Total Posts:140|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abetting a suicide- a crime?

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.mediaite.com...

So apparently this girl (17 at the time) allegally encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide. They both exchanged thousands of texts while he struggled with suicidal thoughts- and among the texts that she sent were ones asking him to 'tell her when he's gonna do it', asking him why he hadn't done it yet, and encouraging him to 'get back in the car' when he was having second thoughts while CO poisoning himself in the car.

While obviously reprehensible (if true), I'm a bit divided on criminalizing the offence. Apparently it *is* illegal in certain jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc). In certain others, its legal. Netherlands, for example, its legal to give someone moral support while he's committing suicide, also legal to provide information on suicide techniques. But its illegal to actually physically help a person a person to commit suicide.

But I don't see why this should be a criminal offence. Mainly because of the subjective nature of the crime here. Even though *this* one is a pretty clear cut case, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people being declared criminal for aiding a suicidal person. Even if we ignore the cases where sometimes people legit believe they are helping a person when they are not, dealing with a suicidal person is hard. There really isn't a ideal way to address the issues, and ways which might seem harsh to one person might be helpful to the other.

Suicide is, at the end of the day, a personal decision. There is a fundamental difference between people who bully a person and make his life worse off- forcing him to commit suicide, and a person abetting the person who has decided he wants to commit suicide. While I don't think the latter is a *moral* thing to do, I don't think it should be criminal either.

I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:26:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you say that suicide is a personal decision, then it's accepting it as a legitimate decision. I don't see it that way. I don't think we should accept suicide attempts as legitimate acts, but rather as temporary insanity. Same as if someone had a fit or went into a weird hallucinatory state where they tried to harm themselves, or were badly affected by drugs, we wouldn't describe their actions as personal decisions, and we would condemn anyone who tried to help them harm themselves in those circumstances.

That's not to say that suicide is necessarily irrational, only that we have a policy as a society of refusing to accept it as legitimate.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 11:37:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:26:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
If you say that suicide is a personal decision, then it's accepting it as a legitimate decision. I don't see it that way. I don't think we should accept suicide attempts as legitimate acts, but rather as temporary insanity. Same as if someone had a fit or went into a weird hallucinatory state where they tried to harm themselves, or were badly affected by drugs, we wouldn't describe their actions as personal decisions, and we would condemn anyone who tried to help them harm themselves in those circumstances.

That's not to say that suicide is necessarily irrational, only that we have a policy as a society of refusing to accept it as legitimate.

There are a lot of things here.

1. I don't agree with the temporary insanity theory. It isn't easy committing suicide, and committing the final act requires a LOT of forethinking and deliberations. It is definitely against our innate nature to try taking our life. Trying to commit suicide is an action, its neither right or wrong. Sometimes its a good way out. That goes against the 'its gonna get better' narrative that's prevalant, but it is what it is. Sometimes its not, and sometimes it *does* get better. But whether or not you want to forfeit that opportunity does rely on you. Its your decision, at the end of the day, whether or not you want to take that chance.

2. But more importantly, we are talking of a policy decision here. The government mandating what to do to teh people who interacted with a suicidal person while he was having suicidal thoughts. While I think its pretty ugh if you talk to a person who is suicidal and exacerbate the issue, I don't think illegalizing it is a proper way to deal with it.

Do you think a person talking to a suicidal person who ended up not helping the person should be put behind the bars? Maybe we can proceed from here.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 12:39:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 11:37:53 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:26:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
If you say that suicide is a personal decision, then it's accepting it as a legitimate decision. I don't see it that way. I don't think we should accept suicide attempts as legitimate acts, but rather as temporary insanity. Same as if someone had a fit or went into a weird hallucinatory state where they tried to harm themselves, or were badly affected by drugs, we wouldn't describe their actions as personal decisions, and we would condemn anyone who tried to help them harm themselves in those circumstances.

That's not to say that suicide is necessarily irrational, only that we have a policy as a society of refusing to accept it as legitimate.

There are a lot of things here.

1. I don't agree with the temporary insanity theory. It isn't easy committing suicide, and committing the final act requires a LOT of forethinking and deliberations. It is definitely against our innate nature to try taking our life. Trying to commit suicide is an action, its neither right or wrong. Sometimes its a good way out. That goes against the 'its gonna get better' narrative that's prevalant, but it is what it is. Sometimes its not, and sometimes it *does* get better. But whether or not you want to forfeit that opportunity does rely on you. Its your decision, at the end of the day, whether or not you want to take that chance.

"insanity" is not in any way an objective construct. It's something that's defined by society as unacceptable thinking/acting without the deliberate wrongdoing that would make it a crime. For example, paedophilia without taking action (just lusting after children) is classed as a mental disorder. Society deems it as unacceptable (though not a crime) and people who experience it should seek treatment or try to combat it in some other way. Similarly, homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder until society's norms changed and now it isn't. Now, it's okay to be homosexual, and there's no social obligation to change. Even something like schizophrenia is in reference to social norms - delusions are by definition believing things that society deems to be unreal and unacceptable.

So when I say that suicidal tendencies are a temporary insanity, all I mean is that they are deemed to be socially unacceptable in that particular way. A normal/healthy person would not try and kill themselves.

Of course it's possible to imagine a society where suicidal behavior is perfectly acceptable, and maybe such a society exists. For instance, in our society it's on the verge of being acceptable to be suicidal if you have a terminal illness. I really dislike those sorts of distinctions because society is saying it's okay for YOU to want to kill yourself (because your life is obviously worth very little), but obviously not okay for the rest of us (because our lives have more inherent value).

So your point, that it's a rational decision, is really only saying "suicidal behavior is acceptable". We, as a society, will be okay with people killing themselves. I disagree with this because I think that people have obligations to their families and to society as a whole not to do something like that. When people survive suicide, they often go on to have happier lives, and things change and they can be really glad to be alive, so I think it's really wasteful to accept the temporary suicidal phase someone might go through and allow them to throw away the rest of their life like that.

2. But more importantly, we are talking of a policy decision here. The government mandating what to do to teh people who interacted with a suicidal person while he was having suicidal thoughts. While I think its pretty ugh if you talk to a person who is suicidal and exacerbate the issue, I don't think illegalizing it is a proper way to deal with it.

Do you think a person talking to a suicidal person who ended up not helping the person should be put behind the bars? Maybe we can proceed from here.

It's like anything, I suppose. There's almost always the possibility of doing nothing, and that shouldn't be criminal unless there's a duty of care. So, for example, if I sent you a PM saying that I was about to kill myself (just an example, zero risk of me doing that), you'd be free to not respond. However, if you decided to get involved, and to talk to me about it, then you'd be obliged to try and talk me out of it and not arrange for a hose to be sent to me that will fit onto my car's exhaust pipe, or whatever.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:37:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 11:37:53 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:26:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
If you say that suicide is a personal decision, then it's accepting it as a legitimate decision. I don't see it that way. I don't think we should accept suicide attempts as legitimate acts, but rather as temporary insanity. Same as if someone had a fit or went into a weird hallucinatory state where they tried to harm themselves, or were badly affected by drugs, we wouldn't describe their actions as personal decisions, and we would condemn anyone who tried to help them harm themselves in those circumstances.

That's not to say that suicide is necessarily irrational, only that we have a policy as a society of refusing to accept it as legitimate.

There are a lot of things here.

1. I don't agree with the temporary insanity theory. It isn't easy committing suicide, and committing the final act requires a LOT of forethinking and deliberations. It is definitely against our innate nature to try taking our life. Trying to commit suicide is an action, its neither right or wrong. Sometimes its a good way out. That goes against the 'its gonna get better' narrative that's prevalant, but it is what it is. Sometimes its not, and sometimes it *does* get better. But whether or not you want to forfeit that opportunity does rely on you. Its your decision, at the end of the day, whether or not you want to take that chance.

But we're also very bad at discounting time and very present-orientated. Misery today doesn't mean misery and the future but high-time preferences makes it feel that we'll feell bad today.

And easier methods to kill oneself makes it more likely for one to kill oneself. For example, owning a gun in your house makes it more likely for you to kill yourself. This makes me think that it's less delebirated than one would expect.

2. But more importantly, we are talking of a policy decision here. The government mandating what to do to teh people who interacted with a suicidal person while he was having suicidal thoughts. While I think its pretty ugh if you talk to a person who is suicidal and exacerbate the issue, I don't think illegalizing it is a proper way to deal with it.

If we can call the act despicable wouldn't it make sense to make the act illegal? Descpicable actions like murder, stealing, rape are illegal. I'm sure this is a question of unintended consequences. There could be scenarios where a person should coach a person to commit suicide. Could the law be narrowed down so that more people like her are arrested?

Do you think a person talking to a suicidal person who ended up not helping the person should be put behind the bars? Maybe we can proceed from here.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 4:35:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have every right to kill myself if I want. If I put a gun to my head and pull the trigger that is fine. My true friends will support my decision if I make it with a clear mind. If I show some hesitation or fear, I would hope they'd do what that girl did and give me the motivation and support I need to carry through with my decision.

On a related note if I do commit suicide, my goal is going to be, to get off as many rounds in my head as possible before going out. I'm not sure what the record is for self inflicted gun shot wounds to the head but I want it.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 4:39:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 12:39:32 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/2/2015 11:37:53 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/2/2015 9:26:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
If you say that suicide is a personal decision, then it's accepting it as a legitimate decision. I don't see it that way. I don't think we should accept suicide attempts as legitimate acts, but rather as temporary insanity. Same as if someone had a fit or went into a weird hallucinatory state where they tried to harm themselves, or were badly affected by drugs, we wouldn't describe their actions as personal decisions, and we would condemn anyone who tried to help them harm themselves in those circumstances.

That's not to say that suicide is necessarily irrational, only that we have a policy as a society of refusing to accept it as legitimate.

There are a lot of things here.

1. I don't agree with the temporary insanity theory. It isn't easy committing suicide, and committing the final act requires a LOT of forethinking and deliberations. It is definitely against our innate nature to try taking our life. Trying to commit suicide is an action, its neither right or wrong. Sometimes its a good way out. That goes against the 'its gonna get better' narrative that's prevalant, but it is what it is. Sometimes its not, and sometimes it *does* get better. But whether or not you want to forfeit that opportunity does rely on you. Its your decision, at the end of the day, whether or not you want to take that chance.

"insanity" is not in any way an objective construct. It's something that's defined by society as unacceptable thinking/acting without the deliberate wrongdoing that would make it a crime. For example, paedophilia without taking action (just lusting after children) is classed as a mental disorder. Society deems it as unacceptable (though not a crime) and people who experience it should seek treatment or try to combat it in some other way. Similarly, homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder until society's norms changed and now it isn't. Now, it's okay to be homosexual, and there's no social obligation to change. Even something like schizophrenia is in reference to social norms - delusions are by definition believing things that society deems to be unreal and unacceptable.

So when I say that suicidal tendencies are a temporary insanity, all I mean is that they are deemed to be socially unacceptable in that particular way. A normal/healthy person would not try and kill themselves.

I think a normal healthy person can decide to end their life. I'm not just talking about Martyrs either. Who isn't an existential crisis away from pulling that trigger? And what is wrong wit doing it?

Of course it's possible to imagine a society where suicidal behavior is perfectly acceptable, and maybe such a society exists. For instance, in our society it's on the verge of being acceptable to be suicidal if you have a terminal illness. I really dislike those sorts of distinctions because society is saying it's okay for YOU to want to kill yourself (because your life is obviously worth very little), but obviously not okay for the rest of us (because our lives have more inherent value).

So your point, that it's a rational decision, is really only saying "suicidal behavior is acceptable". We, as a society, will be okay with people killing themselves. I disagree with this because I think that people have obligations to their families and to society as a whole not to do something like that. When people survive suicide, they often go on to have happier lives, and things change and they can be really glad to be alive, so I think it's really wasteful to accept the temporary suicidal phase someone might go through and allow them to throw away the rest of their life like that.

2. But more importantly, we are talking of a policy decision here. The government mandating what to do to teh people who interacted with a suicidal person while he was having suicidal thoughts. While I think its pretty ugh if you talk to a person who is suicidal and exacerbate the issue, I don't think illegalizing it is a proper way to deal with it.

Do you think a person talking to a suicidal person who ended up not helping the person should be put behind the bars? Maybe we can proceed from here.

It's like anything, I suppose. There's almost always the possibility of doing nothing, and that shouldn't be criminal unless there's a duty of care. So, for example, if I sent you a PM saying that I was about to kill myself (just an example, zero risk of me doing that), you'd be free to not respond. However, if you decided to get involved, and to talk to me about it, then you'd be obliged to try and talk me out of it and not arrange for a hose to be sent to me that will fit onto my car's exhaust pipe, or whatever.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 4:46:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...

So apparently this girl (17 at the time) allegally encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide. They both exchanged thousands of texts while he struggled with suicidal thoughts- and among the texts that she sent were ones asking him to 'tell her when he's gonna do it', asking him why he hadn't done it yet, and encouraging him to 'get back in the car' when he was having second thoughts while CO poisoning himself in the car.

While obviously reprehensible (if true), I'm a bit divided on criminalizing the offence. Apparently it *is* illegal in certain jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc). In certain others, its legal. Netherlands, for example, its legal to give someone moral support while he's committing suicide, also legal to provide information on suicide techniques. But its illegal to actually physically help a person a person to commit suicide.

But I don't see why this should be a criminal offence. Mainly because of the subjective nature of the crime here. Even though *this* one is a pretty clear cut case, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people being declared criminal for aiding a suicidal person. Even if we ignore the cases where sometimes people legit believe they are helping a person when they are not, dealing with a suicidal person is hard. There really isn't a ideal way to address the issues, and ways which might seem harsh to one person might be helpful to the other.

Suicide is, at the end of the day, a personal decision. There is a fundamental difference between people who bully a person and make his life worse off- forcing him to commit suicide, and a person abetting the person who has decided he wants to commit suicide. While I don't think the latter is a *moral* thing to do, I don't think it should be criminal either.

I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

http://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 10:50:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...

So apparently this girl (17 at the time) allegally encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide. They both exchanged thousands of texts while he struggled with suicidal thoughts- and among the texts that she sent were ones asking him to 'tell her when he's gonna do it', asking him why he hadn't done it yet, and encouraging him to 'get back in the car' when he was having second thoughts while CO poisoning himself in the car.

While obviously reprehensible (if true), I'm a bit divided on criminalizing the offence. Apparently it *is* illegal in certain jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc). In certain others, its legal. Netherlands, for example, its legal to give someone moral support while he's committing suicide, also legal to provide information on suicide techniques. But its illegal to actually physically help a person a person to commit suicide.

But I don't see why this should be a criminal offence. Mainly because of the subjective nature of the crime here. Even though *this* one is a pretty clear cut case, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people being declared criminal for aiding a suicidal person. Even if we ignore the cases where sometimes people legit believe they are helping a person when they are not, dealing with a suicidal person is hard. There really isn't a ideal way to address the issues, and ways which might seem harsh to one person might be helpful to the other.

Suicide is, at the end of the day, a personal decision. There is a fundamental difference between people who bully a person and make his life worse off- forcing him to commit suicide, and a person abetting the person who has decided he wants to commit suicide. While I don't think the latter is a *moral* thing to do, I don't think it should be criminal either.

I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

Just some food for thought - not saying it has to be illegal. Abetting someone in theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc., are all illegal. Why not suicide? Suicide is immoral just like the rest. They're all immoral for different reasons - theft violates the principle of righteousness, fraud violates the principle of righteousness and trustworthiness, murder violates the principle of benevolence, rape violates the principle of benevolence and propriety, and suicide violates the principle of filial piety. Is it a kind of double standard that people are only prosecuted for the first four?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 10:55:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 10:50:18 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...

So apparently this girl (17 at the time) allegally encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide. They both exchanged thousands of texts while he struggled with suicidal thoughts- and among the texts that she sent were ones asking him to 'tell her when he's gonna do it', asking him why he hadn't done it yet, and encouraging him to 'get back in the car' when he was having second thoughts while CO poisoning himself in the car.

While obviously reprehensible (if true), I'm a bit divided on criminalizing the offence. Apparently it *is* illegal in certain jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc). In certain others, its legal. Netherlands, for example, its legal to give someone moral support while he's committing suicide, also legal to provide information on suicide techniques. But its illegal to actually physically help a person a person to commit suicide.

But I don't see why this should be a criminal offence. Mainly because of the subjective nature of the crime here. Even though *this* one is a pretty clear cut case, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people being declared criminal for aiding a suicidal person. Even if we ignore the cases where sometimes people legit believe they are helping a person when they are not, dealing with a suicidal person is hard. There really isn't a ideal way to address the issues, and ways which might seem harsh to one person might be helpful to the other.

Suicide is, at the end of the day, a personal decision. There is a fundamental difference between people who bully a person and make his life worse off- forcing him to commit suicide, and a person abetting the person who has decided he wants to commit suicide. While I don't think the latter is a *moral* thing to do, I don't think it should be criminal either.

I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

Just some food for thought - not saying it has to be illegal. Abetting someone in theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc., are all illegal. Why not suicide? Suicide is immoral just like the rest. They're all immoral for different reasons - theft violates the principle of righteousness, fraud violates the principle of righteousness and trustworthiness, murder violates the principle of benevolence, rape violates the principle of benevolence and propriety, and suicide violates the principle of filial piety. Is it a kind of double standard that people are only prosecuted for the first four?

Why does suicide violate the principle of righteousness?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2015 11:00:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 10:55:50 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/10/2015 10:50:18 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...

So apparently this girl (17 at the time) allegally encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide. They both exchanged thousands of texts while he struggled with suicidal thoughts- and among the texts that she sent were ones asking him to 'tell her when he's gonna do it', asking him why he hadn't done it yet, and encouraging him to 'get back in the car' when he was having second thoughts while CO poisoning himself in the car.

While obviously reprehensible (if true), I'm a bit divided on criminalizing the offence. Apparently it *is* illegal in certain jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc). In certain others, its legal. Netherlands, for example, its legal to give someone moral support while he's committing suicide, also legal to provide information on suicide techniques. But its illegal to actually physically help a person a person to commit suicide.

But I don't see why this should be a criminal offence. Mainly because of the subjective nature of the crime here. Even though *this* one is a pretty clear cut case, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people being declared criminal for aiding a suicidal person. Even if we ignore the cases where sometimes people legit believe they are helping a person when they are not, dealing with a suicidal person is hard. There really isn't a ideal way to address the issues, and ways which might seem harsh to one person might be helpful to the other.

Suicide is, at the end of the day, a personal decision. There is a fundamental difference between people who bully a person and make his life worse off- forcing him to commit suicide, and a person abetting the person who has decided he wants to commit suicide. While I don't think the latter is a *moral* thing to do, I don't think it should be criminal either.

I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

Just some food for thought - not saying it has to be illegal. Abetting someone in theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc., are all illegal. Why not suicide? Suicide is immoral just like the rest. They're all immoral for different reasons - theft violates the principle of righteousness, fraud violates the principle of righteousness and trustworthiness, murder violates the principle of benevolence, rape violates the principle of benevolence and propriety, and suicide violates the principle of filial piety. Is it a kind of double standard that people are only prosecuted for the first four?

Why does suicide violate the principle of righteousness?

I think you misread my post. ;)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 2:21:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/10/2015 10:50:18 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...
[etc]
I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

Just some food for thought - not saying it has to be illegal. Abetting someone in theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc., are all illegal. Why not suicide? Suicide is immoral just like the rest. They're all immoral for different reasons - theft violates the principle of righteousness, fraud violates the principle of righteousness and trustworthiness, murder violates the principle of benevolence, rape violates the principle of benevolence and propriety, and suicide violates the principle of filial piety. Is it a kind of double standard that people are only prosecuted for the first four?

There is so much ambiguity in this comment that it loses meaning.

What makes theft irrelevant to benevolence or trustworthiness?
What makes fraud irrelevant to benevolence?
What makes rape irrelevant to trustworthiness and righteousness?
What makes suicide irrelevant to righteousness and benevolence?
Why does suicide violate filial piety?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 2:22:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...

So apparently this girl (17 at the time) allegally encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide. They both exchanged thousands of texts while he struggled with suicidal thoughts- and among the texts that she sent were ones asking him to 'tell her when he's gonna do it', asking him why he hadn't done it yet, and encouraging him to 'get back in the car' when he was having second thoughts while CO poisoning himself in the car.

While obviously reprehensible (if true), I'm a bit divided on criminalizing the offence. Apparently it *is* illegal in certain jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc). In certain others, its legal. Netherlands, for example, its legal to give someone moral support while he's committing suicide, also legal to provide information on suicide techniques. But its illegal to actually physically help a person a person to commit suicide.

But I don't see why this should be a criminal offence. Mainly because of the subjective nature of the crime here. Even though *this* one is a pretty clear cut case, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people being declared criminal for aiding a suicidal person. Even if we ignore the cases where sometimes people legit believe they are helping a person when they are not, dealing with a suicidal person is hard. There really isn't a ideal way to address the issues, and ways which might seem harsh to one person might be helpful to the other.

Suicide is, at the end of the day, a personal decision. There is a fundamental difference between people who bully a person and make his life worse off- forcing him to commit suicide, and a person abetting the person who has decided he wants to commit suicide. While I don't think the latter is a *moral* thing to do, I don't think it should be criminal either.

I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

Not enough details.

It's possible she was attempting to use reverse psychology, and that when her friend actually died, she was shocked and twitted the subsequent messages.

Or, perhaps someone had hijacked her phone somehow. It would be interesting to know if she was physically around anyone when she was texting the guy.

Either that, or she's really a monster...I don't think involuntary manslaughter is the right charge. There is so much premeditation on her part.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 2:26:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 9:26:31 PM, Garbanza wrote:
If you say that suicide is a personal decision, then it's accepting it as a legitimate decision. I don't see it that way. I don't think we should accept suicide attempts as legitimate acts, but rather as temporary insanity. Same as if someone had a fit or went into a weird hallucinatory state where they tried to harm themselves, or were badly affected by drugs, we wouldn't describe their actions as personal decisions, and we would condemn anyone who tried to help them harm themselves in those circumstances.

That's not to say that suicide is necessarily irrational, only that we have a policy as a society of refusing to accept it as legitimate.

If someone is terminally ill, in chronic pain, with less than XYZ time to live, and will only be greeted with more pain if they choose to live, what makes a suicide under such conditions "illegitimate"?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 2:34:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 2:21:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/10/2015 10:50:18 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...
[etc]
I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

Just some food for thought - not saying it has to be illegal. Abetting someone in theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc., are all illegal. Why not suicide? Suicide is immoral just like the rest. They're all immoral for different reasons - theft violates the principle of righteousness, fraud violates the principle of righteousness and trustworthiness, murder violates the principle of benevolence, rape violates the principle of benevolence and propriety, and suicide violates the principle of filial piety. Is it a kind of double standard that people are only prosecuted for the first four?

There is so much ambiguity in this comment that it loses meaning.

What makes theft irrelevant to benevolence or trustworthiness?
What makes fraud irrelevant to benevolence?
What makes rape irrelevant to trustworthiness and righteousness?

I just stated the most relevant ones according to the nature of each immoral act.

Mencius said, 'All men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others. 'The ancient kings had this commiserating mind, and they, as a matter of course, had likewise a commiserating government. When with a commiserating mind was practised a commiserating government, to rule the kingdom was as easy a matter as to make anything go round in the palm. When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child's parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing. From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration is essential to man, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, that the feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, and that the feeling of approving and disapproving is essential to man. The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence. The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness. The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety. The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge. Men have these four principles just as they have their four limbs. When men, having these four principles, yet say of themselves that they cannot develop them, they play the thief with themselves, and he who says of his prince that he cannot develop them plays the thief with his prince. Since all men have these four principles in themselves, let them know to give them all their development and completion, and the issue will be like that of fire which has begun to burn, or that of a spring which has begun to find vent. Let them have their complete development, and they will suffice to love and protect all within the four seas. Let them be denied that development, and they will not suffice for a man to serve his parents with.' (Mencius 3.6)

Why does suicide violate filial piety?

'Our bodies - to every hair and bit of skin - are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them. This is the beginning of filial piety.' (Book of Filial Piety Ch 1)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 2:34:29 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 2:21:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/10/2015 10:50:18 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...
[etc]
I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

Just some food for thought - not saying it has to be illegal. Abetting someone in theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc., are all illegal. Why not suicide? Suicide is immoral just like the rest. They're all immoral for different reasons -
[cut out and pasted below]

I've organized your answer, as most of your Mencius quote was irrelevant to anything you stated prior.

I just stated the most relevant ones according to the nature of each immoral act.

I would focus on accuracy, if I were you.

Rather than convey meaning, your quoting of Mencius just opens the door for equivocation and obfuscation of your original point. At its best, your quote is meaningless in explaining your original statement, at its worst, it's an attempt at deception and double-speak. A comparison:

Mencius said, 'All men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others. 'The ancient kings had this commiserating mind, and they, as a matter of course, had likewise a commiserating government....

The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence.
The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness.
The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety.
The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge.
Men have these four principles just as they have their four limbs...

theft violates the principle of righteousness,
fraud violates the principle of righteousness and trustworthiness,
murder violates the principle of benevolence,
rape violates the principle of benevolence and propriety
Is it a kind of double standard that people are only prosecuted for the first four [and not for suicide]?

To elaborate on my questions (which your quoting of Mencius largely doesn't address),

What makes theft irrelevant to benevolence or trustworthiness?
What makes fraud irrelevant to benevolence?
What makes rape irrelevant to trustworthiness and righteousness?

1) "Trustworthiness" is nowhere in what Mencius said. You've yet to answer any questions related to this issue.
2) By leaving out "benevolence" from "theft", you imply that the act of theft lacks sympathy. What about poor people who steal from the rich to survive? Are they not sympathetic to those with wealth, to those that have more than they need to live? Is it not an appeal to their better natures?
3) By leaving out "benevolence" from "fraud", you imply that lying also lacks sympathy. What about the mother that tells her children that "Daddy went to a better place" rather than tell them that he died on the operating table?
4) By leaving out "righteousness" from "rape", you imply that rape has nothing to do with shame and dislike, quite possibly the most inaccurate statement you've made so far.
5) By leaving out "propriety" from "theft", "fraud", and "murder", you imply that these acts are proper.

suicide violates the principle of filial piety.

Why does suicide violate filial piety?

'Our bodies - to every hair and bit of skin - are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them. This is the beginning of filial piety.' (Book of Filial Piety Ch 1)

This can be interpreted two ways, depending on what the pronoun"them" is describing:

1) If "them" means "our parents", then one must note that suicide does not injure or wound our parents. You would be making a false equivocation here, by equating "our bodies" to imply ownership by "our parents". Mencius in this quote states no such thing.
2) If "them" means "our bodies", then respecting our bodies is a form of respecting our parents. I'm guessing this is what you meant.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 2:34:29 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 2:21:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/10/2015 10:50:18 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...
[etc]
I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

Just some food for thought - not saying it has to be illegal. Abetting someone in theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc., are all illegal. Why not suicide? Suicide is immoral just like the rest. They're all immoral for different reasons -
[cut out and pasted below]

I've organized your answer, as most of your Mencius quote was irrelevant to anything you stated prior.

I just stated the most relevant ones according to the nature of each immoral act.

I would focus on accuracy, if I were you.

Rather than convey meaning, your quoting of Mencius just opens the door for equivocation and obfuscation of your original point. At its best, your quote is meaningless in explaining your original statement, at its worst, it's an attempt at deception and double-speak. A comparison:

Mencius said, 'All men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others. 'The ancient kings had this commiserating mind, and they, as a matter of course, had likewise a commiserating government....

The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence.
The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness.
The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety.
The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge.
Men have these four principles just as they have their four limbs...

theft violates the principle of righteousness,
fraud violates the principle of righteousness and trustworthiness,
murder violates the principle of benevolence,
rape violates the principle of benevolence and propriety
Is it a kind of double standard that people are only prosecuted for the first four [and not for suicide]?

To elaborate on my questions (which your quoting of Mencius largely doesn't address),

What makes theft irrelevant to benevolence or trustworthiness?
What makes fraud irrelevant to benevolence?
What makes rape irrelevant to trustworthiness and righteousness?

1) "Trustworthiness" is nowhere in what Mencius said. You've yet to answer any questions related to this issue.
Trustworthiness, by the way, is by Mencius' definition the moral principle between friends, but the Five Cardinal Relationships were discussed in Mencius 5.4. However, based on the Analects, one should treat any other person with trustworthiness.
2) By leaving out "benevolence" from "theft", you imply that the act of theft lacks sympathy. What about poor people who steal from the rich to survive? Are they not sympathetic to those with wealth, to those that have more than they need to live? Is it not an appeal to their better natures?
I think you misunderstood me. I only said theft violates the principle of righteousness. That was stated in Mencius 13.33: 'to take what one has not a right to is contrary to righteousness'. I never said it violates the principle of benevolence; it may or may not be the case.
3) By leaving out "benevolence" from "fraud", you imply that lying also lacks sympathy. What about the mother that tells her children that "Daddy went to a better place" rather than tell them that he died on the operating table?
Same as above
4) By leaving out "righteousness" from "rape", you imply that rape has nothing to do with shame and dislike, quite possibly the most inaccurate statement you've made so far.
By 'shame and dislike', Mencius meant shame for what you did wrong, and dislike for what others did wrong.
5) By leaving out "propriety" from "theft", "fraud", and "murder", you imply that these acts are proper.
I didn't say they don't violate the principle of propriety. It's just that righteousness is more important for theft and fraud, and benevolence is more important for murder (since it inflicts suffering).

Sorry for my rather brief reply to your response, on which you've spent a great deal of time, but I've never implied that they don't violate other principles by leaving them out. I was just focusing on the most important violations, without denying that the crimes violate the other principles.

All that is beside the point anyway. I was just pointing out that suicide is a moral violation, just like other immoral acts that people get prosecuted for abetting.

suicide violates the principle of filial piety.

Why does suicide violate filial piety?

'Our bodies - to every hair and bit of skin - are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them. This is the beginning of filial piety.' (Book of Filial Piety Ch 1)

This can be interpreted two ways, depending on what the pronoun"them" is describing:

1) If "them" means "our parents", then one must note that suicide does not injure or wound our parents. You would be making a false equivocation here, by equating "our bodies" to imply ownership by "our parents". Mencius in this quote states no such thing.
2) If "them" means "our bodies", then respecting our bodies is a form of respecting our parents. I'm guessing this is what you meant.
It's 2), and this is a quote from Confucius, not Mencius.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:40:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

All that is beside the point anyway. I was just pointing out that suicide is a moral violation, just like other immoral acts that people get prosecuted for abetting.

Morality is subjective.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:41:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:40:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

All that is beside the point anyway. I was just pointing out that suicide is a moral violation, just like other immoral acts that people get prosecuted for abetting.

Morality is subjective.

Do you think, then, that there should also be no law against abetting theft, murder, etc.?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:41:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

suicide violates the principle of filial piety.

Why does suicide violate filial piety?

'Our bodies - to every hair and bit of skin - are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them. This is the beginning of filial piety.' (Book of Filial Piety Ch 1)

This can be interpreted two ways, depending on what the pronoun"them" is describing:

1) If "them" means "our parents", then one must note that suicide does not injure or wound our parents. You would be making a false equivocation here, by equating "our bodies" to imply ownership by "our parents". Mencius in this quote states no such thing.
2) If "them" means "our bodies", then respecting our bodies is a form of respecting our parents. I'm guessing this is what you meant.
It's 2)

See this comment
http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:42:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:41:33 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:40:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

All that is beside the point anyway. I was just pointing out that suicide is a moral violation, just like other immoral acts that people get prosecuted for abetting.

Morality is subjective.

Do you think, then, that there should also be no law against abetting theft, murder, etc.?

Laws are subjective. There are many forms of killing that are not murder, many forms of appropriation of property that are not theft, etc...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:48:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:41:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

suicide violates the principle of filial piety.

Why does suicide violate filial piety?

'Our bodies - to every hair and bit of skin - are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them. This is the beginning of filial piety.' (Book of Filial Piety Ch 1)

This can be interpreted two ways, depending on what the pronoun"them" is describing:

1) If "them" means "our parents", then one must note that suicide does not injure or wound our parents. You would be making a false equivocation here, by equating "our bodies" to imply ownership by "our parents". Mencius in this quote states no such thing.
2) If "them" means "our bodies", then respecting our bodies is a form of respecting our parents. I'm guessing this is what you meant.
It's 2)

See this comment
http://www.debate.org...

Euthanasia is a different thing. If that person's parents have stated that they would allow it, then of course it's OK. If his parents have passed away and have not stated their stance before their passing, based on the principle of benevolence, he should be allowed - after all, the principle of benevolence is the core moral principle that is above all others.

This certainly wasn't the case with this teenager.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:50:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:42:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:41:33 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:40:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

All that is beside the point anyway. I was just pointing out that suicide is a moral violation, just like other immoral acts that people get prosecuted for abetting.

Morality is subjective.

Do you think, then, that there should also be no law against abetting theft, murder, etc.?

Laws are subjective. There are many forms of killing that are not murder, many forms of appropriation of property that are not theft, etc...

Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:51:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:48:32 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:41:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

suicide violates the principle of filial piety.

Why does suicide violate filial piety?

'Our bodies - to every hair and bit of skin - are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them. This is the beginning of filial piety.' (Book of Filial Piety Ch 1)

This can be interpreted two ways, depending on what the pronoun"them" is describing:

1) If "them" means "our parents", then one must note that suicide does not injure or wound our parents. You would be making a false equivocation here, by equating "our bodies" to imply ownership by "our parents". Mencius in this quote states no such thing.
2) If "them" means "our bodies", then respecting our bodies is a form of respecting our parents. I'm guessing this is what you meant.
It's 2)

See this comment
http://www.debate.org...

Euthanasia is a different thing. If that person's parents have stated that they would allow it, then of course it's OK. If his parents have passed away and have not stated their stance before their passing, based on the principle of benevolence, he should be allowed - after all, the principle of benevolence is the core moral principle that is above all others.

This certainly wasn't the case with this teenager.

1) What you call "euthanasia" we call here "assisted suicide", which is also incidentally what this teen did. The only difference is that in the former, there is a potential medical justification (very debatable), whereas in the latter there is none.

2) Are you saying that the parents should have legal control over the children even after the children have reached adulthood? What if the parents are bad parents?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:54:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:50:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:42:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:41:33 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:40:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

All that is beside the point anyway. I was just pointing out that suicide is a moral violation, just like other immoral acts that people get prosecuted for abetting.

Morality is subjective.

Do you think, then, that there should also be no law against abetting theft, murder, etc.?

Laws are subjective. There are many forms of killing that are not murder, many forms of appropriation of property that are not theft, etc...

Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here...

I'm saying that what you call "theft" others may call "redistribution for the poor" or what not, and that there will be disagreements on exactly what constitutes morality and thus what should be codified into law.

I mean, a lot of people don't consider our killing of civilians in drone strikes to be murder.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:55:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:51:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:48:32 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:41:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

suicide violates the principle of filial piety.

Why does suicide violate filial piety?

'Our bodies - to every hair and bit of skin - are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them. This is the beginning of filial piety.' (Book of Filial Piety Ch 1)

This can be interpreted two ways, depending on what the pronoun"them" is describing:

1) If "them" means "our parents", then one must note that suicide does not injure or wound our parents. You would be making a false equivocation here, by equating "our bodies" to imply ownership by "our parents". Mencius in this quote states no such thing.
2) If "them" means "our bodies", then respecting our bodies is a form of respecting our parents. I'm guessing this is what you meant.
It's 2)

See this comment
http://www.debate.org...

Euthanasia is a different thing. If that person's parents have stated that they would allow it, then of course it's OK. If his parents have passed away and have not stated their stance before their passing, based on the principle of benevolence, he should be allowed - after all, the principle of benevolence is the core moral principle that is above all others.

This certainly wasn't the case with this teenager.

1) What you call "euthanasia" we call here "assisted suicide", which is also incidentally what this teen did. The only difference is that in the former, there is a potential medical justification (very debatable), whereas in the latter there is none.

2) Are you saying that the parents should have legal control over the children even after the children have reached adulthood? What if the parents are bad parents?

1) The medical justification makes a lot of difference IMO. If someone is suffering, the feeling of commiseration should be triggered, and others are morally obliged to stop it somehow.

2) I think you may have misunderstood. I didn't say legal control really. I was writing from purely a moral perspective. Legally they should still be able to do it.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:57:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:55:20 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:51:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

1) What you call "euthanasia" we call here "assisted suicide", which is also incidentally what this teen did. The only difference is that in the former, there is a potential medical justification (very debatable), whereas in the latter there is none.

1) The medical justification makes a lot of difference IMO. If someone is suffering, the feeling of commiseration should be triggered, and others are morally obliged to stop it somehow.

It's still a form of suicide even with the medical justification. Using a word that you would use with animals to dehumanize the process (euthanasia) does not change that fact.

2) I think you may have misunderstood. I didn't say legal control really. I was writing from purely a moral perspective. Legally they should still be able to do it.

Yet you've been connecting morality with legality on other issues in this thread.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:57:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:54:54 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:50:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:42:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:41:33 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:40:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:35:57 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 9:52:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

All that is beside the point anyway. I was just pointing out that suicide is a moral violation, just like other immoral acts that people get prosecuted for abetting.

Morality is subjective.

Do you think, then, that there should also be no law against abetting theft, murder, etc.?

Laws are subjective. There are many forms of killing that are not murder, many forms of appropriation of property that are not theft, etc...

Maybe I'm stupid, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here...

I'm saying that what you call "theft" others may call "redistribution for the poor" or what not, and that there will be disagreements on exactly what constitutes morality and thus what should be codified into law.

I mean, a lot of people don't consider our killing of civilians in drone strikes to be murder.

I know what you meant be laws being subjective. Thing is, I really still don't understand the point you're trying to make... i.e. how it's related to the subject at hand.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:59:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 2:13:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
http://www.mediaite.com...

So apparently this girl (17 at the time) allegally encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide. They both exchanged thousands of texts while he struggled with suicidal thoughts- and among the texts that she sent were ones asking him to 'tell her when he's gonna do it', asking him why he hadn't done it yet, and encouraging him to 'get back in the car' when he was having second thoughts while CO poisoning himself in the car.

While obviously reprehensible (if true), I'm a bit divided on criminalizing the offence. Apparently it *is* illegal in certain jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc). In certain others, its legal. Netherlands, for example, its legal to give someone moral support while he's committing suicide, also legal to provide information on suicide techniques. But its illegal to actually physically help a person a person to commit suicide.

But I don't see why this should be a criminal offence. Mainly because of the subjective nature of the crime here. Even though *this* one is a pretty clear cut case, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people being declared criminal for aiding a suicidal person. Even if we ignore the cases where sometimes people legit believe they are helping a person when they are not, dealing with a suicidal person is hard. There really isn't a ideal way to address the issues, and ways which might seem harsh to one person might be helpful to the other.

Suicide is, at the end of the day, a personal decision. There is a fundamental difference between people who bully a person and make his life worse off- forcing him to commit suicide, and a person abetting the person who has decided he wants to commit suicide. While I don't think the latter is a *moral* thing to do, I don't think it should be criminal either.

I'm still thinking this through, but any thoughts on the topic would be appreciated.

The way you describe this this does sound like a crime. How does this not sound like coercion?
There is a fine line between facilitating a suicide, and deciding for them and "convincing" them they should.

If nothing else, "get back in the car" sounds like an order, and one designed to change the mind of someone who already changed their mind.
My work here is, finally, done.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 11:00:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 10:57:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:55:20 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/11/2015 10:51:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

1) What you call "euthanasia" we call here "assisted suicide", which is also incidentally what this teen did. The only difference is that in the former, there is a potential medical justification (very debatable), whereas in the latter there is none.

1) The medical justification makes a lot of difference IMO. If someone is suffering, the feeling of commiseration should be triggered, and others are morally obliged to stop it somehow.

It's still a form of suicide even with the medical justification. Using a word that you would use with animals to dehumanize the process (euthanasia) does not change that fact.
I don't deny it. It's just a form of allowing for the exigency of circumstances. Since there is a conflict between benevolence and filial piety, the more important principle should override. Assisted suicide is wrong in general but circumstances sometimes oblige it; it's like killing someone in self-defence.

2) I think you may have misunderstood. I didn't say legal control really. I was writing from purely a moral perspective. Legally they should still be able to do it.

Yet you've been connecting morality with legality on other issues in this thread.
I didn't state my position on whether abetting suicide should be a crime. I was just offering a moral perspective to be considered.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...