4 ms·

If someone wants to end their life over poverty, you preventing them is about making you feel better as "we don't want to be that kind of country" rather than t

If someone wants to end their life over poverty, you preventing them is about making you feel better as "we don't want to be that kind of country" rather than them. It is not about their desires at all.

NoPicklez 3y ago
I disagree. If I see someone in poverty or homeless, I want them to live the same life I have been lucky to have. So my thoughts are how can I help lift them out of their situation, not put an end to them. Homelessness is terrible, but allowing people to kill themselves when falling on rough times is a terrible idea. It sweeps the problem under the carpet and tries to allow it to solve itself, in the worst way possible.
- bramblerose 3y ago
  Yes, there are negative social impacts to assisted suicide in cases such as this. But the moral question here is: why do the societal impacts trump the personal pain and suffering? I don't want people to take their life because society made their future prospects bleak. But I certainly don't want to force them to keep living because it might improve society in the long term.
- ramblerman 3y ago
  You are kind of making OPs point though. The little moral grandstand you describe when passing a homeless person does nothing for them. You abhorr the idea of someone in abject poverty wanting a way out so you hold up a utopic idea as to how things should be - but no solution to get there.
  - thanatos519 3y ago
    Plenty of solutions have been offered, but they all involve comprehensive systemic change, to which there is significant resistance from those taking advantage of the current arrangements.
    - gettodachoppa 3y ago
      None of the solutions ever presented (communism, UBI) are realistic, they're college student "let X pay for it" fantasy, where X cannot actually pay for it for more than a year or two before we're worse off than before. UBI? Immediate huge drop in economic input from working people who won't have to work anymore. And within a couple of years, not enough productive people left for UBI. Don't bother linking those studies on UBI boosting the economy, I've read them, and I think they're typical soft-science nonsense. I have a lifetime of observed experiences that tell me what happens when people don't have to make any effort to get by: from children, to friends, to animals, to entire populations like Kuwait (where anyone with a job is gifted $3000/month by the government on top of their salary. This resulted in the laziest, least competent people I have met, who just hire foreigners to do their jobs for them. It reminded me of Wall-E.) Communism? It has never and never will work. As soon as you remove private wealth, whoever is in charge becomes a perpetual dictator within months, since any objectors depend on him for their survival. Nearly instant dystopia. I'm really curious, is there ANY scenario where someone like yourself will demand that a homeless person become a productive citizen? Let's say you offer them magical housing and a magical job. They trash the house, don't go to work, and stay at home taking drugs. What then? Do you continue supporting them? Endless counseling? Let's say it doesn't work, no matter how patient you are, they refuse to work. Is there any breaking point where you are able to tell them "if you don't clean up and get to work, I'm not paying for your house and meals anymore"? Or are productive people expected to foot the bill for them forever, even in a fantasy scenario?
      - orwin 3y ago
        You can remove physical capital inheritance, and distribute it across the entire population, it's not communism, it's not UBI, it remove the 'landlord' mentality from otherwise good/capable people. Also it allows removal of a lot of regulations (hence even right-wing ancap, Aren't-style, can support the idea), notably rent, by naturally pushing limited equity housing co-op (since your kids won't inherit your house directly), and freeing a lot of buildings that currently are under inheritance conflicts (I've heard 1/3 to 1/2 of Paris currently vacant houses). The redistribution should be enough to handle a lot of issues. Also it does nothing to social, cultural and symbolic inheritance, so rich heir will probably still be rich at the end of the day, but at least they would have to work for it.
  - NoPicklez 3y ago
    How so? The utopic idea I have is for everyone to have a roof over their head, food in their belly and a sense of contribution to society no matter how much. There are many solutions to getting out of it, but being homeless is starting with the least bit of opportunity possible. The moral grandstand we all have, is enough drive for some people to build homeless shelters, provide food and shelter as well as provide programs to help the homeless get jobs. I am allowed to be abhor a particular idea, without offering a solution to it.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  But they do not live our comfortable lives and have few prospects for doing so. You are asking them to stick around suffering while either: 1. Waiting for a lottery ticket essentially to somehow get them rebooted. 2. Waiting for society to figure out a broader plan to deal with them. Sure, many solutions come out of think tanks or are proposed, but if they are not implemented, what use are they to these people? We can have all the great wishes we want for the homeless, but at present, we have nothing concrete to offer many of them. > It sweeps the problem under the carpet and tries to allow it to solve itself, in the worst way possible. It is currently at the point of on the carpet and largely ignored.
h05sz487b 3y ago
Taking choices away from poor people is a favorite pastime of some so called humanists.
- gettodachoppa 3y ago
  This isn't a class thing. I would also be against encouraging a miserable billionaire to kill himself.
xupybd 3y ago
But look at it the other way. This normalizes suicide. It will increase the number of people that are temporarily in a bad way ending their lives. That is not a good outcome.
- Llamamoe 3y ago
  I dislike the implicit assumption that being alive is a good thing.
  - xupybd 3y ago
    Wow, that's a radically different view than mine. Can you expand on your world view and your views on the value of life? It would be interesting to understand where you're coming from.
    - Llamamoe 3y ago
      I don't believe there is any value in being alive. What would it even be? As long as you exist, you need to keep sustaining yourself, taking care of yourself, and that requires incredible reserves of the ability to function. Ability that you can end up losing for any number of resson, potentially irreversibly. And once you can't take care of yourself, you just sink like a stone, except this ocean has no bottom. If you're lucky enough to be all of born into a wealthy country, healthy, into a functional family, to meet the right people, if all the stars align you might be able to live a decent life until you're old, but... what if they don't? As long as you exist, you're not safe from that eventuality. Above all, you lose nothing by being dead, as you're not there to experience it. But you gain the safety from suffering.
  - gettodachoppa 3y ago
    It is, and the only people who don't believe so were driven there by society and culture. Dial back the enlightened rationalism, put down the philosophy books, and try to live like every other animal does.
theironhammer 3y ago
It's more than that. They are suggesting to people that are homeless to take their own life who hadn't even considered it before. I know someone who this happened to. It's creepy.

NoPicklez 3y ago

I disagree. If I see someone in poverty or homeless, I want them to live the same life I have been lucky to have. So my thoughts are how can I help lift them out of their situation, not put an end to them. Homelessness is terrible, but allowing people to kill themselves when falling on rough times is a terrible idea. It sweeps the problem under the carpet and tries to allow it to solve itself, in the worst way possible.

bramblerose 3y ago
Yes, there are negative social impacts to assisted suicide in cases such as this. But the moral question here is: why do the societal impacts trump the personal pain and suffering? I don't want people to take their life because society made their future prospects bleak. But I certainly don't want to force them to keep living because it might improve society in the long term.
ramblerman 3y ago
You are kind of making OPs point though. The little moral grandstand you describe when passing a homeless person does nothing for them. You abhorr the idea of someone in abject poverty wanting a way out so you hold up a utopic idea as to how things should be - but no solution to get there.
- thanatos519 3y ago
  Plenty of solutions have been offered, but they all involve comprehensive systemic change, to which there is significant resistance from those taking advantage of the current arrangements.
  - gettodachoppa 3y ago
    None of the solutions ever presented (communism, UBI) are realistic, they're college student "let X pay for it" fantasy, where X cannot actually pay for it for more than a year or two before we're worse off than before. UBI? Immediate huge drop in economic input from working people who won't have to work anymore. And within a couple of years, not enough productive people left for UBI. Don't bother linking those studies on UBI boosting the economy, I've read them, and I think they're typical soft-science nonsense. I have a lifetime of observed experiences that tell me what happens when people don't have to make any effort to get by: from children, to friends, to animals, to entire populations like Kuwait (where anyone with a job is gifted $3000/month by the government on top of their salary. This resulted in the laziest, least competent people I have met, who just hire foreigners to do their jobs for them. It reminded me of Wall-E.) Communism? It has never and never will work. As soon as you remove private wealth, whoever is in charge becomes a perpetual dictator within months, since any objectors depend on him for their survival. Nearly instant dystopia. I'm really curious, is there ANY scenario where someone like yourself will demand that a homeless person become a productive citizen? Let's say you offer them magical housing and a magical job. They trash the house, don't go to work, and stay at home taking drugs. What then? Do you continue supporting them? Endless counseling? Let's say it doesn't work, no matter how patient you are, they refuse to work. Is there any breaking point where you are able to tell them "if you don't clean up and get to work, I'm not paying for your house and meals anymore"? Or are productive people expected to foot the bill for them forever, even in a fantasy scenario?
    - orwin 3y ago
      You can remove physical capital inheritance, and distribute it across the entire population, it's not communism, it's not UBI, it remove the 'landlord' mentality from otherwise good/capable people. Also it allows removal of a lot of regulations (hence even right-wing ancap, Aren't-style, can support the idea), notably rent, by naturally pushing limited equity housing co-op (since your kids won't inherit your house directly), and freeing a lot of buildings that currently are under inheritance conflicts (I've heard 1/3 to 1/2 of Paris currently vacant houses). The redistribution should be enough to handle a lot of issues. Also it does nothing to social, cultural and symbolic inheritance, so rich heir will probably still be rich at the end of the day, but at least they would have to work for it.
- NoPicklez 3y ago
  How so? The utopic idea I have is for everyone to have a roof over their head, food in their belly and a sense of contribution to society no matter how much. There are many solutions to getting out of it, but being homeless is starting with the least bit of opportunity possible. The moral grandstand we all have, is enough drive for some people to build homeless shelters, provide food and shelter as well as provide programs to help the homeless get jobs. I am allowed to be abhor a particular idea, without offering a solution to it.
throwawaysleep 3y ago
But they do not live our comfortable lives and have few prospects for doing so. You are asking them to stick around suffering while either: 1. Waiting for a lottery ticket essentially to somehow get them rebooted. 2. Waiting for society to figure out a broader plan to deal with them. Sure, many solutions come out of think tanks or are proposed, but if they are not implemented, what use are they to these people? We can have all the great wishes we want for the homeless, but at present, we have nothing concrete to offer many of them. > It sweeps the problem under the carpet and tries to allow it to solve itself, in the worst way possible. It is currently at the point of on the carpet and largely ignored.

h05sz487b 3y ago

Taking choices away from poor people is a favorite pastime of some so called humanists.

gettodachoppa 3y ago
This isn't a class thing. I would also be against encouraging a miserable billionaire to kill himself.

xupybd 3y ago

But look at it the other way. This normalizes suicide. It will increase the number of people that are temporarily in a bad way ending their lives. That is not a good outcome.

Llamamoe 3y ago
I dislike the implicit assumption that being alive is a good thing.
- xupybd 3y ago
  Wow, that's a radically different view than mine. Can you expand on your world view and your views on the value of life? It would be interesting to understand where you're coming from.
  - Llamamoe 3y ago
    I don't believe there is any value in being alive. What would it even be? As long as you exist, you need to keep sustaining yourself, taking care of yourself, and that requires incredible reserves of the ability to function. Ability that you can end up losing for any number of resson, potentially irreversibly. And once you can't take care of yourself, you just sink like a stone, except this ocean has no bottom. If you're lucky enough to be all of born into a wealthy country, healthy, into a functional family, to meet the right people, if all the stars align you might be able to live a decent life until you're old, but... what if they don't? As long as you exist, you're not safe from that eventuality. Above all, you lose nothing by being dead, as you're not there to experience it. But you gain the safety from suffering.
- gettodachoppa 3y ago
  It is, and the only people who don't believe so were driven there by society and culture. Dial back the enlightened rationalism, put down the philosophy books, and try to live like every other animal does.

theironhammer 3y ago

It's more than that. They are suggesting to people that are homeless to take their own life who hadn't even considered it before. I know someone who this happened to. It's creepy.