To what degree do you believe human beings should have control over their bodies/lives?
In other words, can a government justifyably prohibit suicide or self-mutilation?
Printable View
To what degree do you believe human beings should have control over their bodies/lives?
In other words, can a government justifyably prohibit suicide or self-mutilation?
A government can put in place recommandations to why one should not commit these acts.
No one however can predict or stop someone from taking their own lives.
So no the gorvernmnet should not control people's minds or bodies.
That is not a government job nor position to do so.
Self mutulation is tricky because it is done behind close doors and it is hard to know who is doing what.
What is possible is to air these conditions as being treatable approachable and curable.
Awarness of these acts as a society and how these come about and what triggers them help prevent these things from happening.
So would you support the legalization of drugs?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
Drugs are tricky. I believe have a reason to be and that their function is purely medicinal.
I think countries where 'plant drugs' grow must set a universal organisation to properly lead research on what these drugs are for in terms of medecines and control it that way.
Universal organisations can clean up drugs and treat them as plants and set up a type of 'haberdashery' but with these specific drugs.
Only then universal control is exercised over it.
I also am in full support of a complete ban on neddles to stop drugs being abused.
Getting rid off needles is a prority before anything else can be done.
What do you mean by "self-mutilation"? As much as I try to avoid the "it costs tax-payers a lot of money" arguments, if one lives in a country that provides universal health care, some activities ought to be discouraged or outright banned if they burden the health care system with unnecessary costs. Minor forms of "mutilation" like tongue-splitting (to get that oh-so-fashionable "snake tongue" look) are acceptable, but self-amputation or chimera-creating activities ought to be prohibited, as permitting such activities might have expensive consequences.
But according to your earlier argument, if somebody wants to take drugs they should be allowed to, even if it harms them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Which post are you refering to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
You said people should be allowed to commit suicide.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Goodness me no that is not what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
Sorry my fault I did not express myself clearly.
I said that the government should not get involved in dictating to others what they should do as a rule of thumb.
Suicide is tragic and so is self-mutulation.
These are very serious conditions.
I see suicide different from people wishing to take their lives off.
Wishing to terminate one's life is usually linked to a physical condition when the body is not able to physically function anymore.
Suicide is usually when one is overwhelmed depressed or sees no point in life because an outside something has caused them to break down hence wishing to die.
One is physical and the other one is usually psychological.
So what I meant by my earlier post is that one cannot prevent suicide because if someone wants to commit it they will do it regardless without notifying anyone.
A governement or law should discourage suicide by offering alternative to it.
Offering assistance is what the government should do to prevent people from ending their lives unecessarily.
Making people aware that there is support assistance and help psychologicallty and materiastically is urgent and is the only way to stop people from dying in this tragic way.
As far as I know suicide still goes one in some countries and nothing is being done about it.
So to go back to what I was saying a government could not stop suicide even if they make it the law that done cannot commit this act.
It should recommended against it and should reinforce other better healthier alternatives instead.
Banning is not the answer is what I am trying to say it does not stop people it only aggravates it.
If one country bans then the other solution is to go another country to commit suicide.People will always find a way.
And that is the bottom line and that is not right.
If the government should not be involved in suicide, why should they be involved in things like drugs, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Suicide is the same as wishing to take your own life. I think you are talking about the differences between WHY people kill themselves.
I agree with everything else you said :)
I think you do make a point here.Quote:
QUOTE=Volya;1177554]If the government should not be involved in suicide, why should they be involved in things like drugs, etc?
The government should lead by example and offer solutions rather then take over like the BigBro.
Bullying someone into submission or telling someone one to do only makes things worse. It is not the government place to control everything.
As I said earlier people will always find a way to break the law.
A government'srole is to initiate by offering alternatives in order to divert from the issues.
It is by sharing problems and ideas and turning into solutions that solves the issues and not banning for example.
Yes the mean is the same but the reasons are very distinctive hence different.Quote:
Suicide is the same as wishing to take your own life. I think you are talking about the differences between WHY people kill themselves.
One has more choice then other. A disabled crippled person has less choice then one that is depressed because the lattest can receive help.
Thank you:)Quote:
I agree with everything else you said :)
This is a very interesting question. In theory people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies, as long as they don't harm anyone else in any way - I think that almost everyone agree on this. However I think that government has to regulate people's behavior even in the cases where the person only harms himself. Even though it sounds undemocratic, people are often unable to determine what is good for themselves and the government has to help them choose the "right" option. For instance teenagers might not want to go to school at all, thinking shortsightedly that they don't need education. Addiction-inducing hard drugs are also a good example of this kind of necessary government control. Euthanasia is even trickier question, since as long as someone would be making profit out of this practice, there would be corruption and shady practices involved, which would eventually cause terrible tragedies. Personally I think that euthanasia should be allowed in selected cases if the practice could be regulated and controlled appropriately.
The government ought to be able to do anything (with proper justification and adherence to appropriate legislative and legal procedures) - including controlling the bodies of people - in the following two cases:
(1) when people do not have enough information and as a result: (a) do not know what is best for themselves or (b) will (unintentionally) hurt themselves
(2) when people will (adversely) affect others.
It's broad and vague but with concrete cases, one would find that any intuitively legitimate government-imposed control over people's bodies boil down to these two reasons. (They also boil down to a third reason called "the tyranny of the majority," but I didn't include that reason as I don't believe that it is a valid justification to coerce/restrict/control others.)
Very interesting question... personally, on the essential level of individual freedom as a living being, a human being has the freedom to do whatever he or she wants with his body or life.
But then, the whole point of the human race is GROWTH and PROGRESS - so would absolute individual freedom ultimately allow that?
Keeping that in mind, a government is totally justified in prohibiting suicide, self-harm and harmful drugs -- because without exerting this discipline, the whole direction of humanity (growth and progress) is hindered. Naturally if you allow people to kill and waste themselves, the very idea of social development starts falling apart. However in the end, the government can only pass laws - an individual has the freedom, ultimately, to lock himself up in a room and shoot himself. So more than exerting governmental discipline, I think an intellectual discipline would be more productive - that is, cultivating in the masses (through literature, the media, politics etc), an avid interest and enthusiasm for human progress and thus an inborn aversion towards non-progressive things like suicide and harmful drugs.
cacian- the government should not control people's minds or bodies.
So prostitution should be legal?
No. It should not be. Full stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
cacian- the government should not control people's minds or bodies.
SLG- So prostitution should be legal?
No. It should not be. Full stop.
The the government SHOULD control people's minds and bodies?
The government does not should not control people's mind. What I am trying to say is that in a different world prostitution does not exist. The less corruptions and the less control the government has. In a perfect world a government does not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
In other words... you imagine in your perfect world that if governmental control were eliminated, then prostitution would also disappear? And your "reason" (I hesitate to use this word) for this thinking?
My thinking is based on pure imagination of a world that exists without government ties or dictatorship for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
So the less social issues such as corruption on the ground of drugs sex or abuse and the less reasons for a government to be.
People are power to themselves and will should conceive the notion that without them the reason to be or exist is not. The world is at their feet and so the quicker they realise who they are, get together as a force and simply be without being told how and when and the better they are for it. It is simply a question of logic sense and belief. Organisation is key and so is a thinking process that should eliminate anyone that thinks they have a power to rule over others. A world without rules is what I am about in other words I am the rules and so are you.
Yes... yours is a world of the imagination alright. A good many might suggest "fantasy" or even "delusion" might be a better term. I quite like Rousseau, but he was wholly wrong with his idealized notions of humanity and the idea that government or civilization was the cause of the "evils" that men do. Tennyson was far more accurate with his image of "Nature, red in tooth and claw..." Humanity sans government would rapidly devolve into anarchy and eventually the brute force of "might makes right". You need only look to what happens when a strong central government looses control of a situation... whether we are talking about the aftermath of a coup or war... or even the events following some catastrophic event such as Hurricane Katrina.
In general, I suspect we all agree, less government is better whenever practicable. Where to draw the line, of course, will always be a debatable target that moves with modern knowledge over time. In the U.S., the best example of too much government is too obvious ... the criminal regulation of marijuana.
More government doesn't always mean less personal autonomy though. In (most of) the U.S. and Canada, with the (complicated) exception of medical marijuana, pot is currently illegal to possess and sell. If pot were legalized, taxed and regulated, there would be more regulation but of a different kind - pot users would no longer be criminals. So "less government is better" is not something I would agree with, nor would I agree that the sizing of government as "big" and "small" has much relevance to the practices of nation-states... but that's another issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawg Horse
Leave alone the government, what about friends and family? No, I don't feel it is justifiable to do whatever you like to your own body. You will have to consider the people close to you who will be hurt by your self-harming actions. No man is an island entire of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Nevarc
What a load of nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
If you do not have the most basic right of control over your own body, then you have nothing. Who has a right to tell someone else that they must live their life? Answer: no one.
No one asks to be born, and they should certainly not be forced to live.
Very tricky question. Coming from a consequentialist perspective, I think that notions of personal freedom are ultimately subsumed by more general appeals to the consequences of these laws.
WRT suicide, I think that the most important consideration is the mental health of the individual in question. Do they seem to be in a panicked transient state of mind? Are they under the influence of some drug or withdrawing from one? Is there some obvious environmental factor that could easily be removed and with it suicidal wishes? In these cases it seems obvious that we should discourage suicide, but if the decision is one of a well-thought out and rational decision, I just can't see any reasonable explanation for prohibition.
Perhaps a waiting period. You go to your local euthansia center and say that you want to commit suicide. A thirty day clock starts in which you must check in weekly or with a psychologist and report your reasons etc....
**Question** Does anyone know what happens if you are found guilty of attempted suicide? Not assisted, but rather you attempting it yourself? What are the legal consequences?
One has to reconcile the logic of wanting to end their own existence. As a society we perceive this to be irrational and morally wrong. Perhaps it is just pure narcissim grounded in religious, social and political beliefs. While we maintain this notion, the freedom to end one's life, regardless of the pain it may cause others, will always be a subject of debate.
If no one asks to be born, what makes anyone's right to life inalienable? Why believe that life is something to be "had," a possession? You presume self-ownership without explaining why it is morally significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phocion
There are no criminal consequences to attempted suicide, but the act is often the basis for an involuntary civil commitment, resulting in incarceration in a prison-like government mental facility. The laws reflect the assumption that suicide is usually only attempted by the insane. If the decision to attempt suicide is judicially determined to have been made by a person of sound mind, there are no legal consequences, regardless of the hurt the act may inflict upon family or friends. Reflecting the notion that a person has the basic inalienable right to control his or her own body. The laws are seemingly based on the premise that self-ownership is self-evident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rores28
You can't stop people killing themselves either; so all making it illegal does is stop those who are the most vulnerable, and most in need of it from their only means of escape. It is a barbaric policy, and i'm amazed it doesn't bother more people.
deleted double post.
LOL. If you keep going with this one, you might make me think that it was the man next door who committed murder whenever there is a suicide. Self not self evident? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
All this talk of suicide. Spend a couple of hours talking to a clinical depressive and you'll be handing them the rope. If that offends you talk about policies that will guarentee full employment. How many people has David Cameron hung? I don't know but i do know the crucifying effect unemployment has on peoples' lives. Then again maybe suicide is just the lure of the sea. Do fish ever get suicidal>?
fish never consider suicide they are too fast swimmers they have not got time plus all that fresh air from below and sea how could they ever?Quote:
Originally Posted by russellb
:)