love it. The only differences that I can think of between a beloved pet and a beloved human (so far as philosophic argument goes) are that our love for the human is greater and so we are more pained by the loss, or that we have simply been trained by our Christian culture to object to something that is entirely reasonable. In the first case, that’s not an argument that the death isn’t for the best, nor a reasonable request, just that there’s a threshold of love at which reasonable people think that the person who is ill should suffer for their sake. If the person is below that threshold (i.e., they have no loved ones), then you can’t make the argument. And of course the second case – that of culture – isn’t really relevant to the question at all.
For those interested there was (very) recently a thread on Reddit where a poster announced his intention to end his life under Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act. Apparently he suffered from cancer and chose this as a rational decision for himself. It got quite a response from the Reddit community.
You can read it here: Reddit - Dive into anything
In cases like this I absolutely support the individual’s right to make this decision for themself.
As far as I’m concerned it is a basic human right and should be enforced in the following manner.
"congress shall make no law prohibiting an individual from ending their own life freely and voluntarily. Further it shall make no law requiring a person, persons, governmental body or agency, or entity of business to assist, hinder, or take responsibility for the decision made. "
I call this the “Neither Help nor Hinder” act. It does not prohibit an individual from trying to save the life of a person, but neither does it require us to render help, in either direction, or be liable for the decision of someone in our care.
I believe it is a possibility that some people may be actually incapable of suicide, if this is true it is not a human right, but perhaps a right of a select population. Some forms of spiritually believe in distinct exit points of one’s life, perhaps a person has 5 of them. These are the only possible ways and times that the person can die or be taken by God. These exit points, would be a human right, though a person may not have a suicide option.
And as a ‘human right’ I believe it is spiritually enforced and can not be taken away by man, a true human right above all earthly authorities. Some other such human rights is what we call free will, and the ability to seek God (with the promise that can never be taken away if you seek He will find you).