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.

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!

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.