NasloxiehRorsxez wrote: ↑
May 15th, 2018, 3:06 pm
Why should the mandate here be to not justify anything?
The question was: Do you think it's immoral?
Asking for an opinion. We all have our reasons for deciding one way or the other, but none of us in a position to make the dead answer for whatever we disagree with. When the majority of law-makers obeyed church doctrine, suicide was illegal. But they could never punish suicide; they could only punish the surviving relatives - and of course they could punish failure.
However, I think the point becomes null if family or friends disagree with suicide being an option. Yes, it is selfish on their part I agree. But you could say the same for the suicide.
Everybody's selfish. This is hardly news. In this case, if the would-be suicide bends to the pro-survival camp, he is punished for his unselfishness in refraining, but the family is rewarded for its selfishness. That looks uneven to me.
And you don't think there's any case in which this could be considered a moral question?
As I said: it is for the religious. It may be, for someone who made a promise or undertook the care of dependents, and they are still capable of carrying out their duties. In such a case, abandonment by death is the same as abandonment by running away.
Suppose one has access to treatment, people they care for, yet they refuse treatment and commit suicide. Shouldn't people at least attempt to improve their situation before calling it quits?
They usually do. Most people prefer to live, and do so, long after their life is no longer worth living. The persons who kill themselves on a whim, when they have better alternatives, must be a very small minority, and I'm not sure we can understand their motivation well enough to judge.
Where does the "should" come from? Who - if not the owner of the life - has the authority to make the ultimate value judgment?
If you agree with that, then when has someone "done enough" to try and improve their situation for suicide to be the most rational option?
deem that they have done enough. Nobody else knows.
For instance, let's say someone with mental illness murders someone, with that mental illness being the direct of the murder. I'd say that removes malevolence form the act, but does it make the action any less wrong?
It does in law. Diminished capacity to assess the act being committed, or inability to understand the consequences, is an accepted defense.
So is inability to see an alternative- as in self-defense.
But these are very different situations. We can categorically deny anyone's right to end another
person's life (except officially, if convicted of a capital offence - and I don't condone that, either), on the grounds of their
autonomy. By the same token, I categorically deny anyone's right to force me to live, on the grounds of my