Euthanasia - Opinions. Please read whole post before responding...

What authority do you or anyone else have over another person's life?

 

Lets do this.

Yes. I think it is alright. Again, since you didn't read my above post. It's his life, not yours. Sure, people can talk him out of it if they choose to, but if he truly wants to end his life, let him. Ever hear of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Basically, it says that a persons safety is most important to them. If they're willing to do away with that, they obviously must have some sort of mental problem. People who attempt suicide and fail are put in institutions, those that succeed are obviously dead. So instead of institutionalizing them, just kill them or let them do what they want so they're not a burden on everybody else.

18 is when people in the US are legally able to not be considered a dependent of their parents. Legally speaking, they are an adult. I don't care how immature they are, and neither does the government.

At least. But that's only to ease the parents. If they want to kill themselves, they want to kill themselves, it's that simple. Wait until they are legally an adult to make the decision for themselves. The parents can do whatever they want.

No, you're making them feel like it's okay because they're contributing to the greater good. Nothing gives me the right to give the OK, as you put it. They're the ones with the right to make the choice regarding their own life, not anybody else.. which was the whole point of my original post. It doesn't matter who gets "hurt" (if you can call emotionally hurt, hurt) in the process because everybody should know that everyone will die eventually.

That's fine with me.

Psychiatrists do more than keep people from killing themselves. What about the people that feel like they want to kill themselves, but know they don't actually want to die? Are you supposed to not offer them any help? Seems like you're switching sides here...

Basically. Why would a psychiatrist want to waste time helping someone who's just going to kill themselves anyway? Because they're greedy and want their money? Basically.

NO U!

 

Oh, I read that, "It's his life, not yours" part billions of times, but I'm not this indifferent when it comes to caring about other people. Ever heard of the theory of knowledge? It talks about our 4 ways of knowing - 2 of interest right now are emotion and reasoning. The thing about emotion and reasoning is that they tend to be inversely proportional. Suicidal people are highly emotional, and their reasoning has lowered. This is why they tend to have irrational thoughts, the major one being self-inflicted death. Funny how you bring up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (something I would've brought up in a suicide debate, as I've done many times in this forum already), when you're forgetting the fundamental need that's even before safety; the first need, physiological needs, actually refers to everything needed for SURVIVAL. If I'm not mistaken, you start Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs from the bottom to the top. So, essentially, suicidal people are going against Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Why? Because they're irrational, and they need help from people with a more rational mindset (psychiatrists).

Wait, you're using rules from the same government that has banned suicide/euthanasia to determine what makes someone an adult? Make up your mind. You can't just pick which rules you want, and which you don't. If you think it's a problem that the government has made suicide/euthanasia illegal, then there's no problem with me saying that the age of 18 is too little to be considered an adult (heck, a lot of men are still growing at that age).

And to not care how immature they are goes exactly to what you said before - "It's his life, not yours." But every suicide case is a unique case - to not care about someone who's 18, and just say "Oh, he's legally an adult, let him do whatever he likes" could actually lead to him committing a preventable suicide. One that could have been prevented on its own with a couple more years of sole maturing if no reinforcement occurred from indifferent comments like yours.

Come on, listen to yourself, contributing to the greater good and whatnot. What makes you think overpopulation is some sort of 'evil' thing? To you, it may be an inconvenience, but just because it's an inconvenience, doesn't mean it's evil in any way. You're essentially deluding a suicidal person, actually giving them more reason to commit suicide now for your benefit of fixing your personal inconvenience of overpopulation, by making said suicidal person believe that his/her actions are, in fact, good. If we used your philosophy that they'd be contributing to the greater good, then again, my argument of psychiatrists becoming obsolete is still valid. Why try to cure suicidal people? Convince them what they're doing is good, and let's fix overpopulation! Does that sound right to you? It doesn't to me.

And don't talk to me about this inevitable death we all have. If that was the case, you shouldn't be so disappointed when a mass murder story is heard on the news. "Oh, they were going to eventually die anyways." Do you remember what I said about emotion? This is where emotions come in - things like happiness, love, laughter, etc. make us want to live every moment of our lives, and in moderate levels, do not do much to coax our reasoning. And this is where emotions are appropriate. Suicidal people lack these positive emotions, and actually have negative emotions, which tend to coax them into believing death is their only solution.

Wow. I don't even need to argue here. You're saying it's okay for multiple deaths to occur just because of one suicide. Instead of trying to fix the root problem, you're saying, let it happen, and don't worry about the consequences.

Switching sides? I can't even understand you anymore. People that have recurrent thoughts of killing themselves CAN actually kill themselves. If you deny this, go open a psychology textbook and read about suicide. People that even say it jokingly sometimes are actually at risk for suicide. What turns to be someone who didn't want to die, can eventually turn to someone who would want to die.

With a little research we can see that psychiatrists can even help these people that do want to die. I've said this numerous times on this forum - cognitive behavioral therapy. Statistically, cognitive behavioral therapy reduces suicide attempts by 50% in just one year for patients with serious risk of suicide (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml). If that's not helping, then I don't know what you think helping is. Suicide isn't something you cure in a week, it could take 5 years, but in the end, it's possible. Suicidal people normally just want the easy route, and going to a psychiatrist is not an easy route, but it can work.

Don't forget, we're talking just about cognitive behavioral therapy. Pure psychology. This is without the assistance of anti-depressants or other types of drugs.

If you think suicidal cases are doomed to death and cannot be cured, you're wrong, as shown by statistics. So psychiatrists are not being greedy, they're actually trying to help. Other people are being ignorant though.

 

Another thing that needs to be touched up on in the "It's his life, not yours" remark, is that little did you know your actions affect those around you. Meaning just because some emotional drunk teenage male had his girlfriend dump him doesn't mean that he should be allowed to kill himself.

Age isn't and shouldn't be an issue. As long as someone is operating rationally they shouldn't, in most cases, want to kill themselves.

I don't agree with the premise of your argument but I do agree with the point. Overpopulation is a real issue and a scary one at that but every good business man knows that you never throw away assets. You reduce spending, increase efficiency, and optimize profit. If you correlate this to the population issue you would want to
1. Reduce Spending/Liabilities. We need less people, stop having so many people. Don't just throw them away.
2. Increase efficiency. With less people we can produce more things for less people.
3. Optimize profit. Increase overall quality of life.

I'm all for personal freedom but your actions affect those around you and throwing away humans lives is just senseless. <-- Aimed towards Kill Dank

Being in a rational suicidal state, to me, would be the most freeing thing ever. You have a complete disregard for anything and everything. The world is your oyster. Travel, get arrested, break laws? Nothing would apply.

 

It should be possible. But only with loads of caution and after some good researches
In cases such as not ever being able to recover (for example cancer) I think this should be legal allowed!

And what I've always thought: Who is court, a judge, or in fact any person to say if that you can die or not? Rather strange, no?

 

If someone wants to kill themselves, whether with a bullet in their head or through physician assisted suicide, who are you to tell them they can't? That's the main point. If someone would rather die than live another day, why force them? If someone does not want to recieve treatment, why force them? Sure, there are psychologists people can see if they choose to. People have family and friends that can push them in that direction. You cannot force someone to recieve help if they do not want it, just like you cannot force a cancer patient to recieve chemotherapy. I think the only people who should be kept from committing suicide are children. By children, I mean people who are not legally considered an adult in their country. The legal age of an adult is not up for debate. What happens to a minor who tries to commit suicide and fails is up to their parent or guardian.

 

I think you're conflating morality with politics. Whether or not the person did a morally acceptable action is irrelevant to whether people have the right to force others to do what they want.

For example, Euthanasia can be legal, yet immoral (not saying it is, or isn't). Look at slavery for example.

 

You see, you're slightly contradicting yourself by saying you think children shouldn't be allowed to commit suicide. Why is that? I'm assuming because they haven't matured and, wait for it, cannot make appropriate decisions for themselves? This is the case with suicidal people (not all, don't want to generalize). They are in an irrational state of mind, so what they want is, you guessed it, irrational. That's why family members, psychiatrists, etc. must intervene because they are in a more rational state of mind, and are only trying to help.

Yes, but laws are supposed to be based on what we believe is moral (such as no rape, no stealing, no killing, and whatnot). Finding one example against that doesn't deny that the rest generally are based on what we believe is moral. After all, not many of us are fond of slavery laws anyways. Why? Because it goes against our morals, and tends to make us feel uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance).

Of course there can be exceptions. But that's exactly what they are - exceptions. The general trend is that they shouldn't cause too much cognitive dissonance within us.

Note that when I was speaking to 'kill dank', I was talking about suicide (specifically suicidal cases where the patient can be successfully treated). For the case of euthanasia, I cannot find a reason to argue against it if the patient is absolutely doomed for life, and cannot be successfully treated. The story in the original post is extremely sad, and I definitely feel sorry for Tony Nicklinson.

 

To preface, can you please state whether you accept this: A person owns themselves.

Well, taxation is immoral, it's theft (assuming of course you voluntarily pay tax, if you do, would you like to pay more?).

Notwithstanding that, perhaps we should question the morality of the law; remember, it is nonsensical to say that immorality (the law) is based on morality, so you must show that the law itself (not the statues) is moral. The law is essentially this: Do this (compulsory voting, taxation, etc), whether you agree with it or not, if you do not, you will be punished. OR: Do not do this (Drugs, catch too many fish, etc), whether you agree with it or not, if you do, you will be punished. This applies to euthanasia. Do not euthanize someone, if you do, whether you agree to the law or not, you will be punished. Does this course of action strike you as 'moral'? Forcing people to do something against their will doesn't sound moral to me.

 

Yes, I do accept this, but to a certain degree. Your statement doesn't deny the fact that I can try to help. After all, humans are sociable creatures. If everyone just sat there minding his/her own business, without criticizing or reinforcing other people's behaviors, we wouldn't be as developed as we are today. I don't see a problem with interacting with another's life if it's a positive interaction which could lead to positive outcomes.

If you want to let someone commit suicide "because it's his/her choice", that's your opinion, but I'm not that indifferent. I want to help, and I believe I'm a good candidate to provide help because I'm in a more rational state of mind than said suicidal person. If the suicidal person rejects my help, so be it. I'm not going to force anyone to not commit suicide. But I will voice my opinion.

Don't forget, what we're doing now (arguing), essentially has the purpose of trying to get the other person to agree with you. You're affecting another life by changing another person's mindset. Now in this case, it may not be so dramatic, but I can imagine if one were arguing against religion (for example), to try and 'help' the religious people see that they've become 'deceived', said person would be going against the idea that "you own yourself". Although, in his/her head, he/she may feel it's necessary to 'help' them, and by going against the idea that "you own yourself", he/she would actually feel a sense of doing something moral. So, we cannot apply such idea to everything in life. And this is how I feel towards suicidal people.

Taxation is not theft. Your money goes into schools, energy infrastructure, telecom, etc. If you're willing to drop all of those, then fine, don't pay taxes and leave your country, but I doubt you'd be willing to do so.

I used to live in America, but now I live in the middle east. Where I live, laws are not enforced, and we do not pay taxes. If you could only see how terrible our telecom is, our infrastructure, our electricity, etc. you'd understand the importance of paying taxes. It costs up to 50 cents a minute to make international phone calls, 1 mbps is the highest internet connection speed we have (and it's expensive), the electricity cuts out for around 12 hours a day (so most of us rely on generators), etc.

If you're going to give me the argument "oh, well not all of the tax money is put into helping us" then imagine it as a business - the extra money the government makes from your taxes is their profit. Much like how an iPod probably costs only $50 to make (yet Apple sells them to us for $200, making $150 profit), the government is doing the same to us. Unless you think profit is immoral as well. I don't - after all, we are just paying for their services.

It's nonsensical to simplify the law as either 'moral' or 'immoral'. Even if it appears immoral in the sense that it controls people to perform certain actions, it also controls people from doing immoral acts, such as rape, stealing, killing, etc. In a sense, it is protecting others from such immoral acts. That doesn't sound so immoral to me at all. Control is not necessarily an immoral action (more on that in this paragraph). So even if the nature of laws is to 'control' the humans beings 'that own themselves' (which I understand you'd argue is immoral, as we're making decisions for others), it also provides them protection with this control by suppressing immoral acts, hence also giving it qualities of morality as well. You're viewing the nature of laws as immoral because you're focusing on the word 'control' on its own, but you need to see it in its context. As I said before, control is not necessarily an immoral action. If you're controlling something like people doing whatever they want with their own lives ("you own yourself"), then yes, this is immoral. If you're controlling something like people affecting OTHER lives negatively (such as rape, stealing, killing, etc.), then NO, control in this sense is NOT immoral. It is, in fact, moral, because it provides protection to the other people. It also corroborates with the statement you said earlier ("you own yourself"). If every human has the right to own himself/herself, then he/she doesn't have the right to directly affect other lives negatively. Affecting them positively is a different case - that is not immoral. In the second version of the word 'control', the law is affecting lives positively by suppressing immoral actions (providing protection to the society), and hence, cannot be viewed as immoral in said context. However, the law utilizes both versions of the word 'control' - hence it's both moral and immoral. Majorly, it should be moral, as most laws are supposed to be based off of our morals (as I said in the previous post), and thus, attempt to control immoral actions.

And you DO have the right to object to the law. So it's not simply "do this, or else you'll be punished". If you don't want to "do this", then object. Of course, if you cannot come up with a good argument for why you believe a law is not good, then the law will justifiably not be removed. Such is the purpose of justice. Is justice sometimes denied? Yes, but the society can always continue to object.

To summarize, the law is essentially this: do this, and if you don't like it, object, and we'll hear your objection. If your objection is not logical, we will reject it. If you happen to break this law, you will be punished, unless you can come up with a good reason for why you should be excused (bending the rules). It sounds pretty fair to me. Fairness is a moral quality, no?

 

Okay, I'm not contradicting myself. I don't care if children commit suicide, but if their parents do, that's their call. It's not about the person maturing, it's about them being a child and their parents having a say in what they do. Nobody has to intervene. It doesn't matter what laws are supposed to be based on, a lot of them are not moral anyway. I'm not uncomfortable with slavery.. And it wasn't outlawed because people were uncomfortable with it. Again, I DO NOT CARE if the person can be treated or not, it's up to nobody but the individual to make the choice regarding whether or not to get treatment, as you call it. Nobody should make that decision for him. You seem to think it's okay to force people to do what they do not want to. What sort of communist society do you live in?

I have already stated my point and you continue to ignore it and come to your own foolish conclusions about what I mean and what I'm trying to say. The point is, you can't understand that people should be able to do whatever they want to themselves.

 

Nobody hears objections. You break the law, you are punished. Just like marijuana laws. Half the country is for legalization, yet people are thrown in jail every day over it.

Bottom line, since you like to talk about morality, it is immoral to force someone to do something they do not want to do. You're just going to force everyone who's suicidal to get "treatment?" That's preposterous.


And don't ask questions, then answer them just to make yourself sound right when you're not. It makes you look foolish.

 

First, the argument about laws was towards malakadang. Second, if you think laws are generally bad, and if you think slavery is okay, great, that's your opinion (one that sounds like it was made for the sake of the argument). You keep thinking that society would be perfectly fine without laws based on your own thoughts, but you have to understand that not everyone is like you. Someone here on the forums posted that in the UK, due to police being inundated with certain crimes, riots broke out. Basically, if there was nothing to govern people, then all of the potential rapists, thieves, murderers, etc. would come out. The law protects us from these people.

Second, you have contradicted yourself yet again. Here's what you said before:

"I think the only people who should be kept from committing suicide are children."

Now you're saying:

"I don't care if children commit suicide, but if their parents do, that's their call."

If you decide on whether you care for the children or not, I'd like to know why you believe children should not commit suicide without any consent from their parents (if you go back to your initial stance on the issue). I still believe it's because they're too immature to make their own decisions (much like how suicidal people are in an irrational state of mind), yet you tried to cover that up by denying that they should be kept from committing suicide in the first place.

I have already answered this. I think you've failed to see the answer. I told you, I am NOT indifferent when it comes to other lives. I see no problem with myself intervening with a suicidal person's life because I believe I am a better candidate to tell him/her what's a rational decision and what's not (because my reasoning is not clouded with emotion - this corresponds to the theory of knowledge I explained earlier, that you seem to have ignored), rather than him/her making any irrational decisions that have never been objected.

I will not force a person to not commit suicide - I won't tell him/her "if you commit suicide, I'll break your car" or "if you don't commit suicide, I'll buy you a new car". I'd just be willing to give my opinion, based on an individual basis, of why I believe suicide in such case is not the appropriate solution. That sounds better than sitting there indifferently and just saying "it's his/her life". It would be the easiest route for you, and it would be the easiest route for said suicidal person. But I'm also not lazy.

Also, you're wrong in regards to slavery. First, I didn't say it was outlawed because people were uncomfortable with it. I said the law itself, whether it's in effect or not, had the potential to cause cognitive dissonance, and thus, those that were uncomfortable with it weren't too fond of it. If people weren't so uncomfortable with slavery laws, I don't understand why they'd apologize for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Apologies.

So, you cherry-picked one piece of evidence. What about same-sex marriage? That used to be illegal. Look at it now - it's on the rise. If nobody heard the objections against banning same-sex marriage, then I don't see how it could be legal in what, 6 states now?

You're using the wrong word. I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. I'm giving my opinion and trying to help. Take said example:

Case 1: Johnny is suicidal because his girlfriend dumped him and he hasn't been on a date for over 2 years. His friend's father is a psychiatrist. His friend tells Johnny to just come to the psychiatrist once, and hear what he has to say. Johnny is defiant, but his friend manages to coax Johnny to go to the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist prescribes Johnny some anti-depressants, and begins cognitive behavioral therapy with Johnny. His friend continues to convince Johnny to go the psychiatrist. After one year, Johnny's suicidal attempts have decreased by half (a norm in real statistics). After 2 years, Johnny feels less depressed and is going out again. He thanks his friend for giving him his life back.

And who knows, maybe Johnny becomes an astronaut. Maybe he becomes the first man to walk on Mars. You never know what could happen with each individual life. I mean, Celine Dion's parents were going to abort her - look at what she became.

Case 2: Johnny is suicidal because his girlfriend dumped him and he hasn't been on a date for over 2 years. His friend's father is a psychiatrist. However, his friend doesn't feel the need to take responsibility because "it's Johnny's own life, he can do whatever he wants", so he doesn't tell Johnny to go to a psychiatrist, and Johnny has a successful suicide attempt a month later and dies.

You see, in Case 1, your actions (call them 'forcing' if you'd like, but they're not in a bad sense) actually lead to a positive outcome. Johnny would later be thankful of his friend for SAVING HIS LIFE, and saving a life is NOT an immoral action.

You see, you have this mentality that moral actions cannot be performed through immoral means, and this is utterly incorrect. I'll give you a simple example - shooting is an immoral action, because it can kill another human being. So obviously, when a thief shoots some bystander at the bank, he's doing an immoral action. But when another bystander shoots the thief, he's doing a MORAL action, through IMMORAL means (killing). He's essentially protecting everyone else in the bank, and hence, saving other lives. Doesn't sound so bad now, does it?

Okay, but don't assume that I'm wrong when I haven't even replied to your post yet.

 

If someone who is close to the suicidal person wants to try and talk them out of it or suggest treatment, that's up to them. I do not care if children commit suicide. If the parents do not want their child to commit suicide, then they can intervene if they choose to. That should be the only circumstance where a person should not be allowed to commit suicide. That's the same thing I have been saying all along. I shouldn't have to reiterate multiple times because you don't understand. It's not a contradiction if you don't understand. Those two statements of mine you quoted, they're both true.


You can tell Johnny whatever you want, but as far as physically stopping him from causing himself bodily harm, you should have no right. If johnny wants to put a pistol in his mouth and blow the top of his head open, you shouldn't stop him. If Johnny thinks that's too messy and wants to go to a doctor and go through with assisted suicide, you shouldn't stop him. What part of "it's his choice" don't you understand?

try to make your specific points a little more clear this time.

 

To preface, perhaps watch the video below? It's only 5 minutes.

Right, but not force. For example, you can voluntarily offer your help, and they can voluntarily accept your help. You cannot however involuntarily 'help' them.

Right, so long as it's voluntary. Otherwise you'd be forcing people to do what you want. There's nothing wrong with criticizing or reinforcing peoples behaviour, it's just when you force them to do things, that's where problem starts.

It's not that, it's giving them the right to.

That's fine, and I'd do the same, I certainly wouldn't subdue them, and lock them in a room because they're a 'threat to themselves', which, is what happens...

Right, but it's voluntary, I'm not forcing you to debate me, and vice versa.

How is that relevant. If I rob you, then give the money to schools, energy infrastructure, telecoms, does that mean I somehow didn't rob you? No, of course not, it means I've stolen your money and spent it.

So, I'm forced to pay taxes, against my will? Sounds a bit like what the mafia did. Pay me protection money, or get the fuck out. Unlike the mafia, governments span across the world, so there isn't really much option now is there. Still, why should I leave the 'country'? How about you stop forcing me to do what you want, after all it is immoral, right?

Fallacy: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/cumhocfa.html

That wasn't what I was going to say (I'll explain it after). Nevertheless, this is a false analogy. The interaction between consumers and businesses is voluntary, unlike the interaction between citizens and the government. Also, governments rarely make a profit (budget surplus), it's almost always a deficit.

Ok, so we're using immorality to stop immorality. I think that's a bit absurd.

Protecting people from immoral acts is fine. Using immoral acts to protect people from immoral acts however... There are 2 options. You can ask people to voluntarily do x, or, you can point a gun at people and demand they do x, or you'll shoot them. Unless there are other options, which would you prefer: voluntarily, or involuntarily?

The mafia did this via protection rackets. What's your point?

It's not so much control. It's about forcing others to do something against their will. See non-aggression principle.

Laws do this... I want to pay someone $6 an hour. They want to be paid $6 an hour. The government is doing the controlling with the laws (minimum wage).

There's a huge difference. Controlling people from killing one another by threatening to kill them is stupid. Controlling people from stealing from one another by stealing from them is stupid. Would you not agree? You're missing the underlying principle.

• Controlling people from catching too much fish by threatening to kill them is stupid
• Controlling people from from growing certain plants by threatening to kill them is stupid
• and so on...

Just because murder, rape, etc. are immoral acts, does not exempt you from the fallacious reasoning. You are still trying to force people to do what you want, it's called authoritarianism. Again, saying we must use immorality to protect others from immorality is just absurd.

No, appeal to consequences fallacy.

No, even affecting others lives positively can be immoral. For example, doing drugs negatively affects you. Putting a gun to someone's head, and forcing them not to do drugs however is immoral. You would be doing something positive for them insofar that they would stop doing drugs, but you've still committed an immoral act.

Above.

O gee, we're mixing equivocation, and a violation of the law of the excluded middle! You're essentially saying that because laws produce good consequences, they are moral. This is a blatant appeal to consequences fallacy.

Why are you forced to follow the law? There's no contractual agreement. Sure, you can petition for law reform, but you've already presupposed that you're enslaved under the law. It's like a slave owner saying you can object to what I do, and if you can justify it, I'll change my actions. You're still a slave.

So, essentially, I've been forced to do (or not do) something against my will, except I have a suggestion box. The entire point has been evaded, you are forced to follow the law against your will. Forcing people to do something against their will (follow the law) is morally wrong.

Here's a 5 minute video, it's worth the watch, and very succinctly articulates the gist of what I'm trying to say.

 

Malakadang, if you want, read the following:
http://constitution.org/soclcont.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm

You're dodging my question. Why is it that parents are allowed to intervene if their children want to commit suicide? What's the difference between me trying to intervene with a friend trying to commit suicide? You're not giving me an answer, you're just saying it's okay for parents to intervene if their children want to commit suicide.

And what part of "I'm not forcing him to do anything" do you not understand? I told you, it's not like I'm going to take a gun from him, lock him up in a room, etc. to keep him from committing suicide. I'm simply voicing my opinion to Johnny. Offering my help. And why am I offering my help? For the billionth time, because I believe I am a better candidate to give Johnny a rational solution, since Johnny's reasoning is bogged down with too many emotions, to the point where he finds it hard to be rational.

Of course. They don't accept, there's nothing I can do about it. But there's no problem with me giving them my opinion.

Correct.

We're talking about suicide here. There's no need to give a right to commit suicide, because the effects of suicide are you're dead. No laws required, because there is no way you can punish the person after they break the law and commit suicide. Any laws that are made against suicide are just to hope to prevent it, but in the end, it cannot be enforced, so it's not really a 'law', more like a guideline. Euthanasia is a different case, and I'm NOT arguing against euthanasia.

Okay, essentially what I'm arguing for in the suicide debate. I'm arguing against this passive statement "it's their life, they can do whatever they want". If we stick around with that mentality, there's no reason to even offer help.

But it's implied. By calling attention to me, it's suggesting that you're opening a debate with me. Of course you're not grabbing me by the hair and placing me at the keyboard, forcing me to debate. But you're still eliciting an argument.

You're missing the point. Taxation money is used to offer us services provided by the state, something offered to us in a somewhat social contract. You should expect to pay taxes with your citizenship, your social security number, etc. You should also expect to pay taxes if you're living in America, and benefiting from its governmental services. You should expect to pay taxes if you're willing to use the currency the government offered to you - the US dollar. They've essentially given you the concept of the type of money that you're using (and arguing for) in the first place. So, you've virtually agreed to paying taxes already. If you don't like it, you're free to give up all of these things and leave the country to someplace like where I live (and they speak English here, too). I essentially left America because I didn't want to pay around 40% taxes for my income. And I admit, what I did was greedy and egoistic.

In the case with a thief, I don't have any form of agreement with said thief stealing my money, and then using it to do moral deeds.

1. It shouldn't be against your will - social contract. Also, check the second link I gave above. Even if it is, it doesn't mean laws are absolutely immoral. This is further emphasized below.
2. There are countries without governments (although you probably wouldn't want to live in such countries, proving further why governments are needed), and there are some with governmental systems that you may prefer, such as Canada.
3. You're free to leave. I'm not forcing you. You can stay in America, drop your social security number, not work if you'd like, and live on the streets. Of course, you wouldn't do that, because you need help from the government, and you need to work. You're essentially forcing things on yourself based on your own needs.

Fallacy does not imply falsehood, especially in the real world. What I said may still be correct for the specific instance, but fallacies deal with all instances, so what I said is not correct absolutely. However, for the case I gave, it IS correct - no government (there is a government, actually, but they don't really do much for the country, and we don't do much for them) led to all of those negative things I listed. Care to debate why not, rather than pointing to a fallacy?

Now, to say that what happened in my country is surely what would happen to America if 'no government' existed is fallacious, but it does give a pretty good prediction/indication of what COULD happen.

Again, social contract.

It's not. I gave this example to 'kill dank'.

"You have this mentality that moral actions cannot be performed through immoral means, and this is utterly incorrect. I'll give you a simple example - shooting is an immoral action, because it can kill another human being. So obviously, when a thief shoots some bystander at the bank, he's doing an immoral action. But when another bystander shoots the thief, he's doing a MORAL action, through IMMORAL means (killing). He's essentially protecting everyone else in the bank, and hence, saving other lives. Doesn't sound so bad now, does it?"

If you want, EVERYTHING can be viewed as immoral (much like the 'there are no selfless deeds' debate). However, you have to weigh things out for the greater good.

Sometimes involuntarily is necessary. With the bank scenario I gave above, if I told the thief 'please, you have the choice to drop the gun, and not kill any of us', he/she would just laugh. You need force to stop such a person in this case. And while 'force' may sound immoral, it's performing an extremely moral action, and hence, is contributing to the greater good. Weighing things out, this mode of force can be concluded to be majorly moral.

I didn't say laws didn't do this. You're taking sentences out of context. I did say later that majorly, laws perform moral actions, but they could also perform immoral actions as well. You're committing the either/or fallacy - you're assuming laws can either be moral, or immoral. This is not the case. You have to weigh things out.

No, it's NOT stupid. Your other examples are completely irrelevant. I NEVER said that to control an immoral action, you must use the SAME immoral action against that person. If someone commits rape, you punish them by raping them? Of course not. But you send them the jail - something that is immoral, no? You're locking someone up from the world, away from their families, etc. But it's being done for the greater good - you're offering protection to the people, and hence, it's majorly moral.

Also, I never said the only way laws control negative actions are by killing. You're mixing things up. There could be fines, jail sentences, etc.

You're still going on the basis that if moral deeds are performed through immoral means, then they cannot be considered moral. This is not necessarily true, as I've said before - something's not either immoral, or moral. That's a fallacy. It can be 80% moral, and 20% immoral (for example, I pay a million dollars to a cancer charity in hopes of being on the news), but in such a case, it is majorly moral, so there shouldn't be a huge problem with it.

True, it is a fallacy. Let me rephrase: It can, in fact, be majorly moral, since it provides protection to other people.

See, fallacies sometimes give problems in arguments, since it looks for absolution. But debunking absolution does not imply that specific instances cannot occur.

You're right. But again, counter examples don't imply absolution - if you find a few counter examples, it doesn't mean affecting lives positively can't also be moral. We all know that. My argument here is that laws generally do affect lives positively.

See, this is where you have it wrong. Here I'm starting to get more specific with my argument. Your counter examples before do not negate my argument completely. As I've said earlier, you have to weigh things out. For example, talking a thief out of shooting at the bank would be extremely moral, as you're essentially trying to use sound reasoning to provide protection to the people. But face it, that most likely will not work - so you shoot the thief instead. Yes, shooting is immoral, but weighing things out, it's doing more things for the greater good than for the bad, and hence, the entire action is majorly moral.

Majorly moral, and should be moral. Big difference. Fallacies only apply for absolution and conclusive reasoning.

There is somewhat - a social contract. Once again, if you feel like a slave, you can leave. But many of us do not feel like slaves in the sense that you're trying to elicit. The government provides more good than harm. In slavery (as we think of it), this is not the case - the people would be abused, starved, fatigued, tortured, etc. Slavery has many connotations, some worse than others.

But if you're going to be really literal with the word 'slave', then we're slaves to our parents (and involuntarily) - but hey, it's not so bad. I mean, they provided more good than bad for us, right? They gave us food, sent us to school, etc. So slavery in this sense doesn't sound as bad as the connotation you're trying to elicit.

Yes, I already addressed parts of this in my previous post by saying the law does both moral and immoral actions. There are laws that may be against a person's will, but there are also laws that benefit people, so again, we have to weigh things out. Taking the thief example once more, the thief's will is that he wants to steal money and kill people at the bank. By killing the thief, sending him to prison, etc. the law would essentially be going against the thief's will (which is, according to you, immoral, as we're attempting to force the thief to do something against his will), but not against many other peoples' wills. So, we're back to weighing out if the law majorly supports peoples' wills, or doesn't. I'm arguing that it does.

So if Billy wants to kill hundreds of people at a mall, and I tell him not to, and end up shooting him at the mall to protect the other people, I'm doing something wrong? After all, I am going against Billy's will.

It's interesting, but overly exaggerated for me, and I don't agree with some points, like taxation is theft, and that violence is necessarily absolutely wrong. Again, it's the either/or fallacy - we're assuming that either something is moral, or immoral. But in reality, you have to weigh things out.

I mean, come on, governments prevent citizens from having weapons, but have monstrous weapons at the hand of the state? It's not like the government is going on the streets, shooting their people. They have those weapons in case of war - in case its citizens are in danger. It's doing this to ensure protection of its citizens. The government's weapons are essentially for the greater good of the country.

 

I agree with the OP, theres programs called death with dignity trying to get this sort of thing legalized. Alzheimers patients should be allowed a similar choice, my grandmother is suffering from the disease and she has lost her mind, plain and simple LOST her mind.. she isnt living any sort of life and knowing the sharp intelligent person she was before i can say surely she would not want to cling to existence in the shape she is in. Seeing her go from a strong independent individual to the dilapidated shell of a human being she is now hurts me so much, mainly because i know she wouldnt want it that way. I believe that after you get to be a certain age or if you are afflicted with a horrid incurable disease you should be allowed to end it in a humane medically assisted way.. people shouldnt be forced to live through completely losing their personality/mind, people shouldnt be forced to live though constant pain, people shouldnt be forced to live through being a burden on everyone else shitting themselves and whatnot. I know i wouldnt want to

EDIT: Reading through other peoples posts brings to light the whole suicide issue as a whole, i dont think people should be allowed to just willy nilly kill them selves if they are upset, my point of contention is: complete loss of dignity (messing yourself, being attached to machines to live constantly, not being able to feed oneself ect) terminal disease, and dementia.. its kinda horrible to let someone live through dementia when there simply isnt anything left of their original personality left and they have forgotten all they have ever known. I in NO way support suicide in any traditional sense .

 

Because the child is underage. It's just like forcing them to go to the dentist or the doctor. Because their the parents. I shouldn't have to explain that anymore. From now on I'm answering one question at a time. You're posts are entirely too long.

 

First, my entire post is not directed towards you, I'm replying to other people as well. I didn't ask you a load of questions.

Second, okay, they're underage. Being underage means that they should be monitored by people who are not underage (the parents). Why is that?

 

Apparently they are trying to make it legal to help family members with assisted suicide now. It was on BBC news or ITV news about 2 days ago. From the glances I took at the TV and the occasional time I listened it sounds promising.