Do You Have the Right to Take Your Own Life?

[TankAss95]

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.

I was kinda meaning the ordinary, working men/women who have built/sustained/contributed to the society itself. Assuming a person is able-bodied, does that not mean that it is his duty to continue to contribute to his society? Obviously suicide would be rejecting this duty.

So:
1. It is your duty to uphold and protect the society dedicated to the Human Rights that yourself and others are entitled to.
2. Suicide would invalidate this duty.
3. Therefore you must not be entitled with the aright to end your own right.

Isn't this paradoxical? Or does common sense take over (I'm over complicating things?).

 

[Danoff]

I was kinda meaning the ordinary, working men/women who have built/sustained/contributed to the society itself. Assuming a person is able-bodied, does that not mean that it is his duty to continue to contribute to his society? Obviously suicide would be rejecting this duty.

So:
1. It is your duty to uphold and protect the society dedicated to the Human Rights that yourself and others are entitled to.
2. Suicide would invalidate this duty.
3. Therefore you must not be entitled with the aright to end your own right.

Isn't this paradoxical? Or does common sense take over (I'm over complicating things?).

#1 is wrong.

 

[Jubby]

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

I never said the first question was wrong, so don't treat my statement as true or false. It was an opinion, creating another question I felt of greater depth. How is any relevant question pointless? The deeper a question, the more relevant information you can gain.

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.

Everyone has the ability to make the decision for themselves, so I don't see the relevance of your new question (bold). Now you're starting a debate on whether humans should be able to make choices for themselves. By answering the original question, you are making that determination (yes they can, no they can't) as proven by your first post in this thread. By answering my question, you make an evaluation of the concept. It makes the concept of suicide harder to debate and discuss, because it asks when, why, etc. That's the point of the question, to go deeper in the conversation, therefore it's not pointless.

 

[TankAss95]

#1 is wrong.

Okay.

 

[dylansan]

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?

It's not about negative consequences, it's about rights. Lots of things you do can have negative consequences on various people, but those people do not necessarily have the right to not take those consequences. For example, if you get a job, another person may not get a job as a result. Is this violating their rights? Of course not. If you decide to spend your life being lazy and not improving the world in any way, does that violate anyone's rights? Is it immoral? No. If it was, someone could force you to work for their benefit, or for the benefit of the country.

This is why I find war drafts to be so despicable. Forcing someone to work or even risk their lives for someone else's safety destroys the whole purpose of rights. It means taking someone's rights away so someone else can have them. The same goes for forcing someone to remain alive when they don't want to. Even if keeping them alive benefits someone else, you're putting one person's rights ahead of another's.

 

[TankAss95]

It's not about negative consequences, it's about rights. Lots of things you do can have negative consequences on various people, but those people do not necessarily have the right to not take those consequences. For example, if you get a job, another person may not get a job as a result. Is this violating their rights? Of course not. If you decide to spend your life being lazy and not improving the world in any way, does that violate anyone's rights? Is it immoral? No. If it was, someone could force you to work for their benefit, or for the benefit of the country.

This is why I find war drafts to be so despicable. Forcing someone to work or even risk their lives for someone else's safety destroys the whole purpose of rights. It means taking someone's rights away so someone else can have them. The same goes for forcing someone to remain alive when they don't want to. Even if keeping them alive benefits someone else, you're putting one person's rights ahead of another's.

Deep stuff bro. 👍

This reminds me of the whole thing about climate change. People said: "Why should I have to stop polluting for the sake of future generations? It's not my fault that people in the past messed stuff up! I can do as I like!"
The thing is though, that they didn't realise that many things that they depended and enjoyed were because of the effort of the people before them (the very people who had done the damage)! So in a way they could not blame the people of the past for passing on the burden of the sacrifices they had to carry out (recycling, etc).

 

[arora]

No child asked to be born into debt, as the U.S. stands that debt is high, and one is granted an I.D. number in hopes the debt is paid. Slavery much?

If during your life here, you creat debt or dependents, I believe there is an obligation you should fulfill, but it amaizes me some feel an aparent outrage of anothers right to define their life/death.

While as a Christian I'm against suicide, I am not blind to personal liberties. I struggle with determerming one's soundness of mind at their point of decision, it's complex, maybe case by case but who has the determing right ultimitly? I will apose a minor's right to die just as TM states a parent should not commet the act. If they require care then some decisions will be made for them.

I believe it is a right, one I wish to see seldom exercised.

 

[Touring Mars]

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?)

That others have toiled to make a country what it is doesn't have a bearing on one's rights. By the same argument, you could have said "Does that mean that the citizen is not morally right to go and live in Australia, as that would have a negative consequence on the country as a whole?".

It might be ungrateful, unhelpful, negative or highly questionable, but it's not necessarily morally wrong. Only if by killing themselves (or by analogy, moving to Australia) they affect the rights of others e.g. by killing or injuring someone (or by analogy, inflicting Australia on their children ) could it be considered morally wrong. As has been discussed previously, the circumstances wouldn't affect that person's right to determine their own fate, but the moral implications of their behaviour are a different issue...

-

For the record, I am speaking from experience here. I know what it's like to lose someone to Australia. He took his wife with him too. I guess no-one will ever fully understand what drove him to do it - some say he was fed up of London, others pointed to him having a predisposition to moving to Australia on account of him being from there originally. But either way, the consequences were the same

 

[BobK]

What about people who kill themselves (or allow themselves to be killed) in order to save others? For example, a soldier diving onto a grenade, giving up his life to save those of others in the near vicinity. Or a mother diving into a raging torrent in order to toss her infant to shore. Or someone seeing an assassin raising a gun and pointing it at a target, and interposing himself between the shooter and the target.

I think few would argue that they're not acting morally, yet they're all voluntarily getting themselves killed.

 

[Tesla]

For the record, I am speaking from experience here. I know what it's like to lose someone to Australia. He took his wife with him too. I guess no-one will ever fully understand what drove him to do it - some say he was fed up of London, others pointed to him having a predisposition to moving to Australia on account of him being from there originally. But either way, the consequences were the same

I just don't understand how someone could do that to themselves. There must have been some form of childhood trauma for them to actually go through with it I was in a similar situation once, thankfully I snapped out of it and thought of what I was really doing to myself.

-

Yes, you have the right to take your own life. I don't see how anyone could argue against having the right to do it, although arguing against its moral implications for those around the deceased definitely has validity.

 

[Danoff]

I never said the first question was wrong, so don't treat my statement as true or false. It was an opinion, creating another question I felt of greater depth. How is any relevant question pointless? The deeper a question, the more relevant information you can gain.
Everyone has the ability to make the decision for themselves, so I don't see the relevance of your new question (bold). Now you're starting a debate on whether humans should be able to make choices for themselves. By answering the original question, you are making that determination (yes they can, no they can't) as proven by your first post in this thread. By answering my question, you make an evaluation of the concept. It makes the concept of suicide harder to debate and discuss, because it asks when, why, etc. That's the point of the question, to go deeper in the conversation, therefore it's not pointless.

Should someone take their own life?

...that's up to them to decide. You have no ability or business to weigh in on that question.

 

[Baron Blitz Red]

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.

A hard question to answer tbh, as it would depend on the situation, and if I knew the person or not.

Sometimes, in the case of a soldier jumping on a grenade, that suicide is for the greater good. Other situations, you might not have the time to react, or your interference could be harmful to others.

Given the choice, yes, I would probably try to talk that person out of it. If my attempt to persuade that person was successful, I would feel better about myself.

Then again, if that person I "saved" were to then go out and commit murder...

Sometimes it is better to leave well enough alone.

 

[Danoff]

Then again, if that person I "saved" were to then go out and commit murder...

...that has happened.

 

[Jubby]

...that's up to them to decide. You have no ability or business to weigh in on that question.

Why not? Anyone has the ability to profess their opinion on this matter. If you aren't for expressing opinions, then I think you might be in the wrong sub-forum.

How about this situation: If someone was thinking about committing suicide, and they asked you for help with the decision, what would you do?

 

[Azuremen]

Why not? Anyone has the ability to profess their opinion on this matter. If you aren't for expressing opinions, then I think you might be in the wrong sub-forum.

How about this situation: If someone was thinking about committing suicide, and they asked you for help with the decision, what would you do?

Having an opinion and what Danoff is talking of are different things.

I can have the opinion that someone shouldn't smoke because it is bad for them. I don't have the right to prevent them from smoking because it is bad for them.

Or if my friend should keep dating some girl. I can have the opinion, but I have no right to decide it for him.

Same for suicide. I can have an opinion they shouldn't take their life, but I have no right to keep them from doing so.

 

[Jubby]

Having an opinion and what Danoff is talking of are different things.

I can have the opinion that someone shouldn't smoke because it is bad for them. I don't have the right to prevent them from smoking because it is bad for them.

Or if my friend should keep dating some girl. I can have the opinion, but I have no right to decide it for him.

Same for suicide. I can have an opinion they shouldn't take their life, but I have no right to keep them from doing so.

If he's saying I can't force them to/stop them, then I agree. If he's saying I cannot have an opinion that someone should or should not, then he's wrong, as you noted.

Even if someone cannot force another not to commit suicide, here's a point towards the argument for anyone who feels compelled to reason with an individual(which is my major point):

Any of the items that you mention, there can be a law against them taking away someone's right. As someone mentioned prior, there are laws in some places in relation to suicide. There were many more in the past. As I understand it, Germany has homicide by omission by a third knowing party. Some people feel it's morally wrong to look the other way when someone wants to commit suicide. In most cases the former laws have made way to legislation that commits people for psychiatric help for people threatening or attempting suicide. So even though there may be no law taking away the right, it's seen as an act of unsound mind.

 

[Epic B]

I wouldn't do it, but it's your life. You have the right to do whatever you want with your life and yourself, so it's your choice. But personally, I wouldn't. It's my life, and I shall live it to its fullest.

 

[Danoff]

If he's saying I can't force them to/stop them, then I agree. If he's saying I cannot have an opinion that someone should or should not, then he's wrong, as you noted.

You can have whatever opinions you want. But your opinions have no bearing on anyone else's personal decision about whether to take their own life. You can think they're stupid or smart all you want, the choice is theirs. I don't see any point discussing whether it's stupid or smart to commit suicide since there are an infinite number of reasons why one should want to commit suicide, and an infinite number of reasons why one should not want to commit suicide.

Any of the items that you mention, there can be a law against them taking away someone's right. As someone mentioned prior, there are laws in some places in relation to suicide. There were many more in the past. As I understand it, Germany has homicide by omission by a third knowing party. Some people feel it's morally wrong to look the other way when someone wants to commit suicide. In most cases the former laws have made way to legislation that commits people for psychiatric help for people threatening or attempting suicide. So even though there may be no law taking away the right, it's seen as an act of unsound mind.

On that issue, Germany violates the rights of its citizens. You have a right to look the other way.