4 ms·

> Reducto ad absurdum: If I get poison ivy and can't sleep for a few nights, should I be legally allowed to swerve headlong into traffic? I mean, you correctly

> Reducto ad absurdum: If I get poison ivy and can't sleep for a few nights, should I be legally allowed to swerve headlong into traffic? I mean, you correctly labeled the fallacy here. Yours is a plainly terrible example. The pain of poison Ivy would clearly not be so great as to require immediate relief. Returning to clarity: I think most reasonable people would agree that there exists pain which is severe enough to require immediate relief in the form of death. You might not, but I don’t think that’s reasonable. You say anything that’s “temporary and non-terminal” should not qualify for the right to die. I’m incredulous that you cannot imagine ANY torture so great that someone should be allowed to die rather than endure it for some indefinite amount of time. Instead I pose a reductio ad absurdum to you: Lets say I create a machine which causes you more pain than any human has ever experienced, but does not otherwise harm you. I connect you to this machine with a button you can press to kill yourself but it will also cause 30 seconds of pain to a random person in another room. Other prisoners in your room share your beliefs and tie your hand so that you cannot press that button. You will be connected to this machine until the final year of your life, at which point you will get one final year without this pain. Should the other prisoners let you press the button? The point here is to acknowledge that there exists a spectrum. And that somewhere on that spectrum, a person should be allowed to kill themselves even if it causes some discomfort to others. We might disagree where that point lies but my goal is for us to agree that it exists. > Should we also have an inalienable right to recreational opiates? This doesn’t fit my example at all. It’s possible to remove opiates from society if you spend enough on the project. Whereas inalienable rights like protesting the government, finding shelter, finding food, etc cannot be prevented before they occur, only punished after. A better counter example would be murder if you’d like to use that instead. Instead, I’d like to ask you what your concept of an “inalienable right” is and how “finding relief for unendurable pain” doesnt fit in your definition. An interesting corollary would be the right to self-defense. If someone unjustly attacks me and I believe the attack threatens to break my arm but does not threaten to kill me, I am allowed to use a similar degree of force to defend myself. And if, in the course of defending myself, I accidentally knock over an old lady to the ground and she dies…the attacker gets blamed for that, not me. I had a right to protect myself from the pain of a broken arm, even though it would get better eventually. If I’m a bystander, should I prevent the person from defending themself because someone else might get hurt in the frenzy and it’s only a temporary pain of a broken arm? Why do you blame the person who is being threatened with more pain, rather than the attacker (the gympie gympie tree)?

itishappy 4y ago
I thought I understood what inalienable meant, but wow was I was off-base. It's been too long since I've studied the ol' Declaration. I'm happy I learned something new, and I'll happily concede my opiates example! Death is indeed an inalienable right, though the manner might not be. You bring up excellent points regarding my absurd example, but I'm actually not sure I agree there exists a pain severe enough to require the release of death. My example was meant to highlight that such threshold is quite arbitrary. Should we be allowed to kill ourselves over a shattered bone? A breakup? A hangover? A bad test score? Most people survive their encounters even with the gympie-gympie tree. Now, my opinion changes completely if the condition is terminal, but for temporary pain I'm uncertain there's an obvious answer. We haven't even considered that there may be alternatives also able to reduce suffering like painkillers (or, in the context of this thread, mental health treatment). Another terrible example (can there be any other type on this topic?) is car crash victims. I vividly remember drivers ed, and I expect EMTs are occasionally met with pleas for death while brutally triaging their patient. I also expect a good number go on to have partial or even full recoveries and lead happy productive lives. Should EMTs abide by this wish in that moment? Should the patients prognosis influence this decision? These questions are hard for me even ignoring the affect on others. Should it affect anything if the patient has kids or is pregnant?
- runnerup 4y ago
  > I'm actually not sure I agree there exists a pain severe enough to require the release of death. I think we’ll fundamentally disagree as a result of this. Like, based on each of our personal fundamental beliefs, our own ideal social rules make sense, but will not make sense to the other. To me, if you believe a uniquely unfortunate hypothetical person should be forced by society (to the best of society’s abilities) to endure the worst torture imaginable for their entire life just because it won’t be “their ultimate cause of death”… …that you probably are worried about something other than that persons life. Perhaps you are more concerned with their soul than their life? This is valid and given certain beliefs in afterlife/heaven/god it is the overwhelmingly more important outcome to consider! Nearly any infinite Earthly pain would be worth saving a soul from eternal suffering away from Heaven. But I will say that I’d also like not to live in a Theocracy, where government rules are decided based on the sincere beliefs of the dominant religion. Some people do though! And it may be that’s another point where we’ll permanently be unable to see eye-to-eye despite our best efforts and intentions. I do think it might be important to consider, acknowledge, and announce where the foundational beliefs come from which are likely to lead to radically different conclusions, even given best intentions from all involved parties. If you are not religious, or your feelings on this topic don’t stem from your religion, I apologize for my assumptions! To answer all your specific questions based on my personal value system: > Should we be allowed to kill ourselves over a shattered bone? A breakup? A hangover? A bad test score? Yes to all. But again the one ending their own life has a duty to do it in the most considerate and responsible way possible, not harming others in the process to the best of their ability. In all these cases, it wouldn’t be the one event that causes the suicide, rather that event would be the straw that broke the camels back. A lifetime of pain and trauma would precede it. > We haven't even considered that there may be alternatives also able to reduce suffering like painkillers (or, in the context of this thread, mental health treatment). Given the reality that people will commit suicide whenever they want anyways, if we accept that fact as normal, it will lead society to understand that it is society’s responsibility to advertise these options and make them easily available. We should make them automatic first-line options in the minds of those who may be suffering, so that they choose those options over suicide. When society denies that suicide (or worse) is a default option for people who are suffering, we lose some of our incentive to implement the best possible remedies. > Should EMTs abide by this wish in that moment? Should the patients prognosis influence this decision? These questions are hard for me even ignoring the affect on others. Should it affect anything if the patient has kids or is pregnant? My value system does not lead to a conclusion where an EMT has to do anything to assist a person in their quest to end their own life. The EMT would never ever have to kill anyone who begged for death — I’m not even sure my value system would allow them to outside of a highly regulated and mildly Byzantine euthanasia process. In general, parents have a right to suicide as well (although the state does not have to assist). What is wrong with our society that so many people feel that suicide is their best option? Can we focus on fixing THAT? Instead of worrying whether the person who commits suicide is selfish VS. the people of society are selfish who insist that sufferers should forever persist in their suffering for the benefit of society? I believe if we accept in our hearts that suicide as an inalienable right, we’ll start building a better society as we accept the conclusions of the belief.

itishappy 4y ago

I thought I understood what inalienable meant, but wow was I was off-base. It's been too long since I've studied the ol' Declaration. I'm happy I learned something new, and I'll happily concede my opiates example! Death is indeed an inalienable right, though the manner might not be. You bring up excellent points regarding my absurd example, but I'm actually not sure I agree there exists a pain severe enough to require the release of death. My example was meant to highlight that such threshold is quite arbitrary. Should we be allowed to kill ourselves over a shattered bone? A breakup? A hangover? A bad test score? Most people survive their encounters even with the gympie-gympie tree. Now, my opinion changes completely if the condition is terminal, but for temporary pain I'm uncertain there's an obvious answer. We haven't even considered that there may be alternatives also able to reduce suffering like painkillers (or, in the context of this thread, mental health treatment). Another terrible example (can there be any other type on this topic?) is car crash victims. I vividly remember drivers ed, and I expect EMTs are occasionally met with pleas for death while brutally triaging their patient. I also expect a good number go on to have partial or even full recoveries and lead happy productive lives. Should EMTs abide by this wish in that moment? Should the patients prognosis influence this decision? These questions are hard for me even ignoring the affect on others. Should it affect anything if the patient has kids or is pregnant?

runnerup 4y ago
> I'm actually not sure I agree there exists a pain severe enough to require the release of death. I think we’ll fundamentally disagree as a result of this. Like, based on each of our personal fundamental beliefs, our own ideal social rules make sense, but will not make sense to the other. To me, if you believe a uniquely unfortunate hypothetical person should be forced by society (to the best of society’s abilities) to endure the worst torture imaginable for their entire life just because it won’t be “their ultimate cause of death”… …that you probably are worried about something other than that persons life. Perhaps you are more concerned with their soul than their life? This is valid and given certain beliefs in afterlife/heaven/god it is the overwhelmingly more important outcome to consider! Nearly any infinite Earthly pain would be worth saving a soul from eternal suffering away from Heaven. But I will say that I’d also like not to live in a Theocracy, where government rules are decided based on the sincere beliefs of the dominant religion. Some people do though! And it may be that’s another point where we’ll permanently be unable to see eye-to-eye despite our best efforts and intentions. I do think it might be important to consider, acknowledge, and announce where the foundational beliefs come from which are likely to lead to radically different conclusions, even given best intentions from all involved parties. If you are not religious, or your feelings on this topic don’t stem from your religion, I apologize for my assumptions! To answer all your specific questions based on my personal value system: > Should we be allowed to kill ourselves over a shattered bone? A breakup? A hangover? A bad test score? Yes to all. But again the one ending their own life has a duty to do it in the most considerate and responsible way possible, not harming others in the process to the best of their ability. In all these cases, it wouldn’t be the one event that causes the suicide, rather that event would be the straw that broke the camels back. A lifetime of pain and trauma would precede it. > We haven't even considered that there may be alternatives also able to reduce suffering like painkillers (or, in the context of this thread, mental health treatment). Given the reality that people will commit suicide whenever they want anyways, if we accept that fact as normal, it will lead society to understand that it is society’s responsibility to advertise these options and make them easily available. We should make them automatic first-line options in the minds of those who may be suffering, so that they choose those options over suicide. When society denies that suicide (or worse) is a default option for people who are suffering, we lose some of our incentive to implement the best possible remedies. > Should EMTs abide by this wish in that moment? Should the patients prognosis influence this decision? These questions are hard for me even ignoring the affect on others. Should it affect anything if the patient has kids or is pregnant? My value system does not lead to a conclusion where an EMT has to do anything to assist a person in their quest to end their own life. The EMT would never ever have to kill anyone who begged for death — I’m not even sure my value system would allow them to outside of a highly regulated and mildly Byzantine euthanasia process. In general, parents have a right to suicide as well (although the state does not have to assist). What is wrong with our society that so many people feel that suicide is their best option? Can we focus on fixing THAT? Instead of worrying whether the person who commits suicide is selfish VS. the people of society are selfish who insist that sufferers should forever persist in their suffering for the benefit of society? I believe if we accept in our hearts that suicide as an inalienable right, we’ll start building a better society as we accept the conclusions of the belief.