Do You Have the Right to Take Your Own Life?

[MatskiMonk]

No, that would be murder.

Says who? (As in, who gets the right to say no?)

edit: since I'm not sticking around for this argument...

ask yourself, does your GT 5 save game have the right to delete itself, all on it's own?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Do I have the right to murder 20 people?

That depends on if they're trying to kill you and their reasons.

 

[niky]

Says who? (As in, who gets the right to say no?)

edit: since I'm not sticking around for this argument...

ask yourself, does your GT 5 save game have the right to delete itself, all on it's own?

If those people are not in the act of murdering, violating or mauling someone else and have not committed such acts in the past and are not planning to commit such acts, and this killing is not "collateral" damage in some military operation, then, it's an indefensible act of murder.

And your GT5 save file has no rights, not being a sentient being.

I think the question of Rights, versus what is 'right' is quite a fine line really.

The only thing that is not "right" is to violate other people's Rights. Violating your own rights is not wrong, merely stupid. But that's a question for the Human Rights thread.

 

[MatskiMonk]

And your GT5 save file has no rights, not being a sentient being.

It appears to have the right to not be copied.

Seriously though, suicide is the murder of your parents child, your childrens parent, or your siblings sibling.. it's essentially wrong in the same way as murder, to condone suicide is to condone murder IMO, and if you're going to argue about to whom life belongs, is your life yours, or does it belong to your parents, since they made you? If you disregard the above, then do you have the right to murder someone with NO family at all? I don't know... and I'm positive no-one has the answer for the question in the OP.

 

[Exorcet]

Seriously though, suicide is the murder of your parents child, your childrens parent, or your siblings sibling

Then is killing in self defense murder?

it's essentially wrong in the same way as murder

Murder isn't wrong because of killing, murder is wrong because you take someone's life unwillingly. Suicide takes out the unwilling part, so it's completely different. If you're going to argue that the rest of the family is unwilling to see someone kill themself, then should the rest of the family also have the right to prevent you to do as you please your own possessions?

is your life yours

Yes.

since they made you?

That doesn't matter in the slightest. Creation is not ownership, and is does not entitle ownership of a living being.

do you have the right to murder someone with NO family at all?

No, that's murder.

 

[niky]

It appears to have the right to not be copied.

Nope. Not anymore. I have my GT5 save file on two different USBs. And that's not a right, that's a restriction.

Seriously though, suicide is the murder of...

Mere semantics. Just because people are related to you doesn't mean they own you.

Murder is killing another being. Suicide is killing of self. As Exorcet says, Murder is taking someone else's life against their own wishes. If you're taking your own life willingly, then that's different.

-

Mind you, I don't condone suicide except in cases of euthanasia due to grave debilitating illness... and I would be completely crushed if anyone in my family committed it, but nobody can claim ownership to anyone else's life, except if that person forfeits that right by... for example... taking the life of another person.

 

[MatskiMonk]

That doesn't matter in the slightest. Creation is not ownership, and is does not entitle ownership of a living being.

So I can walk into a new born baby wing, pick one, and walk out with it, and I'm not kidnapping....? right?

 

[Exorcet]

So I can walk into a new born baby wing, pick one, and walk out with it, and I'm not kidnapping....? right?

Of course you're kidnapping, it's not your kid.

Mere semantics as niky said above.

The actual parents are responsible for the child until it can care for itself, and since they're the ones who conceived it, they probably want to take care of it, and they are ones who have that right before a random stranger.

Fastforward 30 years when the child has a job, etc and the parents have absolutely zero say in his/her life. Even if you only looked 10, or 5 years after birth, parents have no right prevent their child from listening to certain music or whatever just because they don't like (as in, it doesn't sound good to them) that particular kind of music.

 

[niky]

Parents are responsible for children because those children didn't ask to be born. You made it, you have the responsibility to care for it until it can care for itself.

Now kidnapping is taking a person against their own will. A child will almost always prefer to live with its mother*, even a baby... so... kidnapping a child... wrong.

While we get what you're saying, in that you have to consider the effects of suicide on family, that still doesn't change the fact that you do have the right to decide whether or not you (personally) will live or die.




If the parents are doing something so awful to the kid that they don't prefer staying with them, there might be some sense in taking them away from the parents... but then, that will be with the consent of the child, and it will be done by the Government, mostly...

 

[Baron Blitz Red]

My question is for the people who said No...

So how would you feel if you didn't have the "right" to commit suicide? Would you really be able to concede the fact you couldn't decide your own fate?

Just curious, not trying to be offensive...

Have a good one

 

[boomee]

My parents being 18 and careless gave me my life. I'll do with it as I see fit.

That just shows selfeshness and ignorance

 

[Schwartz]

That just shows selfeshness and ignorance

Care to explain further?

 

[RTSolvalou]

It is the most foremost human right of all.

 

[Slash]

That just shows selfeshness and ignorance

How so? Are you saying his parents are allowed to govern him until they pass?

 

[TankAss95]

No. People are of infinite value, and we should rather try to help others in view of a long time goal, even if this means restricting the ability of a person to do irrational, immediate desires.
For example, a student may be considering suicide because of exam stress, or family problems. Instead of granting the right for that person to do damage upon himself we should help him to get better with the goal of him leading a satisfiyingly happy life instead of ending it. People who consider suicide are not 'cowards' or 'weak' but are just facing difficulties that they see no way out of. We need to help each other through these difficult times.
Has any body here had a really difficult time and maybe a friend stopped you from doing something harmful or even ending your life? Are you not glad that you were not absolutely free to do that action now looking back on it? Think about it.

But euthanasia is a really difficult issue though. I don't really know the answer to that.

 

[zedextreme8177]

^ You took the words right out of my mouth, also: best avatar ever 👍

Suicide is a quite rash way to solve a problem IMO, helping out a person who is close to taking his/her life would be much better in the long run.

My question is for the people who said No...

So how would you feel if you didn't have the "right" to commit suicide? Would you really be able to concede the fact you couldn't decide your own fate?

Just curious, not trying to be offensive...

Have a good one

Before a person attempts to commit suicide, they should know the implications, how it will affect their family, etc.

I've known a few people who have been close to doing it. It took a lot of effort to convince them that living their lives to the fullest is a better option. All of them were glad that they didn't take the decision to end their lives

That brings about another question to the people who said yes:

If you ever saw a person attempting to commit suicide, would you just stand there and let him/her do it? Or would you try and prevent it?

Again no offense intended, just want to know what you think.

 

[Zenith]

A good question to consider is "Do you owe something to this world?"

I say yes. Your family, friends, and society (many will say god as well) have poured effort into your growth as a human being. To throw it away and let them deal with the consequences is unacceptable.

You may not have asked for it, but nobody asked to pay taxes either. It may suck, but you need to pay for what you take. This fits nicely with the concept of euthanasia. When someone has "payed it up" or outlasted their time, then suicide/euthanasia is acceptable.

This is not a core belief of mine. I'm happy to hear constructive criticism.

 

[Doth1s]

Before a person attempts to commit suicide, they should know the implications, how it will affect their family, etc.

That's on the family.

Again no offense intended, just want to know what you think.

Depends on if I know them. If it is some random person out on the street, then no. If it is someone I know, then who knows how I would act.

 

[Crispy]

Depends.

If I'm in terrible physical pain due to an illness with no cure, where the only thing that will happen is I'll die a slow, painful death or become unable to function, then yes, I think I do have the right to put a bullet in my head.

If there's a bully at school, or something is really stressful, then no, I shouldn't have the right, because this bully won't stay with me for my entire life, and stress usually goes away. I should only have the right if I'm in terrible pain, not because life sucks.

 

[dylansan]

No. People are of infinite value, and we should rather try to help others in view of a long time goal, even if this means restricting the ability of a person to do irrational, immediate desires.
For example, a student may be considering suicide because of exam stress, or family problems. Instead of granting the right for that person to do damage upon himself we should help him to get better with the goal of him leading a satisfiyingly happy life instead of ending it. People who consider suicide are not 'cowards' or 'weak' but are just facing difficulties that they see no way out of. We need to help each other through these difficult times.
Has any body here had a really difficult time and maybe a friend stopped you from doing something harmful or even ending your life? Are you not glad that you were not absolutely free to do that action now looking back on it? Think about it.

But euthanasia is a really difficult issue though. I don't really know the answer to that.

I agree with the sentiment that suicidal people should be helped, and encouraged to solve their problems in a different way. However, people still have the right to take their life, even if it's a bad decision. just as we have the right to make any other bad decisions so long as we don't violate anyone else's rights.

Smoking or excessive drinking, or even just laziness are bad decisions that negatively affect a person's life, but as long as you don't violate any rights in doing those actions, you are absolutely free to do so.

 

[Touring Mars]

Depends.

If I'm in terrible physical pain due to an illness with no cure, where the only thing that will happen is I'll die a slow, painful death or become unable to function, then yes, I think I do have the right to put a bullet in my head.

If there's a bully at school, or something is really stressful, then no, I shouldn't have the right, because this bully won't stay with me for my entire life, and stress usually goes away. I should only have the right if I'm in terrible pain, not because life sucks.

The question of whether or not individuals have the right to end their own lives is completely separate from whether or not the decision to end one's own life is justifiable/defensible. You either have the right to decide your own ultimate fate, or you don't. The circumstances have no bearing on that.

Whether someone's life is happy, privileged and comfortable or miserable, deprived and wretched has no bearing on the fact that that someone has a right to life. The person's circumstances have no bearing on their right to life. Likewise, whether someone's decision to end their own life is selfish, pointless, tragic etc. doesn't negate their right to decide their own fate.

If we are not afforded the right to decide our own fate, then that means permitting others to decide our fate for us, including keeping us alive against our will.

 

[TankAss95]

The question of whether or not individuals have the right to end their own lives is completely separate from whether or not the decision to end one's own life is justifiable/defensible. You either have the right to decide your own ultimate fate, or you don't. The circumstances have no bearing on that.

Whether someone's life is happy, privileged and comfortable or miserable, deprived and wretched has no bearing on the fact that that someone has a right to life. The person's circumstances have no bearing on their right to life. Likewise, whether someone's decision to end their own life is selfish, pointless, tragic etc. doesn't negate their right to decide their own fate.

If we are not afforded the right to decide our own fate, then that means permitting others to decide our fate for us, including keeping us alive against our will.

Interesting. I understand now. 👍

What if someone is dependent upon your survival?

 

[Keef]

What if someone is dependent upon your survival?

That'd be an unfortunate circumstance, and it would be irresponsible to take your own life. But that situation still has no bearing on the fact that you have the right to your own life, and therefore the right to end it. Rights - life, liberty, and property - exist independent of any circumstance, by virtue of the human mind's power to understand them. Even independent of humans' existence they would still "exist", an idea sort of waiting to be understood by something or someone. They're almost like a god, except that they're logically and physically demonstrable.

 

[Jubby]

I wonder why the wording is "have the right"? No offense to the OP, but to me, it isn't as deep as: Should someone take their own life? The question is a yes or no question as asked. This subject isn't really a yes or no answer, in my humble opinion. I'm glad most have taken it the step further.

To answer the question, yes. To answer my revised question, they can if they want. However, it can be detrimental to those who love them, and in most cases doesn't provide the benefits for the action on the whole. It gives a selfish benefit, and there aren't many situations that it benefits others positively.

 

[TankAss95]

That'd be an unfortunate circumstance, and it would be irresponsible to take your own life. But that situation still has no bearing on the fact that you have the right to your own life, and therefore the right to end it. Rights - life, liberty, and property - exist independent of any circumstance, by virtue of the human mind's power to understand them. Even independent of humans' existence they would still "exist", an idea sort of waiting to be understood by something or someone. They're almost like a god, except that they're logically and physically demonstrable.

Okay I understand. I kinda get confused with negative/positive liberty and Human Rights.

So are Human Rights binding and true even when questions of the value of life itself introduced?

 

[Danoff]

I wonder why the wording is "have the right"? No offense to the OP, but to me, it isn't as deep as: Should someone take their own life?

If I could offer a little explanation, it's because the second question is pointless, and the first question is all that matters.

You have no idea, nor will you ever know, whether someone else should take their lives. You can't know what they're experiencing, and not knowing that you can't know whether their decision to end their lives is correct. The only relevant question is whether they should have the ability to make that determination. If you think otherwise, ask yourself why you think you have the ability to ever tell someone they should kill themselves? If you think you can make that determination, presumably you can see yourself telling someone who does not want to commit suicide that they should, in fact, commit suicide. If you find that notion repulsive, you should find it repulsive to tell someone who wants to commit suicide that they are wrong.

And of course the question of whether they should have the right to make that determination comes down to whether they automatically owe their lives to anyone else. You can just as easily say everyone has the right to force them to die as to say everyone has the right to force them to live. Neither of those is correct, and so everyone has the fundamental right to determine whether they want to continue living.

 

[Doth1s]

Okay I understand. I kinda get confused with negative/positive liberty and Human Rights.

So are Human Rights binding and true even when questions of the value of life itself introduced?

Life has no value other than what your government decides to tax it as.

 

[Touring Mars]

Interesting. I understand now. 👍

What if someone is dependent upon your survival?

If a parent kills themselves, leaving a child to die as a direct consequence, then that would constitute an immoral act in itself. As such, the act of suicide could rightly be described as a crime, a despicable act, wrong etc., but only because it involves the violation of someone else's rights (i.e. those of the child). Whether or not the person who killed themselves had a right to end their own life is not relevant when considering the morality of causing the death of the child.

edit: tree'd forest'd!

 

[TankAss95]

If a parent kills themselves, leaving a child to die as a direct consequence, then that would constitute an immoral act in itself. As such, the act of suicide could rightly be described as a crime, a despicable act, wrong etc., but only because it involves the violation of someone else's rights (i.e. those of the child). Whether or not the person who killed themselves had a right to end their own life is not relevant when considering the morality of causing the death of the child.

edit: tree'd forest'd!

A person has been born into a democracy whom many people have dedicated their lives to uphold and protect. Does that mean that the citizen is not morally right to kill himself, as it would have a negative consequence on the country/territory as a whole?

We are privileged to live in such territories as we are in, so it means that we are morally responsible to contribute to society too (pay our taxes for example lol).

And by the way I don't really know about this stuff I'm just curious.

 

[Danoff]

A person has been born into a democracy whom many people have dedicated their lives to uphold and protect.

The people you're talking about dedicated their lives to uphold and protect a society dedicated to human rights - including the right to determine the outcome of your own life. Just because we have a military, that doesn't make us slaves who must continue working and paying taxes.