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?
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.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
So would you support the legalization of drugs?Originally Posted by cacian
Good question.
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.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
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.
Which post are you refering to?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
You said people should be allowed to commit suicide.
Goodness me no that is not what I mean.
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.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
If the government should not be involved in suicide, why should they be involved in things like drugs, etc?
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=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.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 youI agree with everything else you said
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
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.
De omnibus dubitandum.
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.
Madness is a writer's occupational hazard.
cacian- the government should not control people's minds or bodies.
So prostitution should be legal?
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote