Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The right to die?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
    Nice straw man. I never said everything is an absolutely right. Particularly since I am a hard deontological libertarian, I obviously don't think EVERYTHING is a right.

    But whether or not *I* have to live IS the most fundamental of rights. Nothing is more. Without it, there is no real right to "life." My life is my own, and that entails the right to say I have had enough for whatever reason I deem fit.
    well yeah I mean, what are they going to do? Arrest you for killing yourself?

    The question is do you have a right to have someone help you die instead of just doing it yourself?

    I think in certain circumstances, it is not a "right" but it is something that should be available, but I worry it could become abused by those who want to rid the earth of sick and elderly people because of convenience and cost.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
      I wouldn't been given a BS in physics and an MS in astronomy had I flunked biology class, Teal.
      Uh, yes you could have been. In many universities you don't need to even take biology classes if you are studying physics. Even where the introductory science courses include a section on biology you can still flunk that submodule and pass the course based on acing the maths/physics/chemistry/geology/astronomy/meteorology questions.
      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
        Uh, yes you could have been. In many universities you don't need to even take biology classes if you are studying physics. Even where the introductory science courses include a section on biology you can still flunk that submodule and pass the course based on acing the maths/physics/chemistry/geology/astronomy/meteorology questions.
        You're correct, it's not a requirement. I chose to take a biology class because it was either that or geology.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          No, I don't 'believe' in rights - what moron would? I accept that certain rights exist.
          What do you mean by "believe" other than "accept that"?

          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          No, it's not a right just because it's necessary for another right. If someone prevented your access to air, they would quite properly be charged with murder but not with violating your right to breathe air because it doesn't exist. It's an absurdity - that's why I used it. There's no need of a right to breathe air. The right to life is sufficient.
          If a particular is covered by the general principle, then, yes, it's correct to say that the general principle is sufficient. But that doesn't mean the particular is not necessary.

          If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man,
          then Socrates is mortal.

          Sure, it is sufficient to say "all men are mortal" (and not enumerate all men), but that doesn't mean there isn't a need for Socrates to be mortal. On the contrary, there is a need. If there is any particular man that is not mortal, then it isn't the case that "all men are mortal". The universal needs all its particulars to be true.

          If in a particular, killing you by preventing you from breathing air is violating your right not to be murdered (i.e. the 'right to life'), then you have a right not to be prevented from breathing air. The particular needs to be true for the universal to be true.

          In the same way, Darth Xena has said she thinks the general right to self-ownership is sufficient. And that the right to die is a particular implied by it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joel View Post
            If in a particular, killing you by preventing you from breathing air is violating your right not to be murdered (i.e. the 'right to life'), then you have a right not to be prevented from breathing air. The particular needs to be true for the universal to be true.
            You don't have a right not to be murdered. Piling on more nonsensical rights claims doesn't help your case.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              You don't have a right not to be murdered.
              You've already said, "I don't think natural rights are a thing." Gotcha. I disagree.

              Teallaura and Xena were arguing something within the assumption of natural rights. I jumped in with a clarification. Your "I don't think natural rights are a thing," doesn't add to that discussion other than to remind us that you reject whole premise of the discussion.

              If you don't think natural rights are a thing, and by "rights" you only mean codified statutes, then the question of this thread for you would boil down to what the current statutes in a particular state are. Not a very interesting discussion. And clearly not what the OP is asking. And everyone else is discussing what the statutes ought to be. You seem to reject the notion that the question is even meaningful. Okay.

              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              I don't usually see supporters using the concept consistently, either.
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              The popular (mis)usage of 'rights' drives me crazy.
              As a natural rights theorist I am also somewhat bugged by inconsistent or mis- usage of the concept. Not sure if we are complaining about the same inconsistencies or mis-usages.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                Teallaura and Xena were arguing something within the assumption of natural rights. I jumped in with a clarification. Your "I don't think natural rights are a thing," doesn't add to that discussion other than to remind us that you reject whole premise of the discussion.
                That's not the only thing they're arguing. In fact, there's a pretty significant disconnect between how they're using 'rights', which Teal has acknowledged. Further, my comment about natural rights is in support of 'depends on axioms', which you omitted in your quote.

                Regardless, I'm not particularly interested in your take on how anything I say adds to the discussion. It's not your thread, and that's not your call.


                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                If you don't think natural rights are a thing, and by "rights" you only mean codified statutes, then the question of this thread for you would boil down to what the current statutes in a particular state are. Not a very interesting discussion. And clearly not what the OP is asking. And everyone else is discussing what the statutes ought to be. You seem to reject the notion that the question is even meaningful. Okay.
                On the contrary, where 'rights' means codified statutes, the discussion of 'what should be' is as much or more important than 'what are' (depending on context). Your assumption of what the thread means to me is 100% wrong.


                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                As a natural rights theorist I am also somewhat bugged by inconsistent or mis- usage of the concept. Not sure if we are complaining about the same inconsistencies or mis-usages.
                Given that neither of these comments were aimed at you, it doesn't matter if you think we are or not.




                Did you have something constructive intended with this post?
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  You don't have a right not to be murdered. Piling on more nonsensical rights claims doesn't help your case.
                  Tell that to a judge when you murder a person.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    That's not the only thing they're arguing. In fact, there's a pretty significant disconnect between how they're using 'rights', which Teal has acknowledged. Further, my comment about natural rights is in support of 'depends on axioms', which you omitted in your quote.

                    Regardless, I'm not particularly interested in your take on how anything I say adds to the discussion. It's not your thread, and that's not your call.
                    I'm pretty sure Xena and I mean the same thing by rights, based on recent discussions. And Xena said in that post of hers (that I was defending) that her position was natural rights, and gave breathing as an example.

                    I don't wish to say anything against your arguing against natural rights (if you wish). I have no problem with such an argument, or participating in such a discussion. I was only trying to point out (probably poorly) that it's not relevant to the particular argument I made, which was in the context of an assumption of natural rights. I should have kept my comments focused on my argument in particular rather than referring to the thread in general. I apologize.

                    On the contrary, where 'rights' means codified statutes, the discussion of 'what should be' is as much or more important than 'what are' (depending on context). Your assumption of what the thread means to me is 100% wrong.
                    So I'm curious then. When Sea Of Red asks, "Do people have a right to end their lives on their own terms?" and "right" means codified statutes, then wouldn't the question just be what are the current statutes? Wouldn't "Do people have a right to" be the same as "Is it legal under codified statutes to"? Where is the 'should' in that question? I'm not trying to be dismissive here; I want to understand your position.

                    Originally posted by Joel
                    As a natural rights theorist I am also somewhat bugged by inconsistent or mis- usage of the concept. Not sure if we are complaining about the same inconsistencies or mis-usages.
                    Given that neither of these comments were aimed at you, it doesn't matter if you think we are or not.
                    I was only suggesting possible common ground for us.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                      Tell that to a judge when you murder a person.


                      There are still laws against murder. That doesn't make it a right.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post


                        There are still laws against murder. That doesn't make it a right.
                        You sound ridiculous.

                        Laws prohibiting what you can do to another member of society exist precisely because your neighbor has rights - one of which is the protection against bodily harm.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                          You sound ridiculous.

                          Laws prohibiting what you can do to another member of society exist precisely because your neighbor has rights - one of which is the protection against bodily harm.
                          Those are the only just laws:) The only legitimate use of force is defensive.
                          The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            well yeah I mean, what are they going to do? Arrest you for killing yourself?
                            They could charge you if unsuccessful. Attempting a crime is a crime. But no, more likely they will make information on the exercise of your right unlawful and criminalize anyone who might assist you.

                            The question is do you have a right to have someone help you die instead of just doing it yourself?
                            Yes, if they are willing.

                            I think in certain circumstances, it is not a "right" but it is something that should be available, but I worry it could become abused by those who want to rid the earth of sick and elderly people because of convenience and cost.
                            Well you're getting there then. And all rights can be abused. Like freedom of speech for instance. Which is why CO thinks it is okay to threaten innocent uses of it with jail time. Which is why we cannot do that.
                            The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • Yes Joel, you and I have the same understanding. I am a deontological natural rights adherent.
                              The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • Two LPCO conventions ago we had a right to die petitioner who rented a booth. I refused to sign her petition. I said no for many of the same reasons here ... and some not said here. I don't believe as a Christian in suicide being moral, and I think it can be abused. I then thought through the implications of freedom and rights and found neither were a justification for using the force of the state to codify into law.

                                I defend the right to die. I do not believe it a moral choice due to my religious beliefs. I do believe it can be abused. None of that takes away from that right, and the state has no business here.

                                On a related note, the Supreme Court may revisit polygamy. Yay.
                                The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X