Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Questions on Suicide, Will, and Infants

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 10:50:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'm going to pose a few questions for discussion.

What justifies forcing people to live when they seriously prefer death?

When considering that you cannot know if it wants to be born, is it wrong to conceive children?

Is free will a right?

---

Go.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 11:17:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 10:50:04 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'm going to pose a few questions for discussion.

What justifies forcing people to live when they seriously prefer death?
When someone get's a gender change, they can't simply walk up to a reassignment surgeon and pay them to get it done. They first need to consult a psychologist and then wait half a year before coming back to the psychologist to confirm that they still want their gender changed. It is illegal to get your gender changed before then. In fact, with many big decisions, the amount of time that you are required to wait to ensure that a temporary state of mind is not going to screw you over increases. Death is the ultimate decision and has a waiting time of... forever. You're not allowed to chose death because we know that the decision involved with it is derived from a broken or traumatised state of mind. The solution is to fix the mental health of the individual, not kill them.

When considering that you cannot know if it wants to be born, is it wrong to conceive children?
The assumption behind this premise is wrong. It's not wrong to do something that someone doesn't want you to do. Furthermore, it's not your right to decide if you exist or not. Your existence is inevitable, given that 100% of everyone who exists, exists. Therefore there's no other option but to exist.

Is free will a right?
Free will is a construct used to explain an apparent phenomenon. Before asking if it's a right, you need to define it. I define it as the ability to make decisions independent of biological influences. In this case, it doesn't make sense to say that it's my right since it's merely a description of a natural phenomenon. It's like saying 'Is thinking a right?' Doesn't make sense, because it describes something which either exists or doesn't exist.
For Mother Russia.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 11:25:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:17:05 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/4/2016 10:50:04 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'm going to pose a few questions for discussion.

What justifies forcing people to live when they seriously prefer death?
When someone get's a gender change, they can't simply walk up to a reassignment surgeon and pay them to get it done. They first need to consult a psychologist and then wait half a year before coming back to the psychologist to confirm that they still want their gender changed. It is illegal to get your gender changed before then. In fact, with many big decisions, the amount of time that you are required to wait to ensure that a temporary state of mind is not going to screw you over increases. Death is the ultimate decision and has a waiting time of... forever. You're not allowed to chose death because we know that the decision involved with it is derived from a broken or traumatised state of mind. The solution is to fix the mental health of the individual, not kill them.


When considering that you cannot know if it wants to be born, is it wrong to conceive children?
The assumption behind this premise is wrong. It's not wrong to do something that someone doesn't want you to do. Furthermore, it's not your right to decide if you exist or not. Your existence is inevitable, given that 100% of everyone who exists, exists. Therefore there's no other option but to exist.


Is free will a right?
Free will is a construct used to explain an apparent phenomenon. Before asking if it's a right, you need to define it.

The human ability to make choices on what to do with no external influence or coercion, and accepting responsibility for actions when making them.

I define it as the ability to make decisions independent of biological influences. In this case, it doesn't make sense to say that it's my right since it's merely a description of a natural phenomenon. It's like saying 'Is thinking a right?' Doesn't make sense, because it describes something which either exists or doesn't exist.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 11:29:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:25:44 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Is free will a right?
Free will is a construct used to explain an apparent phenomenon. Before asking if it's a right, you need to define it.

The human ability to make choices on what to do with no external influence or coercion, and accepting responsibility for actions when making them.

Since you say it's an ability, it's like my ability to contract my bicep and flex my arm. It describes an inherent mental ability. How does the question, 'Is free will a right?' make sense in this context?
For Mother Russia.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 11:31:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:17:05 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/4/2016 10:50:04 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'm going to pose a few questions for discussion.

What justifies forcing people to live when they seriously prefer death?
When someone get's a gender change, they can't simply walk up to a reassignment surgeon and pay them to get it done. They first need to consult a psychologist and then wait half a year before coming back to the psychologist to confirm that they still want their gender changed. It is illegal to get your gender changed before then. In fact, with many big decisions, the amount of time that you are required to wait to ensure that a temporary state of mind is not going to screw you over increases. Death is the ultimate decision and has a waiting time of... forever. You're not allowed to chose death because we know that the decision involved with it is derived from a broken or traumatised state of mind. The solution is to fix the mental health of the individual, not kill them.

None of that justifies why we force people to stay alive. All you did was state the status quo, but not question it.

When considering that you cannot know if it wants to be born, is it wrong to conceive children?
The assumption behind this premise is wrong. It's not wrong to do something that someone doesn't want you to do.

Sure, but when that action directly affects someone else and they do not consent - is it wrong?

Furthermore, it's not your right to decide if you exist or not.

Is it someone else's?

Your existence is inevitable, given that 100% of everyone who exists, exists. Therefore there's no other option but to exist.

Unless you choose to not exist.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 11:32:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:29:49 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/4/2016 11:25:44 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Is free will a right?
Free will is a construct used to explain an apparent phenomenon. Before asking if it's a right, you need to define it.

The human ability to make choices on what to do with no external influence or coercion, and accepting responsibility for actions when making them.

Since you say it's an ability, it's like my ability to contract my bicep and flex my arm. It describes an inherent mental ability. How does the question, 'Is free will a right?' make sense in this context?

If someone who plans on killing themselves has recognized and accepted the consequence of death, do we have the right to stop them by force?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 11:41:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:32:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
If someone who plans on killing themselves has recognized and accepted the consequence of death, do we have the right to stop them by force?

Yes. We know that such decisions are often caused by a biological abnormality, so their 'free-will' if it exists, is not at play here. In which case forcing them to chose life is better than their psychological state forcing them to chose death.
For Mother Russia.
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 11:45:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:31:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
None of that justifies why we force people to stay alive. All you did was state the status quo, but not question it.
We force people to stay alive because the desire to die is a disease that we fight. Imagine you had a virus that made you say 'stab me' whenever you were around people. Your actual intent is to be normal, but you have a problem that needs to be solved, and it's not solved by stabbing you.

Sure, but when that action directly affects someone else and they do not consent - is it wrong?
Again, consent is irrelevant. It's not your choice to exist in the first place. You don't have the ability nor right to decide that.

Furthermore, it's not your right to decide if you exist or not.
Is it someone else's?
No, nobody has the ability to make you exist per se. People have the ability to make new people, but the fact that it was you is a different matter.

Your existence is inevitable, given that 100% of everyone who exists, exists. Therefore there's no other option but to exist.
Unless you choose to not exist.
What this says is that the beginning of your existence is inevitable and cannot be changed. You can't choose to not come into existence.
For Mother Russia.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 11:56:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:41:23 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/4/2016 11:32:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
If someone who plans on killing themselves has recognized and accepted the consequence of death, do we have the right to stop them by force?

Yes. We know that such decisions are often caused by a biological abnormality, so their 'free-will' if it exists, is not at play here. In which case forcing them to chose life is better than their psychological state forcing them to chose death.

How can we blame suicide purely on biology when suicides are often reactive? Suicides, typically, are planned and premeditated. People who attempt it almost always continually consider the concept while being stressed by chains of depressive events and circumstances.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 12:05:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:56:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/4/2016 11:41:23 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/4/2016 11:32:13 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
If someone who plans on killing themselves has recognized and accepted the consequence of death, do we have the right to stop them by force?

Yes. We know that such decisions are often caused by a biological abnormality, so their 'free-will' if it exists, is not at play here. In which case forcing them to chose life is better than their psychological state forcing them to chose death.

How can we blame suicide purely on biology when suicides are often reactive? Suicides, typically, are planned and premeditated. People who attempt it almost always continually consider the concept while being stressed by chains of depressive events and circumstances.

We can blame suicide largely on biology, not purely on biology. People who commit suicide tend to suffer from major anxiety disorder, which is commonly accepted as biologically caused. Behavioural geneticists attribute 50% of our personality to our genes. If the rest of it is environmental response, there's not much room for free will. Psychologists don't tend to believe in free will for this reason. Furthermore, assuming free will exists where it doesn't (suicide) allows people to make immoral decisions to allow the suicide because they believe the person is making a conscious, rational decision when they aren't.
For Mother Russia.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 12:23:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:45:35 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/4/2016 11:31:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
None of that justifies why we force people to stay alive. All you did was state the status quo, but not question it.
We force people to stay alive because the desire to die is a disease that we fight. Imagine you had a virus that made you say 'stab me' whenever you were around people. Your actual intent is to be normal, but you have a problem that needs to be solved, and it's not solved by stabbing you.

People who want to die instead of stay sick about always have an incurable problem. Then, it can't be solved in the way you want.

Sure, but when that action directly affects someone else and they do not consent - is it wrong?
Again, consent is irrelevant. It's not your choice to exist in the first place. You don't have the ability nor right to decide that.

You're speaking past me and evading the question. It doesn't matter that we don't choose to exist: the question is regarding something someone does to us - creating us.

Furthermore, it's not your right to decide if you exist or not.
Is it someone else's?
No, nobody has the ability to make you exist per se. People have the ability to make new people, but the fact that it was you is a different matter.

Their action is directly responsible for my existence.

Your existence is inevitable, given that 100% of everyone who exists, exists. Therefore there's no other option but to exist.
Unless you choose to not exist.
What this says is that the beginning of your existence is inevitable and cannot be changed. You can't choose to not come into existence.

But someone can choose to make you. And that gets to the heart of the question - is it wrong to do something that will directly affect someone if they cannot consent: in this case, birthing children.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 12:33:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 12:23:20 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/4/2016 11:45:35 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/4/2016 11:31:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
None of that justifies why we force people to stay alive. All you did was state the status quo, but not question it.
We force people to stay alive because the desire to die is a disease that we fight. Imagine you had a virus that made you say 'stab me' whenever you were around people. Your actual intent is to be normal, but you have a problem that needs to be solved, and it's not solved by stabbing you.

People who want to die instead of stay sick about always have an incurable problem. Then, it can't be solved in the way you want.

If it's to remove a specific problem that we can't otherwise eliminate, sure, kill them. I was thinking of depression based suicide.

Sure, but when that action directly affects someone else and they do not consent - is it wrong?
Again, consent is irrelevant. It's not your choice to exist in the first place. You don't have the ability nor right to decide that.

You're speaking past me and evading the question. It doesn't matter that we don't choose to exist: the question is regarding something someone does to us - creating us.

I'm addressing a faulty assumption underlying your first premise, consent is not relevant to your existence. Choice is not involved at all, so saying that it somehow affects people's ability to come into existence is not a valid argument.

Furthermore, it's not your right to decide if you exist or not.
Is it someone else's?
No, nobody has the ability to make you exist per se. People have the ability to make new people, but the fact that it was you is a different matter.

Their action is directly responsible for my existence.
Yes, but you don't exist so looking for your consent makes no sense. They are making a new human being, and up until you're born, you as a personality with consciousness don't exist. You're just a biological sack of chemicals. In fact, it's believed that conscious experience develops about a year after birth, from the fact that conscious experience and memory are strongly linked, and long term memory formation doesn't begin until long after the limbic system is sufficiently developed.

But someone can choose to make you. And that gets to the heart of the question - is it wrong to do something that will directly affect someone if they cannot consent: in this case, birthing children.

No, someone can't choose to make you, they can however choose to make a person. You don't exist and you don't have an identity so you can't say that they are choosing to make you. Again however, consent is not relevant. A person can't comprehend the question 'do you want to exist.' Until many years into their lives. A baby however shows all the survival instincts that allows us to conclude that they desire to survive. Therefore, all babies want to live.
For Mother Russia.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 12:41:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 12:33:25 AM, Syko wrote:
At 6/5/2016 12:23:20 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/4/2016 11:45:35 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/4/2016 11:31:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
None of that justifies why we force people to stay alive. All you did was state the status quo, but not question it.
We force people to stay alive because the desire to die is a disease that we fight. Imagine you had a virus that made you say 'stab me' whenever you were around people. Your actual intent is to be normal, but you have a problem that needs to be solved, and it's not solved by stabbing you.

People who want to die instead of stay sick about always have an incurable problem. Then, it can't be solved in the way you want.

If it's to remove a specific problem that we can't otherwise eliminate, sure, kill them. I was thinking of depression based suicide.

Sure, but when that action directly affects someone else and they do not consent - is it wrong?
Again, consent is irrelevant. It's not your choice to exist in the first place. You don't have the ability nor right to decide that.

You're speaking past me and evading the question. It doesn't matter that we don't choose to exist: the question is regarding something someone does to us - creating us.

I'm addressing a faulty assumption underlying your first premise, consent is not relevant to your existence. Choice is not involved at all, so saying that it somehow affects people's ability to come into existence is not a valid argument.

Read the question - we cannot consent to be conceived and brought into the world. If a child cannot consent, then it is - by definition - forcibly brought into existence.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 12:49:53 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 12:41:22 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'm addressing a faulty assumption underlying your first premise, consent is not relevant to your existence. Choice is not involved at all, so saying that it somehow affects people's ability to come into existence is not a valid argument.

Read the question - we cannot consent to be conceived and brought into the world. If a child cannot consent, then it is - by definition - forcibly brought into existence.

So there's a tree outside the window I'm sitting at, and it's not there by my consent. However, it's completely beyond my power to control and I don't have any say in the matter of it's existence. Similarly, I don't have the right to decide if I am born or not. I am born, and that's tough luck for me if I don't want it. I could cut that tree down, or kill myself if I wanted to, but the planting of that tree, or my birth were birth events that are not mine to decide. Those are natural events that occur outside the realm of my right to choose. So yes, babies are brought forcibly into existence. That's fine, they don't get a choice in the matter and they don't have any right to have choice in this matter.
For Mother Russia.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 10:20:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Is it fair to say the issue is that given that existence is necessarily forced on a person at the beginning, is it morally right to continue forcing it on them thereafter?

We have to distinguish between a teminally ill cancer sufferer (and they really do suffer), and a teenager who broke up with their first boy/girlfriend as there there is no reason they must be subject to the same rules - 'one simple rule for all situations' is an extra condition that makes a big difference to what the rule or rules would be.

I am a supporter of euthanasia where the patient has made the decision to die on the basis of their own informed reasoning arrived at over a period. I think a jilted teenager should be prevented from doing anything so stupid as killing themselves by any and all means necessary (including putting them in a straitjacket if needs be) because I can't accept a decision driven by hormones and idealistic notions borrowed from romantic fiction as being 'informed reasoning'.

That is what I think. If people ask for it I will make up some plausible sounding philosophical reasons to justify my position, but I believe such things are rationalisation of - not reasons for - 'gut feelings'.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 1:06:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/4/2016 11:17:05 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/4/2016 10:50:04 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
I'm going to pose a few questions for discussion.

What justifies forcing people to live when they seriously prefer death?
When someone get's a gender change, they can't simply walk up to a reassignment surgeon and pay them to get it done. They first need to consult a psychologist and then wait half a year before coming back to the psychologist to confirm that they still want their gender changed. It is illegal to get your gender changed before then. In fact, with many big decisions, the amount of time that you are required to wait to ensure that a temporary state of mind is not going to screw you over increases. Death is the ultimate decision and has a waiting time of... forever. You're not allowed to chose death because we know that the decision involved with it is derived from a broken or traumatised state of mind. The solution is to fix the mental health of the individual, not kill them.


When considering that you cannot know if it wants to be born, is it wrong to conceive children?
The assumption behind this premise is wrong. It's not wrong to do something that someone doesn't want you to do. Furthermore, it's not your right to decide if you exist or not. Your existence is inevitable, given that 100% of everyone who exists, exists. Therefore there's no other option but to exist.


Is free will a right?
Free will is a construct used to explain an apparent phenomenon. Before asking if it's a right, you need to define it. I define it as the ability to make decisions independent of biological influences. In this case, it doesn't make sense to say that it's my right since it's merely a description of a natural phenomenon. It's like saying 'Is thinking a right?' Doesn't make sense, because it describes something which either exists or doesn't exist.

Interesting post.
Meh!