- What if that lazy, good for nothing leech has a child for instance?

His son does not deserve to suffer from the effects of poverty.

- The church would help them then?

Well, now you have an America filled with sympathy leeching families. The children from these families will continue to leech even more.

- How do we fix this?

Passing the job on to the government. Having been issued fast food coupons, the lazy welfare recipients will self-select themselves out of the gene pool. Once the future is brighter, those trillions will be paid off in no time.

what if the suicidal person still felt the same way twenty years later?

Thomas Aquinas wanted to prove that eternal damnation was compatible with god's mercy. He wrote that every being will come to love their selves. According to this line of logic suicide is always an act of evil. It doesn't matter if pain is caused, it's better than nothingness. Anyway, perhaps the tendency of all beings to resolve back into a state of fulfillment justifies the general rule.

If people want to stop global warming they do it for future persons. People have no idea who "they" are yet they assume "their" equal value and acknowledge no right to harm "them". Preceding a person in time gives you the same right to terminate them that standing behind them next to cliff does. Every act is coerced, forced and beaten into the fabric of reality, screw libertarianism. Hardly any act is truly justified in the end, suicide much less.

I don't like the idea of allowing people to commit suicide

I think there are moral problems outside of subjective preference: the basis of my reservations. You on the other hand have no basis to even "force someone to go to therapy", if you don't rationally articulate the problem.

I don't mean to be normative. I believe people choose to remain healthy and educate themselves because of this sort of perceived duty. They don't think of "themselves" in the narrow sense. I think most would agree with me however that you need a decent reason to kill yourself however and I believe the reason is what I stated.

This is a case of conflicting values, there's no need to generalize everything into a theory that can be applied 100% of the time.

There are problems with defining democracy in the first place. If 51% of people vote so that the remaining 49% have no right to vote, that would qualify as undemocratic, because the very process of measuring the consent of the governed becomes skewed.

Equally, you can't allow human hunting because it would skew further measurement to favor hillbillies and rednecks so to speak. Some other issue could have gone in favor of the now-extinct hipsters for instance. Hypothetical pure democracies are automatically republics.

Some rights, like the right of private property, can't be directly derived from this though. I think those rights serve as the line between a democracy and a republic.

If human nature doesn't allow for people to have power, then distributing the power undemocratically should be expected to yield the same or worse result.

The reason is simple. People praise the abstract knowledge that he was killed, but actually seeing the act of terror would wake a proportion to consider it an illegal act of terrorism outside of due process.

There is also an aesthetic subjective side to helping the poor. People give money to beggars for the same reason they wear make-up. People can also profit and help the impoverished at the same time.

If that was the case, why would establishing more authority help? How would people of who have this in their nature be able to establish a republic?

Nature produces adaptations that look to the best possible result despite rationality or sacrifice. Sometimes we are kind despite rational self-interest, because it is the way we can best spread and maintain our population in this specific environment.

The fly that distributes malaria depends on a warm environment and can't reach north America or Europe, places that would have the best resources to stop it.

Things "don't need help" merely because they give you something in return, but there are others with more pressing demands than your own. Malaria has killed approximately half of all humans who ever lived. Charities stopping malaria are effective, but "need help".

The problem is that you indeed can steal wheelchairs and shoot deaf people, but by not helping those charities you are doing worse.

Sure, you can be selfish, enlightened self-interest alone would carry the world a long way, but the moment you apply a higher standard (such as proposing a policy for the world) you run into problems.

Nature doesn't let the weak flourish during good times. The kind chieftain would attract the most fertile women. Only the strongest could afford to be kind, so the weak and cruel get less offspring. Kindness goes hand in hand with strength. It is a driving force in development.

Arguing against helping the poor is like asking an indian peafowl to cut off it's useless feathers. If you can't see the beauty of a kind person, no one can tell you why you should. Even if there is no utility in altruism, your aesthetic goes against human nature.

Going against that which has developed naturally shouldn't be called Darwinism in the first place. Oh, and when it comes to utility, you don't mess with mother nature.

They care for one another, but only to a degree that isn't damaging to the other members.

Even the encumbering feathers of the peafowl are of remarkable utility. Due to kindness, the strongest tribe would carry the biggest number useless members. The capable members had to get more food as the sassy cavewoman wouldn't stand a selfish mate. The cruel would get less offspring.

It must contribute if it isn't it must die.

In some civilizations for instance, the elderly leave community themselves. Your argument is this altruism: "we should accept the consequences for the development of humanity". Should the weak then be heralded?

There is no better model for the development of humanity than kindness. It is of remarkable utility, and suggesting otherwise is a misreading of evolution.

The peafowl doesn't die off due to its feathers, on the contrary, it ensures that inefficient individuals won't flourish when food is plenty. During rough times, the trait deteriorates as fast as it flourished, leaving a more efficient peafowl.