3 ms·

I wish more countries recognized the ultimate and inviolable right to self ownership. If we aren’t free to destroy ourselves if we so desire, we aren’t actuall

by sneak 3y ago

I wish more countries recognized the ultimate and inviolable right to self ownership. If we aren’t free to destroy ourselves if we so desire, we aren’t actually free.

bowsamic 3y ago
You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good, which is not obvious to me. I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good, which is not obvious to me Your next sentence holds that assumption as obvious: > I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people?
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    > Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people? It's not necessarily good for each person, but good for society. Also I don't even know if I should have that freedom, that would be something we would have to philosophically investigate.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      You seem to be using the word "good" as if it's universally understood and agreed upon, but that's not the case. Why do you even think you should have the freedom to decide what's "good" in the first place?
  - Jenk 3y ago
    "You're not allowed to rape" is a pretty strong example.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      "You're not allowed" implies that someone else has the freedom to decide what is and is not allowed. All roads lead to freedom. There can be no tyranny without freedom to tyrannize - there's just no way around it.
      - Jenk 3y ago
        It's not implying anything. It's explicitly telling "We as a society have decided for you" This is literally what law is. A social construct to codify (and enable the enforcement of) what is deemed moral vs amoral.
        bheadmaster 3y ago
        > We as a society have decided for you Which implies that someone else had the freedom to decide what's good for you. Society is just a bunch of other people.
        Jenk 3y ago
        Ya, the majority of society (or not in many cases of authoritarian states across the globe, but I digress). You appear to be trying to paint some kind on complex philosophical picture where it just simply doesn't exist. Law is the codification, and ratification, of what society deems ethical/moral behaviour. Unless you are about to start declaring some magic creates law, no shit it comes from people.
- xanderlewis 3y ago
  > You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good Or accept it as axiomatic.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    If you accept something as an axiom and other people don't then it's not a very good axiom. I.e., you will have to justify yourself and your actions to others, who think your actions are wrong. Besides, an axiom is something assumed because the way that the ideas are built off of them are interesting, not because the axiom and the result are unquestionable.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  I don't think we should trust 'the state' to force people to do anything. We generally need them to force people not to do a few really bad things (e.g. some basic laws), but in recent decades it feels that the concept of freedom has been under relentless attack and in an era without religion, the state is almost becoming a substitute for a god. But these days it seems that our leaders are motivated almost entirely by profit. They will not do what is best for the average individual.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    Do you think the state should allow parents of children to kill or neglect them if the parents want to? I don't personally and I'm happy for the state to try and save such children. There are countless other examples like this I could come up with. EDIT: the second and third paragraphs were added after I wrote this message
bacro 3y ago
I agree with that when the problem is irreversible and will cause unending pain for the person. However, this case does not seem like it. If she had like Parkinson or Alzheimer then I would understand but depression? There are very good anti-depressants that help go through if she cannot find another way to cope. Also, there might be something physically wrong that doctors might have overlooked which causes her depression.
- sneak 3y ago
  You should always be free to destroy yourself absent any medical reason or justification. It is a personal decision and there is no reason anyone should be required to explain or justify it. We don’t require a medical reason to enhance or build our bodies, we don’t need one to damage or destroy them. I’m already allowed to eat fried foods 10 times a day and chainsmoke and do it slowly and painfully; if that is legal then anyone should be allowed to do it in a quick, painless, and dignified fashion.
  - tmelm 3y ago
    This makes sense to some extent (terminal illness or such), but one can argue as someone did above that if you're willing to make the permanent decision to "destroy" yourself, are you sane enough to legally make decision? Are you for sure not under temporary delusion, distress, or other threat? You can always "legally" "destroy" yourself through suicide, but if you want to involve a medical professional it seems very reasonable that you have the mental clarity to make the decision. Should it be illegal for the doctor to deny me an amputation that I ask for? After all, I should be "free to destroy myself" absent any justification?
    - david-gpu 3y ago
      > You can always "legally" "destroy" yourself through suicide Not in a dignified, foolproof way. E.g. can you go to a pharmacy and get a dose of morphine that will kill you with certainty? You can't, in most jurisdictions. Forcing other people to deal with the trauma of cleaning up your bloody remains after you jump off a window isn't exactly compassionate either. Give people a clean way out, even if you don't want it for yourself.
geraldwhen 3y ago
This person isn’t destroying themself. They’re forcing someone else to do it for them, and they’re shitposting online for eyeballs in the meantime. They could die at any time. This is an elaborate show by someone who needs to be told “no” and given a clear direction.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > They’re forcing someone else to do it for them No health professional is being forced to assist in an euthanasia against their will. Is it so hard to believe that all the parties involved are willing participants?
arrowsmith 3y ago
I don't read that as an argument for euthanasia, I read it as an argument that individual liberty is not absolute.
JyB 3y ago
The act of taking your own life has no reliance on countries 'recognizing' it nor promoting it. You are by definition free to do it. Being assisted in doing so is another topic.
someotherperson 3y ago
It has little to do with an "inviolable right to self ownership" -- the overwhelming majority of the world already have that. You can eat until your jaw breaks while dedicating your life to proving a flat Earth, you can go base jumping off a cliff, or you can tattoo obscenities on your forehead. Or all of it at the same time. And it's perfectly acceptable as an action of autonomy and self-ownership. Euthanasia, or suicide, is instead a problem of diminished capacity and whether or not suicide could ever be a decision of someone who is of sound mind. Much like we don't let babies walk into traffic, believe that a 9 year old is able to consent or allow severely mentally handicapped people the ability to refuse surgery -- having legal frameworks that don't encourage these things isn't about stripping away the right to self-ownership.

by sneak 3y ago

I wish more countries recognized the ultimate and inviolable right to self ownership. If we aren’t free to destroy ourselves if we so desire, we aren’t actually free.

bowsamic 3y ago

You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good, which is not obvious to me. I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations

bheadmaster 3y ago
> You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good, which is not obvious to me Your next sentence holds that assumption as obvious: > I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people?
- bowsamic 3y ago
  > Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people? It's not necessarily good for each person, but good for society. Also I don't even know if I should have that freedom, that would be something we would have to philosophically investigate.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    You seem to be using the word "good" as if it's universally understood and agreed upon, but that's not the case. Why do you even think you should have the freedom to decide what's "good" in the first place?
- Jenk 3y ago
  "You're not allowed to rape" is a pretty strong example.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    "You're not allowed" implies that someone else has the freedom to decide what is and is not allowed. All roads lead to freedom. There can be no tyranny without freedom to tyrannize - there's just no way around it.
    - Jenk 3y ago
      It's not implying anything. It's explicitly telling "We as a society have decided for you" This is literally what law is. A social construct to codify (and enable the enforcement of) what is deemed moral vs amoral.
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        > We as a society have decided for you Which implies that someone else had the freedom to decide what's good for you. Society is just a bunch of other people.
        Jenk 3y ago
        Ya, the majority of society (or not in many cases of authoritarian states across the globe, but I digress). You appear to be trying to paint some kind on complex philosophical picture where it just simply doesn't exist. Law is the codification, and ratification, of what society deems ethical/moral behaviour. Unless you are about to start declaring some magic creates law, no shit it comes from people.
xanderlewis 3y ago
> You have to make an argument that freedom is inherently good Or accept it as axiomatic.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  If you accept something as an axiom and other people don't then it's not a very good axiom. I.e., you will have to justify yourself and your actions to others, who think your actions are wrong. Besides, an axiom is something assumed because the way that the ideas are built off of them are interesting, not because the axiom and the result are unquestionable.
bluescrn 3y ago
I don't think we should trust 'the state' to force people to do anything. We generally need them to force people not to do a few really bad things (e.g. some basic laws), but in recent decades it feels that the concept of freedom has been under relentless attack and in an era without religion, the state is almost becoming a substitute for a god. But these days it seems that our leaders are motivated almost entirely by profit. They will not do what is best for the average individual.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  Do you think the state should allow parents of children to kill or neglect them if the parents want to? I don't personally and I'm happy for the state to try and save such children. There are countless other examples like this I could come up with. EDIT: the second and third paragraphs were added after I wrote this message

bacro 3y ago

I agree with that when the problem is irreversible and will cause unending pain for the person. However, this case does not seem like it. If she had like Parkinson or Alzheimer then I would understand but depression? There are very good anti-depressants that help go through if she cannot find another way to cope. Also, there might be something physically wrong that doctors might have overlooked which causes her depression.

sneak 3y ago
You should always be free to destroy yourself absent any medical reason or justification. It is a personal decision and there is no reason anyone should be required to explain or justify it. We don’t require a medical reason to enhance or build our bodies, we don’t need one to damage or destroy them. I’m already allowed to eat fried foods 10 times a day and chainsmoke and do it slowly and painfully; if that is legal then anyone should be allowed to do it in a quick, painless, and dignified fashion.
- tmelm 3y ago
  This makes sense to some extent (terminal illness or such), but one can argue as someone did above that if you're willing to make the permanent decision to "destroy" yourself, are you sane enough to legally make decision? Are you for sure not under temporary delusion, distress, or other threat? You can always "legally" "destroy" yourself through suicide, but if you want to involve a medical professional it seems very reasonable that you have the mental clarity to make the decision. Should it be illegal for the doctor to deny me an amputation that I ask for? After all, I should be "free to destroy myself" absent any justification?
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    > You can always "legally" "destroy" yourself through suicide Not in a dignified, foolproof way. E.g. can you go to a pharmacy and get a dose of morphine that will kill you with certainty? You can't, in most jurisdictions. Forcing other people to deal with the trauma of cleaning up your bloody remains after you jump off a window isn't exactly compassionate either. Give people a clean way out, even if you don't want it for yourself.

geraldwhen 3y ago

This person isn’t destroying themself. They’re forcing someone else to do it for them, and they’re shitposting online for eyeballs in the meantime. They could die at any time. This is an elaborate show by someone who needs to be told “no” and given a clear direction.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
david-gpu 3y ago
> They’re forcing someone else to do it for them No health professional is being forced to assist in an euthanasia against their will. Is it so hard to believe that all the parties involved are willing participants?

arrowsmith 3y ago

I don't read that as an argument for euthanasia, I read it as an argument that individual liberty is not absolute.

JyB 3y ago

The act of taking your own life has no reliance on countries 'recognizing' it nor promoting it. You are by definition free to do it. Being assisted in doing so is another topic.

someotherperson 3y ago

It has little to do with an "inviolable right to self ownership" -- the overwhelming majority of the world already have that. You can eat until your jaw breaks while dedicating your life to proving a flat Earth, you can go base jumping off a cliff, or you can tattoo obscenities on your forehead. Or all of it at the same time. And it's perfectly acceptable as an action of autonomy and self-ownership. Euthanasia, or suicide, is instead a problem of diminished capacity and whether or not suicide could ever be a decision of someone who is of sound mind. Much like we don't let babies walk into traffic, believe that a 9 year old is able to consent or allow severely mentally handicapped people the ability to refuse surgery -- having legal frameworks that don't encourage these things isn't about stripping away the right to self-ownership.