Kill Yourself

[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]

Originally Posted by flippinIDIOT727

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 dumbfucks 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

[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]

Originally Posted by hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX

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.

Originally Posted by blah

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

[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...books&n=507846

You fail, blahblah.