Kill Yourself

[blahblah18]

As opposed to what one may think, from seeing the topic, this is a real thread, so don't be retarded when you post. This is an idea I've been tossing around for a while, I"ll probably use it as a debate construct, but I"m curious on people's ideas on it.

Ok so here goes...

Basically, assume you're homeless, no job, no family. The only reason you're alive is because people sometimes toss money at you out of compelte pity as you're sleeping in the streets... You get sick, you still go to hospitals for treatment, etcera. You might even be receiving food stamps or welfare.

You should just kill yourself. Moreso you should have an Obligation to society to kill yourself. First of all, you're draining from society and giving nothing back in return. No one will miss you since you have no one to miss, and probably most importantly, you've broken your part of the Social Contract. Government is protecting you and keeping you alive practically, and you're giving NOTHING back in return... So come on, think about it, and jump in front of that subway train.

[chardish]

IT'S OPPOSITE DAY!

[Tasselfoot]

Little hostility today Blah? I gotta split, but I'll add more later.

[Linkisdoomed]

I guess that this means I should kill myself. My home is practically a box. So small. Ill be leaving here in less than a month anyways.
-Mr. 1up-

[alainbryden]

I know you're just doing this to be controvercial. Yes from an economic standpoint this would be an ideal thing to do, in many cases, and it is likely that he will just die eventually. However, the fact is we aren't animals, we have given ourselves an inherit right to live at any cost, and it is against human nature to kill yourself for the small convenience of those you do not know.

[blahblah18]

It really wasn't to be controversial... Its an interesting idea, extrapolate on it. What is the worth of a life, and when does it go past use. You can also say that the life of person X is worth more then the life of person Y, so while homeless familyless jobless bum is sapping society's resources, he, by definition has to be depriving the life and resources of someone else, even if its the unborn child of an unborn child. And since we're assuming this guy is basically at the bottom of the barrel for "human worth", then if he is a "moral" person, shouldn't he kill himself, thus paving the way for the rest of society to move on without him?

[talisman]

If you value society more than yourself... yeah kill yourself. Except if this were true the you would probably be trying to better yourself.

On the other hand, if you value your own life more than the general welfare of everyone else, why would you kill yourself?

[alainbryden]

As I said, if you look at everything from an economic point of view, having a cost and a benefit, but it has been deemed immoral to do so with human beings and so every person continues to have the right to their own existence. There is no logic in keeping the bum alive, only moral.

[blahblah18]

Well its also assuming that you lead a miserable life. you're homeless, out on the streets, and basically society is just propping you up from day to day. On your own, you'd be dead in a week. And again, I said that I want to assume this as an actual thing worth debating, so I'm saying, Morally, should or shouldn't you kill yourself? That's the interesting question posed

[FlashStinger]

How is the life of this homeless man different from Bill Gates?

I could argue that by someone killing Bill Gates would be beneficial to soecity so he could give all homeless people enough money to not be homeless and make something of themselves. At least that death would cause direct benefits to many others. Things don't work that way, the man that jumps in front of the subway causes even more of a drain on soecity. He causes many people to go through counciling, the government then has to dispose of this man, the bus could be damaged and will need to be repaired or destroyed. Bill Gates dies, a small percent of his money goes to burying his rich body and many many more people are directly helped.

The point is, life is life, no matter which social class you fall into.

[blahblah18]

That's not true. Bill Gates has created tens of thousands of jobs, provides comptuers, enhances technology HAS a Family, and many other things.

If they were both drowning and you had to save one, clearly you'd have to save the one that can provide more in the future for society. Also if you had to choose to erase the life of one of them, clearly you woudln't want to lose out on all that Gates has done vs random bum X

Just say, overall, how society is better on any aspect with this man continuing to live?

[talisman]

Morally, you could say that your life is the most important life, and therefore shouldn't kill yourself.

I think it's implausible that someone who values society more than his or her life would allow themselves to sink to such a non-productive level.

I suppose you could kill yourself because you're miserable, but that doesn't really mean that you made a moral decision.

The more interesting questions arises when you consider what society should do with such people... or if it has a right to do anything (including providing support) to them at all.

[blahblah18]

fine talisman, your point is fine, but all these arguments are skirting the main question.
Should you/society/anyone just end you?

[Tasselfoot]

I've said before that the bottom 10% of society should be killed. That welfare should be stopped, food stamps, etc.

Unfortunately, for a realistic standpoint... all this would do is make the 11-20% grouping the bottom, and we'd face the problem all over again. That, and if those who feast off of the blood of the state don't get their free meal, they would likely turn to crime. And, chances are it is cheaper to feed them now than to put them through the legal system and prison.

I'll let Q go all out on the realistics behind the economics of killing the worthless and/or shutting off government aid to the non-contributors.

[talisman]

I don't think society can judge a person's worth... or even if it can, I don't think it should. (see: the holocaust).

If a person wants to end their life because they feel that their existence is dragging down everyone else and that everyone else's existence is more important, then I guess more power to them.

My main opinion here is that it would be the person's decision. I don't think society should have the right to say "Hey, you. You're worthless. Why don't you go kill yourself?" even if that person is worthless.

[banditcom]

Eskimos often commit suicide when they're older and consuming without producing. It's called altruistic suicide, meaning you take your life with the hope of benefiting others.

It makes sense.

[FlashStinger]

And does having a family and providing jobs make you more of a person than the average homeless person? How are they different unless you include prejudice? Have you sat down and talked to the homeless man on how he got there? He may have been layed off an unable to find a job elsewhere, and the company that layed him off might be a company you supported finiacially. In turn, you made him homless. Are you not responsible for his life as it is now then?

[dAnceguy117]

Interesting topic. I wanted to say, though, how far would you let this go?

Sure, you could say that a homeless person like that doesn't contribute to society and takes from it, so their lives should be ended. But then what about the elderly people? They can't contribute too much, we'd be better off without them, right?

But wait. Why not just get rid of the ones who don't contribute as much? That's less people to provide for, and enough contribution from the others. But how far could this go?

I think my mind was kinda screwed up on this post, it kinda sounds like doing that is like being Hitler. But I think you get the idea I was trying to get across.

[flippinIDIOT727]

That ain't right, man!!! That's really sad that you're giving people that idea. You're dumb, it's not like the homeless people are gonna read that. They don't have computer access... unless they go to the library, but they don't. I think you should jump in front of a subway! Gosh. What porpose to society do you serve? Yeah, that's what i thought. It's not their faults they're homeless! I really doubt they want to be. Don't be a retard and tell people that. You can just go to hell!

[chardish]

My simple take on the situation is:

Who are you to judge the worth of another human being? Maybe, in someone else's eyes, or to someone else's standards, you are worthless because you don't do X.

We have to hold by the belief that all humans are equal if we want a functioning society. You'll notice that most problems in our society are caused when people don't believe that.

[blahblah18]

Well that's why I didn't want to advocate government forcibly killing our Mr. X, but rather I wanted to debate if Mr. X should feel any moral obligation to kill himself. Its basically just trying to say, is there ever a situation where suicide is morally acceptable

[The_Q]

Suicide in the name of those you love is admirable. If it is made in an effort to help them, people adore such martyrdom. We have celebrated many a hero who has sacrificed himself for the common good. The Catholic church does this all the time.

Sadly, it isn't entirely true. Even the homeless have quite a bit of worth. I value them quite highly as potential cheap labor. Just pick a few hobos of the street and bam, you've got some muscle. Some find homeless good for entertainment, whether it be the entertainment they willingly provide or the entertainment some sickos get by harming them. In any case, just because their value doesn't lie in finances doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, economics is not about money.

Again, this sort of suicide is very much praised. Ever hear of the battle at Thermopylae? Britain's "God Save the Queen!" and what not inspired their soldiers to run into the front lines and commit suicide, taking out many an enemy with them. Rationally, though, they did this because it served their purpose ("Maybe people will remember me..."). In general, people won't commit self sacrifice unless there is personal gain involved. In this situation, the loss is the person's life. I don't know about you, but people in general like the living. He'd probably not kill himself and continue trying to survive. In other words, you certainly may have an obligation but that doesn't mean that it is a completely rational decision. Let's all have a yell for Nash and move on.

In any case, I did get a grin out of your Modest Proposal. I hope you weren't being serious.

Q

[blahblah18]

Of course not, and its not even like should it be done... its more that can justify his suicide being morally feasable.

And by the way, since you referenced it yourself, Jonathan Swift is a genius, I couldn't agree more with him ;)

[psychic25]

It's not their fault they're homeless! I really doubt they want to be.

If they really didn't want to be homeless, that means that they are probably working to get a job and have a home again, right? These hard workers do exist, but they are not the kinds of people being discussed in this topic. This is about the people who are NOT actively seeking to better their lives. Rather, they simply leech off of society and don't even TRY to contribute. (At least I assume so)

Probably, one of the things that hold people back in killing the poor (or the poor killing themselves) is their potential worth. That homeless person may one day invent something that will revolutionize the world, and if they kill themselves, they won't have gotten the chance to do anything. That's why suicide is so sad- who knows what good they could have done, had they lived.

It depends on how much potential that homeless person has. If that person tries hard to make a better life for themselves, then they shouldn't kill themselves, because they have the potential to do more. Really, even the basest person has the potential to do something. Say they're sitting on a street corner when a car comes rushing down the street, with a child in front of it. Our Mr. X pushes the child out of the way, and saves it. He has potential, just like anybody else, and if he had committed suicide earlier, the child would have died.

Yes, I know this sounds like a bad idea- keeping someone alive for what they MIGHT do, but I do feel that's a big part of why people are against this, from a moral (philosophical?) standpoint.

[Squeek]

If you're of no use to society you should leave the world.

This is obvious. In EVERY instance, if you detract from society moreso than you benefit, you should be removed from society. Removal could mean anything. Killing the weak link is just the easiest way to do it. We could exile them, but we've learned from history that it sometimes doesn't work out like we want it to (Hello Australia).

~Squeek

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

One who is poor, homeless, and perhaps even starving is not always sitting around waiting for society to take care of them. Think about it. If someone didn't have food or a home to live in, but had the ability to get a job so that they could finally support themself and possibly their family, would they be still sitting around the streets begging for money? It's true that some dumb****s will, but the majority of these people won't. The issue isn't always "Homeless people not doing anything for society." but more often "Homeless people not CAPABLE of doing anything for society." How can you expect them to contribute, when they aren't yet able to support themselves?

Just a thought...

[Loverofstories]

well thats not the american ways, i dont remember where in the american writings (constitution, amendments, i dont know not sure) but they will always help you live and no one deserves to starve and its against the law to kill yourself :wink:

[Meteor858]

but isnt the law of NO SUICIDE just a cause for people to do it well?

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

but they will always help you live and no one deserves to starve and its against the law to kill yourself

Exactly, another good point. Law is made by majority vote. If the majority agreed that these people do infact deserve to die, the law of not being allowed to commit suicide UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES wouldn't be in place.

[unholyz]

I think it still goes back to the morals. IF you feel that bad and there is no other way to get out of it then, back in an alley away from people, you could commit suicide. But if you think that you could have a fighting chance and being more than worthless then it would be best advised not to kill yourself. I think its more up to the person if they would want to do it or not.

[sleeplessdragn]

The problem with this theory is that every single human being has the <u>potencial</u> to contribute to society in some form. Every homeless person can work a low end job. If they were obligated to kill themselves, there would be no possibility of ever acquiring some form of social contribution from them. Think about it, if you were to sit on the street for a few days, acting homeless and completely leeching off of society, would you suddenly become obligated to commit suicide?

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Every homeless person can work a low end job.

And what might I ask would a homeless person fill in on the resumé for 'Address'? Haha.. Okay on a more serious note...

I'm not blaming our society in any way for saying this. An average job, even a cheap 'low end' job like Macdonalds or a 7-11 USUALLY requires you to have a decent record. No crimes commited, and hopefully no 'issues' from previous jobs. How many people of today fit into that category? Millions. Millions of teenageers looking for low-end jobs to make a little bit of money. Now let's take it to these teenagers with a whole future ahead of them, versus these homeless people. If you're lucky enough to come across an understanding boss who understands WHO is in more need of the money, then my argument can be proved wrong. However, not every boss is like that. To be honest, only a very very small minority of them are like that. They want to hire people with experience, good work habits, and the most pathetic thing is that some places will hire one person instead of another based on the way they look and/or dress. How much of a chance do those who are living on welfare really stand?

I'm not saying that all homeless people are like that. Alot of them are still being hired. What I'm talking about are those who aren't being hired. They can't work, they obviously can't go to school (even if they found a free public school, school supplies + trips + technology fees etc... could still be a huge problem.) how are they supposed to gain the knowledge and experience they need to contribute to society? The fact that they can't 'do anything for us' is not entirely their fault when they were never given the chance to to begin with. If it's not entirely their fault, why should they result to suicide?

[hatakikakashi]

Wow you people are heartless... I like that.

I don't agree with you at all and I weep for the future when your in power and start WW3. Your like Hitler incarnate. Or perhaps the antichrist or Satan even. If your not christian than (insert evil person here). I get depressed sometimes and think about killing myself,( blahblahblah I'm worthless,blahblahblah I don't contribute) but then I just turn it into anger and hate everyone else, if I could I would destroy all life in the universe. Then I would cry about what I had done. I have mixed feelings, at times I love everyone but at the same time I hate everyone. I feel like I'm better than other people and then I envy them.

While what your saying may help society I don't think they should have a moral obligation, one because it's not moral, and two if they are the kind of trash your describing they don't care about society and wouldn't do it anyway. Then they're are alot of people that do kill them selves. What about the starving children in Africa if we didn't feed them they'd die, we donate millions and they're still dying, they don't contribute anything to us so why do we help them? We should let them all starve. We should kill every man woman and child in Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan and all the other people that hate us. Not only do they not contribute they are harming us, and costing us billions. Screw'em

We should take it to the maximum absurdity, they should have some kind of contribution aptitude exam that decides whether or not you get your license to live for the next calender year, if you fail you no longer have the right to live and can choose to die, enlist in the meatgrinder and fight of the hordes of invaders who don't like the new world we will create. Or donate your body to feed the artificially grown experimental super children,genetically engineered to be super productive.

[sleeplessdragn]

And what might I ask would a homeless person fill in on the resumé for 'Address'?

Haha, I've always wondered the same thing.

What Miss HVAM stated above is the realistic side of this issue. Many people are of no use to society because often society chooses not to give them a chance.

What I'm trying to push is the conceptual flaw in this thinking, which is that extinguishing these people eliminates even the slightest possibility of any form of contributions that the homeless could make. This is the reason why we have welfare policies in the first place; in fact, this is why the social attitude toward this concept of elimiation is considered so immoral. Fortunately(some would say), we don't live in a fully capitalistic system where the weak are eaten and the rich can laugh at the weak.

Hmmmm, maybe I should have joined the Red Army of Chardish.

[chardish]

Well that's why I didn't want to advocate government forcibly killing our Mr. X, but rather I wanted to debate if Mr. X should feel any moral obligation to kill himself.

It's a pretty verifiable fact that morals held by the majority of people inevitably become laws. So if you think that people should accept this moral, and people do, the government enforcing it can't be far behind.

Suicide in the name of those you love is admirable. If it is made in an effort to help them, people adore such martyrdom. We have celebrated many a hero who has sacrificed himself for the common good. The Catholic church does this all the time.

An uninformed and erroneous non-sequitur. The Church never advocates suicide. If you give up your life to save someone, that's different than suicide, and it's more comparable to spending your life finding a cure for a disease, or something like that. The martyrdom you think of is when people choose to be killed rather than renounce their faith. It is quite different than killing yourself because you find your life to be worthless; nay, that is a great offense against God, as it spurns the gift of life we are given.

[young_hope]

Obviously you have very abstract viewpoints of society. Life, as a concept is a previlge. However, life as a viewpoint to society is a right. The circumstances of life can not be good enough to give life back to a person dying, so circumstances can not be bad enough to take life away; let alone one's own life. Any and all circumstances that appear bad in it's self, can be corrected... even third world countries. So the homeless situation that you speak of pales in comparison to the problems of some, and is only an excuse to commit sucide. Then you suggest a forced suicide, and that not right neither. You are basically impling that a non-conductive life of a HUMAN BEIGN, makes that HUMAN BEIGN a waste of space. I could inversly say that your life being productive is a waste of space to those who are tring to escape poverty because it's through you people of that nature must get a place of employment. So before you write again, be sure not to mix morals in with sin (the Christian cause of death), and assume that the misguided though you have should become a law. Life and liberty for all... :D

[blahblah18]

You kinda missed the point completely, but that's not a big deal. Don't forget property... Life, Libery, and Property for all.

[The_Q]

The martyrdom you think of is when people choose to be killed rather than renounce their faith.

If you have more comments let's discuss them elsewhere. Until then, allow me to clarify. The deaths of the martyrs enriched the faith of Christians and changed the faith of Gentiles. This, on the whole, benefits society (unless you disagree with God). The acts they commited might as well be suicide. Knowingly facing death or renouncing one's faith and choosing death is quite similar to suicide. You could claim that this is an example of justified suicide. The only catch is the semantics of the kind of killing.

Life, as a concept is a previlge.

You sound like an environmentalist. Ironically, you strongly believe in our Declaration of Independence. Most of the time, that kind of thinking is mutually exclusive to one another. Jefferson believed that he had a right to live, not only as an individual but in society. The oppresive government was restricting that right to the point where it became a privilage. Jefferson whined, a war was fought, and America allowed people to live. Environmentalists tend to believe that it is a privilage to live on this earth and therefore we should take care of it. I side with the founding fathers.

Back on topic, I believe that suicide is not really all that much of a thing that can be justified. The negative externalities of any single death, let alone a suicide, could tilt the cost-benefit scale quite a bit. The opportunity cost is absolutely astounding, too. There is no economically efficient suicide.


Don't forget property... Life, Libery, and Property for all.

John Locke is right. And I hope you realize that Jonathin Swift was not intending to be taken seriously.

Q

[blahblah18]

doin't say there is no economically efficient suicide, because you woudl definately agree there are economically efficient murders, and then suicide would just be that guy doing it...

Also in response to Q's response of Chardish, suicide has a certain connotation to it that differentiates it from what you're saying. Suicide implies an expresse desire to not wish to live anymore... a martyr dying is merely an inescapable consequence, NOT the goal behind the action

[deltro300111]

20 years ago my mom had a child, was out of work, and her husband didn't have the best of jobs- for a while she used foodstamps, she eventually got divorced from him, she went back to school, and now she is a doctor, and her daughter is working on getting a job with her buisness degree...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440237688/qid=1113443562/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-4018062-4340958?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

You fail, blahblah.

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Suicide is a term used to define the act of killing oneself. The definition does not include the intention. To me, one who kills himself with an intention OTHER than bettering society is not necessarily a sign that he/she thinks that they are worthless. For example: The suicide bombings in Iraq. These people aren't killing themself to better the world, and they clearly do not think they are useless. Suicide bombings are done strictly to kill others, so in a way you could say that these people have some sense of accomplishment. Not only that, but they feel that they are doing the right thing. What is right and wrong is based one one's (or a group of people's) opinions. In this case, the person commiting suicide thinks what he is doing is perfectly correct. We might think it's wrong to be killing other innocent people in such a way, but he obviously doesn't. To me, this could also be called an example of 'selfless sacrifice' but with a slightly different outcome.

Okay so that was awfully offtopic, but I felt the need to add that since you were talking about the whole idea of what makes suicide okay and not okay. =\

[blahblah18]

deltro i don't fail, try and understand what i'm asking you ****tard i'm saying theoretically and morally, on the asusmption that they have no chance for improvement... *sigh* why didi I think intelligent debate could come from this source

ignore me i'm durnk

[deltro300111]

... the point of my post is that everyone has the potential to stop sucking, apparently you didn't get that from my post ****tard
learn to read engrish gooder.

[bigsleytheoaf]

blahblah,

I am writing this post in the sincere hope that you will read through it, consider my points objectively, and respond to them in a level headed manner. I hope that I have not used forceful language, rhetoric, or made any implications on your character in this passage and further I hope that you do not take offense to anything that I have said. If you do, I assure you that I did not intend it. I think that you (just like everyone else here) have valid opinions. I disagree with you, but by that I mean that either we have different assumptions (which I think we do), not that you or I are better. I personally think that your assumptions might not be quite correct, but am interested in hearing more about your theory in order to more strongly base my conclusions.

Note: I use caps in the following, but I do not mean them as shouting - I mean them as emphasis - I just didn't see the "bold" button above before I got through with writing the thing.

---

Now, let me go point by point:

"You should just kill yourself."

What's your definition of "should" here? "Should" can mean many different things. For instance:

"If you want to own a cat, you should buy one."
- In this sentence, "should" means a causal obligation - you "should" buy one because without performing this action you will not have a cat.

"If you want to make yourself happy, you should earn money."
- In this sentence, "should" still means a causal obligation but also has the implicit assumption associated with it that earning money will make you happy. Since in this sentence "should" has an associated causal assumption we can call it a "value relation." I.e. it relates values - your happiness (a value) is implicitly related to money (a value) by the word should. Since you are an individual, this type of relation is also often Objective, meaning that it can be explicitly evaluated -

"If you want to be unhappy, you should cut off your foot."
- In this sentence, "should" implies a relation between negative values. Again, this is object because from a general standpoint cutting off one's food makes one less happy.

The above 2 statements have to do with a form of morality based around objective valuations of actions w/r/t personal happiness. This is the definition of a system of ethics and is my own personal moral system. I believe that it is well defined and consistent and therefore is a helpful tool (though obviously not the only one) in helping me determine what I "should" do (see, I've defined my terms clearly!).

Let's consider a statement of the type you've made:

" You should just kill yourself."

Well, now there are three ways I can personally think that you mean "should" (since you haven't clarified this point)

- 1) You mean should in the personal happiness sense I used above (i.e. the homeless person will gain personal happiness by killing himself or herself). In this case, I think that your statement is incorrect. Personally, I do not gain a great deal of happiness from maximizing societal utility. I think that society kind of sucks at the moment and, even if it didn't, I have no interest in how happy the average person is or any other statistic related to societal happiness (except insofar as it effects me - for instance, I'll give to a worthy charity if I think that it will make a change since this will probably make everyone's, including my own, quality of life better). If a homeless person really cares about societal happiness statistics then by all means you are correct (however, I don't think this is what you meant by "should")

- 2) The second case is that you mean "should" in the utilitarian sense (i.e. one should do that which maximizes global utility of society over a long or indefinite period of time). In this case, I think that you mean to imply a value relation between a person killing themself and society's utility. In short, you mean to imply that the death of the homeless person will increase the utility of society (or some other measure of societal "goodness" such as average happiness, average productivity, number of babies, etc.). Well, if this is your meaning of "should" (and I think that it is based on your statements) I have to disagree with you on a few grounds:

a) In terms of actual utility of society - I don't believe that the actual utility of society or the effect of any action on it is actually possible to determine. Your claim is that homeless people are leeches on society, but if you step back for a moment and consider the bigger picture, there are many many many many much bigger leeches than homeless people - e.g. the US government, e.g. charities that lie and run away with profits, e.g. criminals, etc. etc. etc. There is no proof that a homeless person's suicide will provide positive benefit (maybe the smile on a homeless man's face There are a lot of costs to homeless-person suicide as well - society has to clean up/dispose of the bodies, society has to manage disease control procedures (since dead people rot), society has to deal with the psychological impact of seeing murders on the street, etc. etc.

b) Even if we had some sort of societal-benefit-function f(ACTION) which maps actions to a number representing a gain or loss of global societal benefit (i.e. f is the first derivative of some global utility function GU(ACTION) -> net gain of society in terms of utility), and even assuming that this function were known to be positive when homeless people killed themselves, this is not to say that we can say ANYTHING about the behavior of the function outside of an incredibly small time period (what I'm trying to say here is that while the death of a homeless person might give society benefit for a short while there may be long term fringe effects which you have not considered - and I'm not saying that this is a flaw with your reasoning, what I am saying is that these fringe effects are incredibly difficult to figure out relative to the value of the function I described since they are essentially the same as predicting the future). An example of a fringe effect that homeless person suicide could have which is bad is the fact that homeless person suicide would most likely drop the property value in an area (who wants to live in a place that smells like rotting flesh, where you have to see suicide often, etc. homeless people are unpleasant, but dead homeless people are really unpleasant). This drop in property value would probably lead to conditions which would cause more people to become homeless -> global impact of the action = bad.

c) Even if we knew that f(homeless person suicide) lead to an overall rise in the global utility function of society for all of time, your supposition that a homeless person "should" kill themself relies on a definition of morality that I do not quite understand - why should a homeless (or any other) person do anything to benefit society? You have not given a reason for this. And besides, what if that person ends up hurting society by giving some poor little girl a disease?

d) One thing that you have to realize is that a large large number of homeless people (in the United States) are insane, suffer from a disease, and/or are addicted to drugs. This implies that we could lower the number of homeless people by trying to treat these problems before they take the dignity away from a person. This isn't an argument against your statement per se, but is moreover a fact which should be potentially included in your assessment of the situation.

- 3) You intend "should" in a way that I don't understand - please explain it.

Now, here's where I really disagree with you:
I do not think that ANYONE should have an [i]obligation to help homeless people. I.e. I don't think that you should be taxed and have that money given to homeless people. This actually does make the homeless into a leech (via the government) on society. However, if individual people want to give money to charitable organizations or directly to the homeless then more power to them. Those people are doing what they want with their money and are supporting others (which is the central theme of a capitalist society). So even assuming your doctrine of morality, it is shown that homeless people aren't a "leech" like social security, the War on Drugs, the CIA, etc. etc. etc.

---

"Moreso you should have an Obligation to society to kill yourself."

You posit the existence of societal obligation. I would be very interested in hearing your explanation of how that works. What does it mean to be obligated to society and when is one obligated to society?

---

"First of all, you're draining from society and giving nothing back in return."

Here you're messing with the activity of your verbs to give credence to your statement (logical fallacy). That is to say there is a difference between the following scenarios:

i) I killed Jim with a butcher knife.

ii) I couldn't help Jim because it would cost me $1000 and I needed the money.

In both cases, I "killed" jim, but in the second case my role is much more passive. I think that this is the same case with homeless people. They are not "draining" society actively, they are doing it passively - i.e. people are freely giving them money. Further, the question comes up of whether things like your precious computer is a "drain" on society since that money could be going to make someone else much much happier than it makes you (see how the subjectivity of the universal societal utility function makes utilitarianism a floppy theory?)

---

"No one will miss you since you have no one to miss, and probably most importantly, you've broken your part of the Social Contract."

What's the social contract?
I never signed no damned contract - well, except maybe for implicitly the constitution, but I'll be damned if there's anything related to societal obligation in there.

---

"Government is protecting you and keeping you alive practically, and you're giving NOTHING back in return..."

Same with subsistence farmers - note that income tax is a modern invention (c. ~1910) and government (and the protection it gave its citizens) existed before then - i.e. you don't pay taxes for government protection, it has other ways of getting money.

(technically, you pay money for the government to protect your contracts, but that's a whole other question in itself).

---

A personal anecdote - I live in Cambridge and go to the Boston Commons sometimes. There are homeless people there and one time one of them approached me. He was an alcoholic 8-10 years ago and had recently rebuilt his life by doing labor for people who offered to pay him and by taking donations from people. Eventually, he got his act together, got sober, went to live in a dry hostel (a place where you can go to live if you're homeless but have given up alcohol), and is now doing charity work to help other homeless people like himself who had a bad run of luck, fell into alcoholism, and want to recover. I thought that his story was especially touching and reflects the fact that homeless people are usually very sad but can be helped if you have the right method - I'll grant you that giving money to some homeless guy on the street isn't a good solution and neither is welfare, but there are good solutions (like dry hostels, places which find homeless people work, etc.)

---

I hope to hear from you. I am genuinely interested in your responses and do not mean you any disrespect by my response to your question. I think that you have a system which a number of people adopt in some form or another, but I am not assuming that your system is the same as theirs and will give you the benefit of the doubt (for instance, I could say that your system is the same as Utilitarianism, but that wouldn't be giving you the credit you are due - besides, I don't know that your system is the same, maybe you have completely different arguments for your points that I have not considered).

Bigsley

[hatakikakashi]

Damn man, you should write a book! A book on drunk government hobos.

The homeless people that you say should kill themselves should just get jobs instead. That's what I've done, I hate working. Working is allmost as bad of a punishment as killing yourself and they would be benifiting society as well. If they work enough maybe they can dig there way out of the hole there in. Like killing two birds with one shotgun.

[blahblah18]

A) I don't believe in anything I wrote.. as I STATED, it was merely a topic i was shooting around to use in a debate round, therefore IMPLYING that i'm simply looking at the matter on 1. a personal fun elvel to discuss , and 2. morally relativistic only so I can set any preset guidelines I want in describing the situation (thats moreso a reply to deltro who obviously didn't understand that)

B) the should is morally should, moral set being used most liekly would be John Locke's Second Treatise , specifically the Social Contract, which I'm not gonna go into huge detail about here... I just assumed people knew it, but reeeeal basically its that we enter a contract with government by allowing its creation... Government grants us the right to life, liberty, and property, and in return we sacrifice certain freedoms and guarantee a contribution to society. The gist of the argument therefore is that when a member in society no longer offers ANYTHING to society, then shouldn't he not be allowed to reap the benefits from the government that he put into place? The converse would be that if a government didn't give liberty to its citizens, then the citizens would be morally justified in overthrowing that government since it didn't hold up its end of the Social Contract
(Quick Aside) Constitution was based off Social Contract, 3 biggest names in Social Contract are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

It is very different from utilitarianism, because I'm not trying to claim that he kill himself for the betterment of other people , that just happens to be an external relation. The main concept is that he should kill himself since he is just mooching off society. One could replace kill himself by moving to a desert island for all I care, I just like to strike the point home with suicide to make it a more interesting discussion, and then leads into the muhc deeper philisophical issue of "Is suicide ever morally justified" which has been a centerpiece of philosophy for centuries.

That's enough for now... hopefully this post clarified what was meant in the original one, and all the ignorant people will stop thinking they're so smart from flaming me when they clearly missed the boat (not Bigsley, since he wasn't retarded, but just responded based on the vein that the thread had taken)

[-Skooter-]

It really wasn't to be controversial... Its an interesting idea, extrapolate on it. What is the worth of a life, and when does it go past use. You can also say that the life of person X is worth more then the life of person Y, so while homeless familyless jobless bum is sapping society's resources, he, by definition has to be depriving the life and resources of someone else, even if its the unborn child of an unborn child. And since we're assuming this guy is basically at the bottom of the barrel for "human worth", then if he is a "moral" person, shouldn't he kill himself, thus paving the way for the rest of society to move on without him?

:arrow: Ok, so you're on this big speel about homeless people being a pain in the ass to society, and for that reason needing to die. They obviously have something to live for if they actually stand on the street and bear the embarassment for the money that "we throw at them in pity"... Secondly, he obviously doesn't want to die, or he would've though of that already. I believe that homeless people are well aware of what they have and what they lack...Therefore, there's obviously something he sees that you don't that prevents that as an option. Just because they're homeless, and you see them on the street doesn't mean you know their whole life story, or why they are that way. Not to mention, the way that you're acting right now, is the way that everyone acts to them, so why does he give a hell what benefits he takes from all of the other ass loads like yourself...Ever thought maybe it's not their fault that they're homeless..? (Don't respond to me with that half-witted bull**** of how they can do something about it...that's not always true) I feel like your classifying and judging, and I don't find it fair. If you didn't read the book, why should you make the ending?

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

(Don't respond to me with that half-witted bull**** of how they can do something about it...that's not always true)

I already justified why they're not always capable of 'doing something about it' (go back a page to see) no worries :)

[hatakikakashi]

The U.S. government doesn't give me the right to live. It protects that right. Here in America we are supposed to be a government by the people and for the people. The ones who don't contribute are under no obligation, they are just ingrates. It's like the honor system. It may not be fair what the hypothetical human waste is doing to society, but society isn't allways fair either.

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Think of it this way; with the government system we have now, we can hypothetically say everyone deserves a chance to live regardless of wether or not they contribute to society.

However, being alive is often not enough to fulfill one's needs. One living on welfare still receives meal tickets, clothing donated by Salvation Army, etc... These things are given to ensure that said person is still capable of surviving. He is being fed, and somewhat well clothed.

To us, this is obviously not enough. We go to school to gain an education. We work to make a living. Having an education gives you the knowledge you need to later on take a job when you become an adult. When you are an employed adult, you reap benefits for your hard work. You are paid a salary, and most jobs offer other benefits such as health insurance. etc...

From that, I interpret it as the more you contribute, the more you gain. If the only thing you are doing is living on the streets, then all you really get it the privelege to live. All you're doing is living = 0. You're giving nothing = 0.

0 + 0 = 0. Nothing was taken away. Meaning, taking away one's life cannot be justified, because there's no subtraction.

Okay so that last part didn't make hte least bit of ****ing sense..... ignore it if you want, but that's just the way I see it :S

[archevil]

But by actually taking from society (money going to feed the homeless, medical systems dealing with them, supplying beds, etcetera), they've just added a subtraction... if that makes sense. So now 0 + -10 = -10, therefore they are in debt. The whole point of this topic is whether when somebody is at the <0 stage whether they should kill themselves to balance it out. Nobody is saying anybody is worthless, it's a hypothetical situation. Often I feel that pensions should be removed, or old people 2 days from death should be kicked out of hospital (often elderly people in nursing homes are transferred to hospitals for a very few days before they die, leading to nothing but increased trauma for everyone involved and excessive strain on health systems). I really feel that natural selection should play a more important part in our society. Helping people beyond productive and reproductive ages or situations to survive we are actually placing an increased strain on those who are productive.

But I don't think anybody should feel obliged to kill themselves (except people who can't spell IQ, but then it doesn't matter to them).

[makaveli121212]

As opposed to what one may think, from seeing the topic, this is a real thread, so don't be retarded when you post. This is an idea I've been tossing around for a while, I"ll probably use it as a debate construct, but I"m curious on people's ideas on it.

Ok so here goes...

Basically, assume you're homeless, no job, no family. The only reason you're alive is because people sometimes toss money at you out of compelte pity as you're sleeping in the streets... You get sick, you still go to hospitals for treatment, etcera. You might even be receiving food stamps or welfare.

You should just kill yourself. Moreso you should have an Obligation to society to kill yourself. First of all, you're draining from society and giving nothing back in return. No one will miss you since you have no one to miss, and probably most importantly, you've broken your part of the Social Contract. Government is protecting you and keeping you alive practically, and you're giving NOTHING back in return... So come on, think about it, and jump in front of that subway train.

Wow, sir, you are my new best friend. I couldn't agree more although I would like to add a tidbit.

You can take the arguement further by killing off the elderly. If you go on a strictly scientific view the meaning of life is to pass as much of your genetic material on to the next generation as possible. Well, if you can no longer have offspring then your life is pointless. Furthermore, the elderly are a drain on society politically and economically. Everyone knows with the increase age of americans and the growing elderly population due to the baby-boom generation maturing, us younger generations will be paying up the wazoo just to keep these living corpses breathing. Quite frankly I don't see what their purpose is to live, and maybe its not my business, but it becomes my business when I have to pay to keep them alive. I say they should stop being so selfish, realize the burden that they put upon the population, and croak already.

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Not trying to bitch here but..

I say they should stop being so selfish, realize the burden that they put upon the population, and croak already.

The selfishness(Rofl i doubt that's a word) goes both ways. By not paying for the needs of the elderly, we would also become selfish bastards. Why? Simple. Because without these people, we would not be alive in the first place. Without them, our generation would not have made the discoveries and advancements in technology that we have today. And now after they've helped us with so much, you feel unobligated to give back to them in anyway?

You argue that since they are no longer to reproduce, their purpose/job in life has been fulfilled, therefor continuing to live is pointless. That is no different from saying "Oh okay I've retired now so I should go commit suicide since I am no longer going to contribute to society." Just because they are not giving to society, does NOT mean they lose the right to live.

[QreepyBORIS]

Why should society have to support them? Sounds a bit unfair, if you ask me.

And another thing: sterile people have no purpose in society, either. If society rids itself of the sterile, that could help slightly, too. The only thing as that although they cannot contribute to the SIZE of society, they can still be effective by working in a job. I can accept that, so long as it is an extremely demeaning job. Like, working at a sperm bank. Ouch.

While we're at it, all peopole must LEGALLY produce children. All the ones that are defective ought be slaughtered.




I'll leave it for you to judge where I was kidding and where I was not.

[msbrunnettemickey]

If you didn't read the book, why should you make the ending?

Well put my friend.

I guess you can't really relate the homeless with Bill Gates.
If you WERE homeless, what would you do?
I believe that you wouldn't try to kill yourself at first and try to find other reasons to. I think, if i was homeless i would probably go to my family begging for money, or if i have no family, i would just try to make new friends? :P

Anyways, killing yourself is not a very good reason. Like our history teacher says:
"WRITE TO GEORGE BUSH! HE WOULD ANSWER YOU FULL HEARTED!"

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Anyways, killing yourself is not a very good reason. Like our history teacher says:
"WRITE TO GEORGE BUSH! HE WOULD ANSWER YOU FULL HEARTED!"

Uh, what?

Qreepy's post brought another point to my mind. Imagine this scenario.

You're on the road in your car, it's late. There's maybe only 3 or 4 cars ouside. The light goes green, and a pedestrian begins to make his way across the road. Suddenly, a drunk driver comes flying in and hits the pedestrian. This person is rushed to the hospital, and luckily doesn't die. Unfortunately, this person is now stuck in a coma(sp?) and when he will finally wake up is unknown.

This person, is still alive, but is not doing anything for society, nor is he/she capable. Does this person deserve to die? NO. Why? Because this fully capable-of-contributing person became 'worthless' as you say it, over an innocent situation. Said person never did anything wrong, he crossed the street at a green light, and a drunk hit him. This person's life is completely left in the hands of fate, and yet doctors still continue to help the person to recover.

Alot of homeless people are also hit with unfortunate events during their life. Divorce, being left by parents, parents with drinking and/or gambling problems. The list of possibilities continues. These people are homeless now, living on terribly filthy streets. They are too young to be able to contribute (legal working ages anyone?). So what do they do? If they have the least bit of class in them (For girls that is) they'll know better than to go become a prostitute/hooker. They would rather beg for money on the street, losing all self esteem that they could have possibly had before.

These people's lives were struck with events beyond their control. Why should they pay the price of death, for the fault of others?

[makaveli121212]

Why should society have to support them? Sounds a bit unfair, if you ask me.

And another thing: sterile people have no purpose in society, either. If society rids itself of the sterile, that could help slightly, too. The only thing as that although they cannot contribute to the SIZE of society, they can still be effective by working in a job. I can accept that, so long as it is an extremely demeaning job. Like, working at a sperm bank. Ouch.

While we're at it, all peopole must LEGALLY produce children. All the ones that are defective ought be slaughtered.




I'll leave it for you to judge where I was kidding and where I was not.


Well, that brings me to another point. People that have genetic disorders should not be able to reproduce. Now these people can still cintribute to society, so it's unfair to kill them, but they should at least be sterilized.

To healingvision's point: I never said they don't have the right to live. Sure they do, judt like I do. I'm saying if you want to live support yourself, like I support myself. Why should I pay to keep people alive that have no use to me or society? Your point about showing gratitude to the elderly is all about morals. Morals are a figment of your imagination, the less you have the better off you are (not always true obviusly; a generlization). Quite frankly this isn't a moral issue anyway, and if it were the elderly would say, "wow, look at what jackasses we are taking everyones' money and just sitting here on our asses playing euchre all day." I say contribute to society, in one way or another, or at least show the potential to, and you can stay. I don't care what you've done in the past, it should be a product of the present and beyond.

[Cenright]

What about if what they give, keeps on giving? I'm going to drop a super-hypothecital extreme, just to fully prove my point.
If there was some guy who saved the world through some means, but now he is worthless to society, do we kill him? We all owe a debt to him that none of us, or our grandchildren can ever repay. In fact, he isn't useless. He becomes a role model to the population, not on his present deeds, but his past deeds. Although yes, I agree that someone should never say, "I did my duty, now I can mooch."

The same can be said for a religious person. "I have been the best person for over 70 years, now with all that under my belt, one or two mass murders shouldn't matter." We can all see that that doesn't work.

[QreepyBORIS]

Sterilization sounds like a fair comprimise, Maka.

And Karen, if they are in a coma or a vegetative state (lol Schiavo), WHY should they live? What good are they doing? I guess they are giving some hospital workers and nurses and doctors a little bit more work. But it really is not that necessary for them to have that extra bit of stress and workload, so off with the coma guy. Get him outta here. And it's not as if his family wants to see him in that shape, either. So, what good's he doing lying there, wasting money, and basically just being a burden? None. Doff him.


The homeless should all learn cheap instruments and make cheap little street bands. I willingly give money to people like that.

[alainbryden]

Why should society have to support them? Sounds a bit unfair, if you ask me.

Do not try to tell me that when you're 60, 70, 80 you'll be telling everyone "Don't take care of me, you owe me nothing."

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Get him outta here. And it's not as if his family wants to see him in that shape, either.

One who is in a coma, could also be called someone in a deep sleep. Sleeping implies that you see nothing, hear nothing, and feel nothing. Killing him would not make a difference...to him.

Infact, the death of said person could benefit some people. He wouldn't be taking up a spot in the hospital, doctors would have less work to do and yet somehow still be paid the same.

However, there are also worse consequences. Someone having a coma is normally not killed immediately. Alot of the time...they wait months, sometimes even a year or two before they decide on wether or not they should give up. But htink about it...all of those months of hope for the friends and family, there was still that one possibility that one day this person would wake up. All of a sudden you decide to 'kill him' because he is a burden to society? By taking off this burden to society, you are placing a burden in the minds of both his friends and family. They will remember that even when there was that small chance of him waking up, the doctors decided to give up.

The idea of the man with a coma was just an example and I don't really want to get into detailing arguing about it. The general idea of this thread is about wether or not those who are of no use to society should die, because they have become a burden to society.

Let me tell you something. A father and mother have a child, and said child could be considered a burden. They have to pay for the child's school and other needs. Why do they still decide to raise the child, when they could keep all the money and time for themselves and possibly enjoy a happier/ more free life? It's because they have hope. They feel that after raising this child, the child will one day repay them and I'm not talking about money. Every parent would love to have a child who comes by and visit just to talk when they're older. They base the decision of having a child on the hope.

Why does society consider to pay for those who do nothing for society? It's the same word; hope. They want these people to one day wake the **** up and do something for society because they want to, not because they feel OBLIGATED TO.

I'm in a hurry so I'm sorry if there's any typos in my post..

[QreepyBORIS]

Why should society have to support them? Sounds a bit unfair, if you ask me.

Do not try to tell me that when you're 60, 70, 80 you'll be telling everyone "Don't take care of me, you owe me nothing."

My Zayde (grandpa) lived in his own house without help until he was 90-years old. We have excellent genes.

So no, people will not owe me anything, in all likelyhood.

[Tommyfiorentino]

This is my views on the subject. I am a caothlic so If I go a bit religious on you all im sorry. Lets look at it like this. God loves everyone and everything because we are his creation. He wants us to live our life to the fullest and wants us to succeed in life even if that may not always happen. Aside from that even if there is a homeless person the streets then they shouldnt go and kill themselves because they are not contributing to society. thats just being superficial and trying to make the world perfect, and since we are not perfect we can never attain that status so why kill off people the make the perfect world when thats impossible? Also we cannot predict the future so the fact that he became homeless was not intentional and the fact that he got there im sure he didnt want to be so I dont think he wants to kill himself. I am sure his mind set wasnt "here let me become a bum so that I feed off society but later on when I know im reaping the sew from the society I will kill myself to promote gain to everyone" as you seem to be implying. Also on the fact that we cant predict the future. What about abortion? We kill babies just because the mother cant deal with it. Why take away the value of another human life and take away his rights of living just because we cant see it or hear it speak on argue its points in life on why should it live. shouldnt we already assume that everyone has worth no matter where they are and the fact that they do have worth we shouldnt be telling them to kill themself. Honestly in my oppinion if a person feels worthless and they want to commit suicide, hey its not my decision to that fact, but the fact that people putting others down or the fact that society puts pressure on us to gain gain gain and give to the economy and the also because there are pressures in life in wanting to be someone makes us constant in fear that we will fail. But others cannot go and say "Hey your worthless you should die" because they have no right to judge that person just because they think there in a higher status then the other. Everyone has worth and whether or not they want to continue there life is THERE own personal decision not ours. Just as jesus christ died on the cross for our sins that was HIS personal choice to benefit everyone else so that we could have a connection with god and have our sins ultimately forgiven. So my point is its the persons decision on there act that if they think that suicide will better the economy then they do it even though its sinning but not everyones relgious right? but we as a society cant put a stamp on everyones forhead labeling there worth and if there worth becomes less they have on obligation to die


phewww that was long, well if you dont read the bible and dont believe in god and whatnot please dont get into a religious battle with me im not in the mood to deal with incompetence. Please dont take offence in this sentence I just dont want people to miss the main point an argue god to me when thats not my point im trying to get across thanks :)

[Tps222]

Please sepreate your post into paragraph's please, it makes it easier to read.

Actually, I was talking to Tass a bit back about making everyone take an IQ test, then only keep the to 15% percent of the population. With so few people to keep up the economy, we revert to hunting and gathering, while we mass produce. These 15% will breed a sort of "new smart human breed". Then we rebuild the Earth.

I guess poor people killing themself could be a start, but wouldn't that just shift the poor class to the class that was above the older poor class?

[Feuergeist]

However, the fact is we aren't animals


The fact is we are animals.

[ddristhecoolest]

I agree with you on that blah. But if that person has a religion that dosn't want him doing that, then no, he shouldn't. That should be top priority in a person's life. It's the only reason I havn't killed myself yet.