5 ms·

Nothing in that linked article is new to me. The religious and deontological arguments are uncompelling. No one chose to exist, but I think everyone is entitle

Nothing in that linked article is new to me. The religious and deontological arguments are uncompelling. No one chose to exist, but I think everyone is entitled to not exist, regardless of their reasons. Even if someone is thankful that they were prevented from taking their own life, that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." As Camus said, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide." I think it's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Preventing people from doing such is unethical, imho.

Declanomous 10y ago
>Even if someone is thankful that they were prevented from taking their own life, that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." You have completely misrepresented my argument. Nowhere did I present anything that could even remotely be construed as a consequentialist argument. I provided that point as a direct rebuttal to your point that if we look at agent-focused moral systems, and ignore agent-neutral moral systems, preventing people from committing suicide doesn't make sense. > I think it's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Preventing people from doing such is unethical, imho. Your opinion is indefensible and insane. What you have implied constitutes prevention is absurdly broad. For instance, from a consequentialist standpoint, calling a friend you fear may be suicidal and asking them to hang out would constitute prevention at least some of the time. Ignoring that issue, the evidence I've presented effectively argues against the idea that most people who attempt suicide wish to kill themselves. Most suicidal individuals are impulsively responding to what the French might call L'appel du vide, or the call of the void. If they were rational, they would not attempt suicide in the first place. I cannot imagine you actually understand the points Camus is trying to make if this is the conclusion you have come to. Please seek out further education on the subject. Your knowledge of ethics and philosophy is appalling, and ultimately harmful.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
  "Prevention" implies force, and that's all I meant by it. I take no issue with talking to those whom have expressed the desire to commit suicide. My primary issue is when it escalates to calls to police/medical professionals and force of law is brought to bear. I'm sorry you find my ethics so abhorrent, though I often feel that way about the ethics of others.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." What else would justify the means? There's nothing wrong with that form of argument. There are arguments of that form that are wrong, but not because of the form, rather, because either the ends don't justify the means, or because the means produce additional unaccounted costs which offset the value they have in producing the ends. Or, because there are less-costly means to the ends, or because the means don't actually produce the ends used to justify them.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
  The means in such arguments are implied to be unethical or somehow violate the rights of someone. When that's the case, the proposed end result is used to justify the otherwise unethical action. I've never seen a valid argument of that form and I use this particular phrase as a heuristic for validating arguments. If you have examples of arguments that best take that form, I'd be happy to entertain them.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    That's just an a priori assertion that certain means are categorically unjustifiable (by anything, ends or otherwise) because they are inherently unethical, which is irrelevant to the form of the argument. If you want to make the point that certain means are categorically unacceptable, make that argument (which will very quickly, I suspect, get to a root moral axiom on which no debate is possible, simply agreement or disagreement) rather than raising irrelevancies about the form of the argument.
    - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
      Fair reply, though I think I've stated my axiom: people have a right to nonexistence. As a corollary: people don't have a right to the existence of others.
wordchucks 10y ago
Replying only to show agreement and because the other guy .. well.. you know. I wish there were upvotes.

Declanomous 10y ago

>Even if someone is thankful that they were prevented from taking their own life, that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." You have completely misrepresented my argument. Nowhere did I present anything that could even remotely be construed as a consequentialist argument. I provided that point as a direct rebuttal to your point that if we look at agent-focused moral systems, and ignore agent-neutral moral systems, preventing people from committing suicide doesn't make sense. > I think it's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Preventing people from doing such is unethical, imho. Your opinion is indefensible and insane. What you have implied constitutes prevention is absurdly broad. For instance, from a consequentialist standpoint, calling a friend you fear may be suicidal and asking them to hang out would constitute prevention at least some of the time. Ignoring that issue, the evidence I've presented effectively argues against the idea that most people who attempt suicide wish to kill themselves. Most suicidal individuals are impulsively responding to what the French might call L'appel du vide, or the call of the void. If they were rational, they would not attempt suicide in the first place. I cannot imagine you actually understand the points Camus is trying to make if this is the conclusion you have come to. Please seek out further education on the subject. Your knowledge of ethics and philosophy is appalling, and ultimately harmful.

x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
"Prevention" implies force, and that's all I meant by it. I take no issue with talking to those whom have expressed the desire to commit suicide. My primary issue is when it escalates to calls to police/medical professionals and force of law is brought to bear. I'm sorry you find my ethics so abhorrent, though I often feel that way about the ethics of others.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." What else would justify the means? There's nothing wrong with that form of argument. There are arguments of that form that are wrong, but not because of the form, rather, because either the ends don't justify the means, or because the means produce additional unaccounted costs which offset the value they have in producing the ends. Or, because there are less-costly means to the ends, or because the means don't actually produce the ends used to justify them.

x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
The means in such arguments are implied to be unethical or somehow violate the rights of someone. When that's the case, the proposed end result is used to justify the otherwise unethical action. I've never seen a valid argument of that form and I use this particular phrase as a heuristic for validating arguments. If you have examples of arguments that best take that form, I'd be happy to entertain them.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  That's just an a priori assertion that certain means are categorically unjustifiable (by anything, ends or otherwise) because they are inherently unethical, which is irrelevant to the form of the argument. If you want to make the point that certain means are categorically unacceptable, make that argument (which will very quickly, I suspect, get to a root moral axiom on which no debate is possible, simply agreement or disagreement) rather than raising irrelevancies about the form of the argument.
  - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
    Fair reply, though I think I've stated my axiom: people have a right to nonexistence. As a corollary: people don't have a right to the existence of others.

wordchucks 10y ago

Replying only to show agreement and because the other guy .. well.. you know. I wish there were upvotes.