quote
follow
|
26-05-2012 I agree with Francois, this entry is brilliant! You cover basically everything and do it well.What are your thoughts on the responsibilities (if any) of a person committing suicide Logically, I did not ask to be born and so I cannot be expected to keep living if it is not my will. However, if I commit suicide it may cause suffering for loved ones and friends, etc. I don't believe I am responsible for them suffering, even though my actions led to them experiencing it. Or is this faulty thinking? If I strive not to cause suffering by being vegetarian and antinatalist, then surely I should not consider suicide as an option? Of course then my own suffering would still be a factor. Is this just the nature of the the life system? I suspect it is. Some suffering will always be present and perhaps the best we can do is to try and minimize it. |
[ link ] |
26-05-2012
My current position on the ethics of suicide in a nutshell would be that if committing it is wrong because you are causing suffering to those who love you, how is forcing someone to continue experiencing their suffering for your own benefit all right? This is one of the issues in life with no easy outcomes: choosing whose suffering is more important: that one of the person who wants to end their life or those people who choose to continue theirs. Every way you look at it, someone is going to be left suffering. This just proves once again how wrong it is to be putting people in this situation ion the first place. I plan to write more on that someday. |
|
27-05-2012 How about this: If those who stay behind accept and understand that I was given no choice about being here, and respect my decision to end my existence; with such an understanding they could greatly (if not totally) diminish their own suffering.So the responsibility for their suffering lies with them and their willingness to accept the way the world works. Sure, they would still be sad, but they wouldn't blame me and so the life system becomes 'responsible' instead of me.If they choose not to accept the way the world works, then of course there's no helping them but I still would not be responsible. Anyway, I agree that just not being put in such a situation at all is the most preferable. |
|
27-05-2012 This entry by Sister Y addresses the harms of suicide:http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2008/11/harms-of-suicide.html I also have a detailed entry of my own on suicide coming on 4 June. I will link you to it when it comes up. |
[ link ] |
27-05-2012
Thanks for the link, very good analysis there. Yes, share your own when its ready. |
|
27-05-2012 Thanx Francois. That entry says what I'm trying to say, in a clear and well thought out manner. Suicide prohibition is the cause of most of the suffering experienced by those left behind and also most of the avoidable harms that come about because of suicide and suicide attempts.I'm looking forward to reading your entry. |
|
05-06-2012 Here you go. Enjoy:http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/is-there-a-right-to-die/ |
[ link ] |
05-06-2012
Ok, great, Ill check that soon) Deleted your last 2 comments about links. Nope, only I can post them from my admin panel. Heres one to your right to die post> |
|
05-06-2012 Oh okay. Thanks! Hope you like it. Watermelon, watermelon. |
|
08-09-2012 I am late in this debate, but I think a previous commenter really have a point here:“I never thought about my choice not to have children as anything but my choice, not a worldview. maybe that will change as I learn more about the issue.” I really think it’s very important to make a previous distinction between personal preferences and philosophical positions. Personal preferences are "private philosophies": they are not under public scrutinity. Private philosophy is a topic of conversation between friends and family. In this sense, the decision of not having children, if you have really free will (ex hypohesi this choice could well be a side effect of depression or socieconomic disadvantages), is just a personal life decision. Subjective decisions are not under public scrutinity. But this is not what “antinatalism” really is. Antinatalism is a philosophical stance, not a private philosophy. Antinatalism is harder than that, and is part of a wider conversation. Antinatalism is about moral philosophy, not about subjective life preferences. People who are unrelated take part in the discussion. For example, millenarians and mystical anarchists in the middle ages were “antinatalists” because they believed in the imminence of the End of Time. This ancient antinatalism was based upon their life expectancies, strongly determined by their religious convictions. “Antinatalism” was not a personal philosophy, it had deep theological roots. Of course, modern, secularized antinatalism, as a philosophical moral stance, has very different sources. But it’s not a private philosophy, anyway. Private and public philosophies often intersect, but I think it’s important to bear in mind that there’s a difference. This is not an argument for or against antinatalism. Just a previous thought. All the best, |
|
08-09-2012 "Of course, modern, secularized antinatalism, as a philosophical moral stance, has very different sources. But it’s not a private philosophy, anyway. Private and public philosophies often intersect, but I think it’s important to bear in mind that there’s a difference. "My modern secularized antinatalist stance has a very-private source, doesn't it make it a private philosophy? If then, lots of people like me/it and make it hyper-public, doesn't it remain private while, at the same time, becoming public? Supposing my admirers/fans are faithful enough to my ideas, does the philosophy itself change just because it becomes public? In which aspect/detail does a steel object change when exposed to the crowd? (crowds do not often carry a forge around with them, do they?) I just don't get it... |
|
08-09-2012 ... and, likewise, all the world's widespread philosophies have had their origin in one (or several) individuals...It's the same with inventions & discoveries... sometimes several individuals come up with the same idea in different places ( even different continents!)...mysteriously enough... and, in no time, plenty of people are making use of those inventions or discoveries... Is not the invention or discovery both personal and public at the same time? Maybe it isn't... and I am just missing something... All the very best to you too! |
|
08-09-2012 By the way, I have a Basque surname too (and also related to trees...)No wonder, considering where I was born... hehehe... What a small world! |
|
09-09-2012 The mere fact that atheism, or antinatalism, are "positions on a single issue" in no way means that they are not philosophical positions. Empiricism is also a position "on a single issue" (the issue of how experience is related to the acquisition of true knowledge), but clearly is a philosophical stance. |
|
09-09-2012 Every position is a position on a "single issue," as long as you define that one issue widely enough. So that's not very relevant. |
Comments to Antinatalist, apparently...