How can I cite that which is axiomatic? Either human life is valuable beyond measure or it has a finite value. What is one life worth to you?
Why do you think this? No one asked to be born. No one asked to be alive. No one asked to exist. There was never an opportunity for anyone to agree to these terms.
So you’re gonna sit there on the same set that you opened with?
Should I take it as, “Smapti’s thoughts are the only thoughts that have value and those that differ with them shall hear his wrath?”
The most basic instinct of all living things is self-preservation. To deny self-preservation is to deny life. To deny life is insanity.
Depends on the life.
Big on fluff… short on cites. C’mon.
I find that perspective bizarre, and in fact it is in the rejection of eternal life where humanity thrives (my god man, didn’t you watch Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade!?!?!? 
).
Eternal life as a human imperative leads to awful outcomes like people being kept alive by the government in a constant state of suffering, because eternal suffering is “better” than death. Maybe that’s your idea of a perfect world, but not mine.
Eh, but by calling “staying alive” an obligation, you’re making an ethical/moral judgment. Regardless of whether or not I agree with you (obviously, I don’t), your feelings and mine about what constitute a person’s obligation to society are not objective opinions.
I also question whether you can state absolutely that “fear” is always the motivator for desiring death.
Your reasoning seems to translate as:
[ul]
[li]Smapti’s opinion is that people’s duty to humanity is to stay alive as long as possible.[/li]
[li]Everybody is implicitly on board with this proscribed duty to humanity.[/li]
[li]Smapti’s opinion is that the only possible reason a person would not pursue said duty is because of fear.[/li]
[li]Anyone who kills him/herself (or allows oneself to die . . . or maybe even who just takes risky choices that put him/herself in danger?) is objectively a coward.[/li][/ul]
There are so many holes in this reasoning it puts the cheese-makers in Bern to shame, the big ones being:
[ul]
[li]If I don’t agree that my duty is to stay alive as long as possible, then I can’t be a coward; as I am not avoiding any obligation at all.[/li][li]Even if I agree that my obligation is to stay alive, if I want to die for non-fear based reasons (such as to end horrible suffering), then I am not acting in a cowardly way. [/li][/ul]
I’m not sure if I can help you if you need a cite that self-preservation is instinctual or that life has value.
The obligation is inherent in your existing as a human being and a member of a civilized society.
“Ending horrible suffering” implies that you fear suffering. As such it remains an act of objective cowardice.
If we all insist on continuing to live, no matter how many resources that requires and no matter how limited our ‘living’ is, then there aren’t going to be enough resources for everyone. The living will have to give up their own lives just to keep some relative going, unconscious on a ventilator. Is that living? I hope I never have to chose between another couple of days of a painful, semiconscious life and bankrupting my family but if I am ever in that situation, I hope I am allowed to make that choice. It shouldn’t be as hard as it was for Ms Mynard.
Then that’s the problem we need to solve, and the solution isn’t “let the old and sick die so we can be comfortable and not have to look at how old and gross they are”. What you advocate is little more than passive eugenics.
There is a difference between fearing suffering and not wanting to endure needless suffering.
On the contrary, the ONLY person that every individual has the right to kill is themselves.
Sorry, but if you’re unable to see that both of those sentences are missing a giant "My opinion is that . . . ", then I don’t think it’s worth continuing to talk with you, and I question what you’re even doing in the Great Debates forum in the first place.
“The obligation [to pursue life at all costs] is inherent in your existing as a human being and a member of a civilized society.”
“Ending horrible suffering implies that you fear suffering.”
These are opinions. Not truths.
I’m not necessirily arguing that point about self-preservation. I could though, by mentioning the anecdotal tales of mothers who would give their own life to save their child.
But what I was calling you on was this part:
That kinda sounds like new-age hoo-haa.
As I mentioned above, you’re smarter than that and you understand the points being made. I think you are having as much fun here arguing with me as I am with you. However, most of us aren’t just pulling fluffy, idealistic feelings our of our butts.
There are laws and people of authority who disagree with this.
That being what?
Of course they are. Otherwise we’d be in GQ.
Passive eugenics. An oxymoron if ever there was one. Not to mention that fact that the vast majority of people affected by this are well past breeding age.
Anyway, your bold assertions about suicide, cowardice and insanity might be interesting opinions, but are no more objective facts than anyone else’s opinions in this thread.
The subject of this thread wasn’t.