CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The right to die should be ours.
We have 'rights'. I talked in another debate about how these rights are mostly privledges. Some arguments said, that our rights can't be taken away, they are god given, or for the atheistic we are born with the human sense to be allowed these 'rights'.
Freedom of speech, right to bare arms, right to assembly to name a few. But if we can talk as we please, which were born to do, shouldn't we be able to die as we please as we too were born to do?
Not like we should legally be aloud to jump off of a bridge, obviously that'd be bad for the people living, that still want to, but we should be allowed to go to some designated area and be killed at the very least.
Maybe I'm biased in this regard as to have contemplated suicide before due to a brain deformity, but I still think it's a logical thing to believe that we have the right to choose death.
Maybe a glorious death isn't necessary since we would be making the decision our self, but at the very least the right to choose when. I do honestly believe a person should be allowed to wake up any given day and say I want to die, and be allowed to go through the paper work to get that rightful wish fulfilled.
With strict regulations on it though to ensure people aren't being made to kill themselves against their will. And maybe some system of debt settling before hand to ensure people won't just go bankrupt then decide to have themselves killed rather than paying off their debts.
It'd be like gun control except with the right to die basically.
I like the idea of euthanasia it gives people a choice whether they still want to live or whether they want a peaceful death, but I think that this option should only be given to people with a lethal disease that only gets worse otherwise you'll get suicidal people who are just fed up with their lives and are too lazy to do anything about it except kill themselves. But yeah we should have a right to die but only if we have a very lethal disease it's the best way to put them out of suffering.
I say yes. Life and Death is ones own choice to make. Especially if their life has become nothing but suffering, as depicted in the picture above. Though, I don't support suicide, I don't condemn the people who have allowed themselves to die because their lives are literally a hell.
I don't see why we can't. We have the option to do good or bad. We have the option to kill or not. We have the option to love or hate. I don't see why we can control our own life or death.
Life is a misery. Life is a cruel punishment forced upon us by his greatness the almighty God.
Satan will offer us physical pleasures along the way but God is more powerful than my Lord Satan in the end.
This over-powered cunt is the reason that the right to die will never be ours to decide, for the right to be born wasn't our choice either.
Until we overcome the wrath of God as a species, our wrath of death and the decision of its time will lie in the hands of this almighty asshole for eternity.
There is no "right" to decide for others. How much do you have in common with yourself 20 years ago? 5 years ago? If that person decided to end their lives they would have ended yours as well. The problem here is the same as in the case of abortion. Of course, there should be exceptions but you can't consider such an act to be a "right".
You 20 years from now may be slightly altered, but ultimately you are the same person.
The situation you presented was a clever one, it actually made me think, but I later surmised that it would go into too many possibilities. The job you picked fro yourself years ago, the tattoos, or piercings.
Only I see, that with choosing death 5 years ago, you would not be around in the coming 5 years to decide against it.
There is no "right" to decide for others. How much do you have in common with yourself 20 years ago? 5 years ago? If that person decided to end their lives they would have ended yours as well.
Your logic could be used to justify the illegalization of everything unhealthy by drinking soda, eating chips, watching television you are punishing your future self thus those should be illegal right? Anyways your uture self if considered another being as you imply due to being from a different time, I may say that those people don't exist yet and thus you can't wrong them. You can't wrong a non-existent. A billion and one different being could come to existence from any specific multitude of atoms in the universe from any other time, but a majority of these people will never exist, and where is the problem if these people never existed in the first place? By this logic NOT creating as many different kinds of people through genetic technology is immoral since all these people can potentially exist. This logic is as ridiculous as shouting "It is a shame that bob the Irish, jamaicon sevant with A, B, C... z traits doesn't exist... Ohh the humanity!!! The fact that this person never existed is murder by nature itself!!!" I mean come on?
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.
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.
True, but that is there choice. I don't want people to kill themselves, but opposing someone's right to do so goes against my sense of justice, I do think we should try to counsel people whom may potentially be suicidal first because in the long run they will be glad that they didn't kill themselves, but the mental jumping jacks one has to do to buy into your "wronging your future self" reasoning is a bit ridiculous honestly due to two things, to be consistent with this reasoning would change how our law and society functions greatly and secondly we can't predict with absolute certainty in what ways people differentiate over time for everyone or anyone, what if the suicidal person still felt the same way twenty years later? what if this person felt that way for the rest of his/her life? then we have not protected the future self of this person but caused them more pain and suffering by allowing this potential person to exist.
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.
You never stated what reasoning you believe a person to be allowed to kill themselves. For me nobody needs a reason to be just doing so. I don't want people to do so, but it is their choice. I want people to be happy enough for their desire to live to be preserved, and I do think that before we allow someone to kill themselves they should have to give counseling and therapy a try.
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.
Consistency is necessary here though, not everything needs to apply 100% of the time, however when a logic isn't applied somewhere you need to justify why not, if we are going to take away someones right to suicide in order to look after their future we need to do so for everything else unless we justify in other scenarios where they don't. You need to explain why we should only look out for someone's interests in the long run when it comes to suicide and not with anything else. Why should we not allow people the right to kill themselves because their future selfs would regret it when we don't do so in manners of health (eating chips, drinking soda, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, pursuing education, having sex) we do, do that in the case of minors since they aren't developed enough to make a lot of those decisions or are quite vulnerable to making a lot of regrettable decisions, thus I wouldn't be against not allowing people under the age of 18 the right to kill themselves though we should still counsel them. Once 18 or older people should be allowed to make that decision.
Don't get me wrong I don't like the idea of allowing people to commit suicide, but I find it inconsistent with my sense of justice to disallow it.
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.
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. The tendency of all beings to resolve back into a state of fulfillment justifies the general rule.
Some people will have periods of extreme depression over their lifetime, and if they find life is not worth living because of it and you disagree you can't decide for them what amount of satisfaction is necessary for life to be worth living.
My point is that when people want to stop global warming they do it for future persons. You have no idea who they are yet you have to assume their equal value and acknowledge no right to harm them. Every act is coerced, forced and beaten into the fabric of reality, screw libertarianism. Hardly any act is justified in the end, suicide much less.
Global Warming effects everyone though equally, we should try to prevent global warming if we can because it will effect those who do not wish to have it and those who do. Also your entire argument is completely based on the presumption that people WANT global warming to happen which I don't think is the case.
Conversely, I think there are moral problems not just subjective preference: the basis of my reservations about such a decision. You on the other hand have no basis to even "force someone to go to therapy", if you don't articulate rationally what problem you see.
That is the deal that they can make if they wish to have the government execute their deaths, thus they agree with it, otherwise they could just do it themselves, no matter what the law, you can't truly illegalize suicide. What are you going to do to someone who commits suicide? imprison them? give them a ticket? death penalty?
If there is a person dying of cancer, and they are in the terminal stages, euthanasia may be acceptable. However, where do we stop killing people? When the looks an arm? A hand? Health care is to heal, not to kill.
If a person wishes to die regardless of the reason they should have that reason. I HIGHLY doubt people would kill themselves over a hurt arm or hand but if they wish, who are we to not allow them?
But you said people need guidance. In any regard that kind of guidance where you decide for people who you feel can't decide for themselves falls under the same category as dictatorship. I'm not saying just because you make decisions for disabled people that you're a tyrant, but that if people of sound mind decide they want to die, they should have the right to, and anyone that decides to guide them otherwise would be controlling.
People generally do need guidance. Are you calling every single corporation and person on this earth a tyrant because they have all provided guidance at one point or another? You also seem to ignore the number one factor preventing euthanasia form being introduced: where to draw the line? Who's to say which patient is of sound mind or not? The state would need psychiatric professionals the the cost is absolutely horrifying.
I'm not saying just because you make decisions for disabled people that you're a tyrant
That was what I said. I did not say that anyone who guides others are tyrants. My parent's guided me until i was able to make decisions on my own. In the regard of deciding to die, if you can make that decision on your own, but someone feels that you can so they decide what's best for you, that is tyrannical.
Who's to say which patient is of sound mind or not?
Who's to say they aren't? People always assume insanity or mental illness just because a person wants to die. Maybe the person generally feels life is so unimportant and insignificant that ending it will not make a difference, which I could argue it wouldn't.
If every person were to be killed it wouldn't make a difference but people with their right to life can choose to not be killed and we can honor that. If the person has sound enough mind to choose to live why can't that person have sound enough mind to choose to die?
Who's to say they aren't? People always assume insanity or mental illness just because a person wants to die. Maybe the person generally feels life is so unimportant and insignificant that ending it will not make a difference, which I could argue it wouldn't
It appears that you have contradicted yourself. You stated that if a person is of a sound mind, the euthanasia could be an option;however, in the quotation above it is obvious that you connote that state of mind is completely irrelevant to the act of euthanasia.
In the initial sentence I am saying that you also don't know if they are of unsound mind because you said that they could be. In the second one I said regardless of their mental state, it's still their right.
It's less of a contradiction and more of a situation that shows the other one is irrelevant.
There is a reason the mentally insane wear straight jackets. It is so they don't injure themselves. If you are not of sound mind, you have no business deciding weather to be eutheanised.
The whole euthanasia deal is rather cold as-well don't you think?
And you keep saying Euthanasia, no one is saying euthanasia I'm saying suicide. If a mentally handicapped person wants to kill themselves to cope with their illness why can't they just do it?
"And you keep saying Euthanasia, no one is saying euthanasia I'm saying suicide"
The debate is about euthanasia.
"If a mentally handicapped person wants to kill themselves to cope with their illness why can't they just do it?"
The whole point is the fact that they are not of sound mind. Perhaps you go temporally insane and want to kill yourself; however, you recover and lead a normal productive life. You never wanted to kill yourself in the first place, it's because you were insane! There is a reason for straight jackets.
The right to die should be ours. That is what the debate is about. That right could be gone about in various ways, but ultimately it comes down to the right to die. Not the morality of Euthanasia.
Perhaps you go temporally insane and want to kill yourself; however, you recover and lead a normal productive life.
People become temporarily different people when they drink and some of them get tattoos, marry people, do drugs, etc. yet they have that right. Why should a temporarily insane person not have the right to kill themselves when that is what they wanted to do at that time.
Can you answer my other questions also?
Why do we have the right to our own life but not our own death?
To control your own death is literally that. That could be to jump off a bridge, or pull the trigger.
Euthanasia is medically assisted suicide. Which becomes issues of whether or not he really wanted that, or if the person doing the assisting enjoyed it or not.
As for the question. Could you answer it in a sentence or one paragraph?
Sure a tattoo is less sever than death but it was still a choice you made while you weren't yourself. What if you get drunk and get yourself killed. people have done that before yet we still allow alcohol to be legal, but a person isn't legally allowed to seek their own demise, it seems unjust.
People usually have a right to their own lives, but a right to death is much more complicated. People could be suffering from mental illness. In this case guidance is necessary.
I don't see how. We never asked to be born yet we are thrust into life with these alleged rights. And the one that prevails overall is the right to live. it would make sense that the right to get out whenever would be one guaranteed as well.
