4 ms·

That's fine if you're talking about the right for individual doctors to not help someone with something, but if the default course of events would have been "so

That's fine if you're talking about the right for individual doctors to not help someone with something, but if the default course of events would have been "someone helping someone do something", banning that help is, in your own words, forcing them. While I personally think suicide is a terrible answer for almost literally anything, I respect others don't feel the same way and might seek assisted suicide. In fact it sounds like, and forgive me if I assume incorrectly, your argument is meant to be opposed to assisted suicide, but I would use the exact same argument in favor of it, all forms of recreational drugs, (ethically produced) porn, and other such things that harm no one except potentially the person making the decision. Obviously there's a lot of grey area there but we don't need to get super pedantic.

smeej 4y ago
I think I'm using "force" much more literally than this. This is an, "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by a force," situation. If something is already underway, like a person is already alive or a pregnancy has already begun, it has a path along which it will continue without requiring additional force to reach it. "Force" is only necessary to change the course. An object in motion is not forced to stay in motion. That's what happens in the absence of force.
- axqpzzv 4y ago
  Again, you're really using the idea of the 'natural' course of events that just suits your argument. Unless you believe in destiny, predetermination, etc., there is no path along which either of those things will continue without requiring additional force to reach it. For a person to continue living or a pregnancy to continue, they must continually exert, collect, and consume energy in the form of food and water. Why isn't that additional force? The 'natural' course of events, without any outside 'force', is for everyone and every living thing to drop dead in a couple of days tops. "Okay, but obviously living beings were designed to continue living, seeking energy to continue sustaining their existence is obviously a natural course of events" you might say, but why does it have to end there? Why isn't the very natural path that all humans begin on, one of being a social creature that desires to assist others in their tribe, the 'default' force as well? It really seems like there can't be any clear cut answer, and it's just philosophical sleight of hand. You also haven't addressed the point that if one person wants to help the other, preventing that is clearly a form of force.
  - smeej 4y ago
    The only conclusion to your argument is that there is no such thing as nature or a natural course, that anything and everything is entirely subject to the actions of the people involved. This simply isn't so, and betrays a complete and total lack of contact with anything biological, natural, or even just physical. The whole conversation is about taking action to end someone's life, and whether anyone who does not take action to assist someone in ending their life is forcing them to continue living. "Being alive" has a biological meaning and a natural course. These aren't just things we get to define as we will. While I admire the gymnastics you're putting your mind through to try to maintain shortening someone's life intentionally could even remotely be considered "the natural course" such that force would have to be applied to prevent it, the only way to get there is to negate meaning in any word or any thing other than what any particular person ascribes to it. Virtually by definition, no one can join you in your solipsism, so I'm afraid this conversation has run its course.

smeej 4y ago

I think I'm using "force" much more literally than this. This is an, "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by a force," situation. If something is already underway, like a person is already alive or a pregnancy has already begun, it has a path along which it will continue without requiring additional force to reach it. "Force" is only necessary to change the course. An object in motion is not forced to stay in motion. That's what happens in the absence of force.

axqpzzv 4y ago
Again, you're really using the idea of the 'natural' course of events that just suits your argument. Unless you believe in destiny, predetermination, etc., there is no path along which either of those things will continue without requiring additional force to reach it. For a person to continue living or a pregnancy to continue, they must continually exert, collect, and consume energy in the form of food and water. Why isn't that additional force? The 'natural' course of events, without any outside 'force', is for everyone and every living thing to drop dead in a couple of days tops. "Okay, but obviously living beings were designed to continue living, seeking energy to continue sustaining their existence is obviously a natural course of events" you might say, but why does it have to end there? Why isn't the very natural path that all humans begin on, one of being a social creature that desires to assist others in their tribe, the 'default' force as well? It really seems like there can't be any clear cut answer, and it's just philosophical sleight of hand. You also haven't addressed the point that if one person wants to help the other, preventing that is clearly a form of force.
- smeej 4y ago
  The only conclusion to your argument is that there is no such thing as nature or a natural course, that anything and everything is entirely subject to the actions of the people involved. This simply isn't so, and betrays a complete and total lack of contact with anything biological, natural, or even just physical. The whole conversation is about taking action to end someone's life, and whether anyone who does not take action to assist someone in ending their life is forcing them to continue living. "Being alive" has a biological meaning and a natural course. These aren't just things we get to define as we will. While I admire the gymnastics you're putting your mind through to try to maintain shortening someone's life intentionally could even remotely be considered "the natural course" such that force would have to be applied to prevent it, the only way to get there is to negate meaning in any word or any thing other than what any particular person ascribes to it. Virtually by definition, no one can join you in your solipsism, so I'm afraid this conversation has run its course.