The right to die?

[Adrift]

You sure look emotional with this post - just look at it. This is something I expect from LPoT after she gets in over her head in a discussion. All of the emoji's, sarcastic remarks, and childish taunts show you've lost control of this argument. There's no need for me to engage you to make you look worse - you'd just deteriorate further.

This is quite obviously a lot of bluster on your part Sea. You're the one who looks like the emotional basketcase. Not Teal. In fact, Teal's coming off as cool a cucumber, and her arguments are certainly a lot more thought out and logical than your own.

[Sea of red]

This is quite obviously a lot of bluster on your part Sea. You're the one who looks like the emotional basketcase. Not Teal. In fact, Teal's coming off as cool a cucumber, and her arguments are certainly a lot more thought out and logical than your own.

It doesn't surprise me (or anybody else I'm sure) that you'd have this upside down view of how things are transpiring between myself and Teal.

This issue brings out the worst in you whenever it's brought up and you get upset with your opponents at the drop of a hat. I'm sure you'll say I'm a punk, a liar, no good, or to shut the hell up in your next response to me for daring to make this observation about how you are on this issue.

[One Bad Pig]

It doesn't surprise me (or anybody else I'm sure) that you'd have this upside down view of how things are transpiring between myself and Teal.

This issue brings out the worst in you whenever it's brought up and you get upset with your opponents at the drop of a hat. I'm sure you'll say I'm a punk, a liar, no good, or to shut the hell up in your next response to me for daring to make this observation about how you are on this issue.

Bluntly, you're projecting here. You're a smart guy, but you're also one of the most emotional guys on this forum. Adrift lets people get under his skin sometimes too, but not nearly as often as you do.

[Adrift]

I'm sure you'll say...shut the hell up in your next response to me for daring to make this observation

You thoughtlessly, and callously told Bill, a recovering alcoholic, that you figured he was drinking in the middle of the day, just so you could have the last word. You just don't know when to shut up sometimes. You just have to get that last word in.

[Sea of red]

Bluntly, you're projecting here. You're a smart guy, but you're also one of the most emotional guys on this forum. Adrift lets people get under his skin sometimes too, but not nearly as often as you do.

Whatever you want to believe is fine by me. My thing is, I don't lay down for anybody and that causes problems on a forum where I represent a minority opinion. A lot of it is also the the fact that I'm quick to the point and not sensitive enough to others, which sometimes comes across as mean - I can understand that. I also burn out on stuff that doesn't produce insightful conversation fairly quick and people take that personally. Some of it's me, some it's others.

[Sea of red]

You thoughtlessly, and callously told Bill, a recovering alcoholic, that you figured he was drinking in the middle of the day, just so you could have the last word. You just don't know when to shut up sometimes. You just have to get that last word in.

How was I supposed to know that? I'm not a mind reader.

[One Bad Pig]

Whatever you want to believe is fine by me. My thing is, I don't lay down for anybody and that causes problems on a forum where I represent a minority opinion. A lot of it is also the the fact that I'm quick to the point and not sensitive enough to others, which sometimes comes across as mean - I can understand that. I also burn out on stuff that doesn't produce insightful conversation fairly quick and people take that personally. Some of it's me, some it's others.

There's nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe - even if you're a minority of one. It's when you appear to get frustrated and go on the offensive in lieu of defending your POV that I don't like so much. Maybe it would help to just drop out of conversations when you feel burnout coming on.

[Joel]

I'll allow for the sake of argument the possibility that it might be immoral to use certain means to prevent certain kinds of immorality, but it's not only necessary for you to introduce the concept, but to show why it applies to this case. What makes enforcing a law against assisted suicide unjust?

Going by the traditional understanding of justice:
Justice has to do with the morality of human interactions--specifically interactions that physically interfere with one another without consent. One thing it governs is the use of force against other humans. It was commonly understood that the use of force is generally unjust. The only exception is to permit force against injustice (restraint or restitution). The actions and interactions of consenting adults is not unjust. So force against consensual action is unjust.

Given the above, using force against consensual assisted suicide would be unjust.

Secondarily, because the use of force is normally unjust and permitted in only special circumstances, of the injustice of others, then the justifying of the use of force requires demonstrating the injustice of the other (and showing certain other things, e.g. that the force in response was proportional to the crime). And thus it is commonly recognized that the burden of proof lies on the one justifying the use of force.


[edited to add]
The above is the explanation for why the examples I mentioned before are not injustice (and thus do not justify the use of force), though they may still be immoral for other reasons (e.g. saying mean things, refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, burning a flag, or being gluttonous or prideful).
[/edited to add]

[Sea of red]

There's nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe - even if you're a minority of one. It's when you appear to get frustrated and go on the offensive in lieu of defending your POV that I don't like so much. Maybe it would help to just drop out of conversations when you feel burnout coming on.

I'm the first person to admit I get frustrated during debates. If I go on the offensive with someone it's usually after they've taken a few shots with no response back. Obviously it's not wise to get down in the mud with people (which I have done) but I'm not a doormat for anybody, and if people want to get an attitude with me or dish out insults, they should be able to take it back. I honestly don't feel I'm any worse than some of the people on your side in that regard.

I have been trying to simply leave conversations when I find them unproductive or unpleasant. It depends on the thread honestly. If I care about the topic a lot, I'll stick around, otherwise I'll leave.

[Sparko]

The actions and interactions of consenting adults is not unjust.

It can be if one of the adults is not properly informed and consents under false pretenses. That is the basis of all cons. I promise you something if you do something for me or give me something. You believe me and do or give me what I want. I lied. You end up being cheated. We both consented, yet it was unjust.

[Spartacus]

Going by the traditional understanding of justice:
Justice has to do with the morality of human interactions--specifically interactions that physically interfere with one another without consent.

Says who? Which of Socrates' interlocutors in the Republic proposes this? Or where can it be found in classical political theory?

One thing it governs is the use of force against other humans. It was commonly understood that the use of force is generally unjust.

Again, says who?

[Joel]

It can be if one of the adults is not properly informed and consents under false pretenses. That is the basis of all cons. I promise you something if you do something for me or give me something. You believe me and do or give me what I want. I lied. You end up being cheated. We both consented, yet it was unjust.

In a contract/exchange, what is consented to is the agreement as a whole--not to each side of the exchange in isolation but to the exchange as a whole. If I give you payment and you fail to deliver the goods, then you took my money without my consent. I consented to the exchange: to give payment in exchange for the goods. I did not consent to give the payment as a free gift or as some isolated act of handing you payment regardless whether you deliver the goods.

For another example, if I consent to lend you my car for one day and then you decide to keep it forever, you can't claim it's okay because I consented to give you use of the car at the beginning--because that's not what I actually consented to.

Same thing if you offer to sell me a crate of gold, but it's really full of rocks. I consented to exchange money for gold. I did not consent to pay for rocks. Your taking my money on such deceit is taking my money without my consent.

Fraud is unjust because it is a form of theft (taking without consent).


So also in the case of consensual assisted suicide we would not be talking about a case of fraud (e.g. offering the hospital patient food but delivering poison).
(That would also be murder, but we're just looking at fraud aspect in this post.)

[Sparko]

In a contract/exchange, what is consented to is the agreement as a whole--not to each side of the exchange in isolation but to the exchange as a whole. If I give you payment and you fail to deliver the goods, then you took my money without my consent. I consented to the exchange: to give payment in exchange for the goods. I did not consent to give the payment as a free gift or as some isolated act of handing you payment regardless whether you deliver the goods.

For another example, if I consent to lend you my car for one day and then you decide to keep it forever, you can't claim it's okay because I consented to give you use of the car at the beginning--because that's not what I actually consented to.

Same thing if you offer to sell me a crate of gold, but it's really full of rocks. I consented to exchange money for gold. I did not consent to pay for rocks. Your taking my money on such deceit is taking my money without my consent.

Fraud is unjust because it is a form of theft (taking without consent).


So also in the case of consensual assisted suicide we would not be talking about a case of fraud (e.g. offering the hospital patient food but delivering poison).
(That would also be murder, but we're just looking at fraud aspect in this post.)

As I said, in those cases it is NOT Just. you made my point for me. yet both parties consented to the actions. Just that one didn't actually deliver. I say, I am a prince of Nigeria and I will give you $1 million dollars if you give me your bank account information. You give me your bank account information. I don't give you $1 million. You not only consented to the demand for your bank account info, you actually went through with it. It was unjust.

And in the case of assisted suicide, what I am envisioning is conning the person into consenting to accept assistance to end his life. either lying to him by saying he is going to suffer horribly if he doesn't end his life now, or convincing him that he is a burden on his family and he should accept assisted suicide to relieve that burden. Either way, that he was being conned makes it unjust and yet he gave his consent. By the time it might be figured out it is too late and he is dead.

[Joel]

Justice has to do with the morality of human interactions--specifically interactions that physically interfere with one another without consent.

Says who? Which of Socrates' interlocutors in the Republic proposes this? Or where can it be found in classical political theory?

One thing it governs is the use of force against other humans. It was commonly understood that the use of force is generally unjust.

Again, says who?

Some relevant examples I'm aware of are:

"Of the three remaining divisions [of the 4 cardinal virtues], the most extensive in its application is the principle by which society and what we may call its "common bonds" are maintained. Of this again there are two divisions — justice...and, close akin to justice, charity, which may also be called kindness or generosity. The first office of justice is to keep one man from doing harm to another, unless provoked by wrong;"
--Cicero, De Officiis Book 1 [20]. Cicero says he is just transmitting Greek philosophy (particularly Stoicism).
(The 4 cardinal virtues were the pattern of dividing virtues into (1) intellectual virtue (wisdom), (2) virtue of human interaction (justice & charity), (3) virtue regarding displeasure (fortitude), (4) virtue regarding pleasure (temperance).)

Socrates: "Have you forgotten our old principle of the division of labour, or of every man doing his own business, concerning which we spoke at the foundation of the State—what but this was justice? Is there any other virtue remaining which can compete with wisdom and temperance and courage in the scale of political virtue? For ‘every one having his own’ is the great object of government;"
--Plato, The Republic Book 4, 433

Another translation has "Further, we affirmed that justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody; we said so again and again, and many others have said the same to us."
And another translation, ""justice is when everyone minds his own business, and refrains from meddling in others' affairs"

To each what is his, is the principle, thus not interfering with what is another's.

"justice...assigns to each his own"
--Cicero De Natura Deorum III, 38

"Courage is displayed in toils and dangers, Temperance in forgoing pleasures, Prudence in the choice of goods and evils, Justice in giving each his due."
--Cicero De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, Book 5, 67

"Justice is the constant and perpetual desire to give to each one that to which he is entitled...The following are the precepts of the Law: to live honestly, not to injure another, and to give to each one that which belongs to him."
--Justinian, Institutes 1.1

"justice, alone of the virtues, is thought to be 'another's good', because it is related to our neighbour"
--Aristotle, Nicomachaen Ethics, Book 5, 1

"it is plain that just action is intermediate between acting unjustly and being unjustly treated; for the one is to have too much and the other to have too little."
--ibid 5, 5
i.e., as opposed to having what is yours.

"if a man harms another by choice [of the actor], he acts unjustly"
--ibid 5, 8

But it is without the consent of the injured:
"It is plain, then, that being unjustly treated is not voluntary [on the part of the injured]." Thus he takes the position that injustice must be "'contrary to the wish of the person acted on'...Then a man may be voluntarily harmed...but no one is voluntarily treated unjustly; for no one wishes to be unjustly treated...Again, one who gives what is his own, as Homer says Glaucus gave Diomede Armour of gold for brazen, the price of a hundred beeves for nine, is not unjustly treated; for though to give is in his power, to be unjustly treated is not, but there must be some one to treat him unjustly."
--ibid 5, 9

Another translation has it that injustice is injuring another "contrary to the will of the injured person."


And for a modern continuation of this tradition:

A man "may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another." (obviously Aristotle's qualification regarding consent must apply, for a person may choose to give up what is his)
-- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch 2

"force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful force"
--ibid Ch 18

[Joel]

In a contract/exchange, what is consented to is the agreement as a whole--not to each side of the exchange in isolation... I did not consent to give the payment as a free gift or as some isolated act of handing you payment regardless whether you deliver the goods.

As I said, in those cases it is NOT Just. you made my point for me. yet both parties consented to the actions. Just that one didn't actually deliver. I say, I am a prince of Nigeria and I will give you $1 million dollars if you give me your bank account information. You give me your bank account information. I don't give you $1 million. You not only consented to the demand for your bank account info, you actually went through with it. It was unjust.

I'm not seeing how I made your point. Yes, we both agree that these are cases of injustice. That's not what I'm disputing.
As I said, these cases are unjust because of the lack of consent. It's the same with this example: you did not consent to anything being done with the bank account except to deposit $1 million. Thus if the con-man takes money from the account it is done without consent. That's why it would be unjust. Your giving the bank account information was conditional. It's the same as lending the car for 1 day: consent was only to a limited, defined use. Using it for more than that is unjust because it's done without consent.

If there is injustice via fraud in a case of assisted suicide it would likewise be because of something done without consent.