3 ms·

No, this is wrong in both ways. Painful emotions are painful and not necessarily transiet and transiency is irrelevant to autonomy anyway. In fact, any argument

No, this is wrong in both ways. Painful emotions are painful and not necessarily transiet and transiency is irrelevant to autonomy anyway. In fact, any argument that doesn't underminde the assumption of the right to bodily autonomy is trumped by autonomy. People with temporary problems have a right to bodily autonomy and so do irrational people. Everyone does and doesn't need to justify themselves to anyone. The only exception is if they're hurting somone else.

enugu 2y ago
> transiency is irrelevant to autonomy If you are allowing transient decisions for giving away a life, then transient decisions would be allowed for lesser stakes too. Most societies are debating even something like unrestricted access to drugs. There are people who would take drugs as a conscious/long-term plan for whom the transiency distinction is irrelevant but there are also those who hate it while succumbing to it and would gladly sign a contract to stop access to consumption, if that were practically possible to enforce. Contracts often involve trading away autonomy of a future self whether for the good or the bad. Signing such a contract is often not legally valid if the person is in a disturbed mental state. A more common example, children are not allowed to buy alcohol or consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. The issue being that the immediate decision of the child can be something they would reject if they have more experience and had the ability to make a more informed choice. Of course, the problem of impulsive bad decisions doesn't go away as an adult, but considerations of intrinsic freedom and the problems of giving power to a state become much bigger. When a criminal commits a crime, a premeditated/planned action is treated more severely than an impulsive action which in turn is treated more severely than an action caused by a mental illness. Taking one's life is a much more drastic step than drugs or signing a contract. > not necessarily transient Not assuming this, chronic examples don't rule out the existence of large families of cases where things can and do look better due to time and a change in circumstances.
- guerrilla 2y ago
  This is such a terrible argument. "People might regret things, therefore we should abolish freedom." I guess we should have the state make all decisions for people, just in case. Wouldn't want anyone to ever change their mind about anything and have negative feelings*. Good thinking. * Dead people don't even have feelings and can't regret anything. Your argument isn't even applicable. There are literally zero consequences for the person.
  - enugu 2y ago
    This is an obvious strawman('We cant deregulate X when we are heavily regulating Y which is much weaker than X' -> 'The government should regulate every aspect of life '), So bye.

enugu 2y ago

> transiency is irrelevant to autonomy If you are allowing transient decisions for giving away a life, then transient decisions would be allowed for lesser stakes too. Most societies are debating even something like unrestricted access to drugs. There are people who would take drugs as a conscious/long-term plan for whom the transiency distinction is irrelevant but there are also those who hate it while succumbing to it and would gladly sign a contract to stop access to consumption, if that were practically possible to enforce. Contracts often involve trading away autonomy of a future self whether for the good or the bad. Signing such a contract is often not legally valid if the person is in a disturbed mental state. A more common example, children are not allowed to buy alcohol or consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. The issue being that the immediate decision of the child can be something they would reject if they have more experience and had the ability to make a more informed choice. Of course, the problem of impulsive bad decisions doesn't go away as an adult, but considerations of intrinsic freedom and the problems of giving power to a state become much bigger. When a criminal commits a crime, a premeditated/planned action is treated more severely than an impulsive action which in turn is treated more severely than an action caused by a mental illness. Taking one's life is a much more drastic step than drugs or signing a contract. > not necessarily transient Not assuming this, chronic examples don't rule out the existence of large families of cases where things can and do look better due to time and a change in circumstances.

guerrilla 2y ago
This is such a terrible argument. "People might regret things, therefore we should abolish freedom." I guess we should have the state make all decisions for people, just in case. Wouldn't want anyone to ever change their mind about anything and have negative feelings*. Good thinking. * Dead people don't even have feelings and can't regret anything. Your argument isn't even applicable. There are literally zero consequences for the person.
- enugu 2y ago
  This is an obvious strawman('We cant deregulate X when we are heavily regulating Y which is much weaker than X' -> 'The government should regulate every aspect of life '), So bye.