If you dont let them live WHY SHOULD THEY NOT DIE...?? .A Question about suicide?

Question

Every Human the Right to live. And I believe right to live can be snathed easily...and is snatched. But there is another right too. The right to die..And...No-one in the world has yet been able to snatch this.

When someone is oppressed...there are 3 options that someone can chose..
1.Resists...and tries to fight
2. Harms himself...usually commits suicide
3. Bears and does not react
Now Imagine the circumstances under which a person is forced to commit Suicide....or Violently reacts...rebels are good examples...
But in todays life we see a 4rth kind of reaction...where...he responds in two ways at the same time..the first two reactions..
He fights and tries to retreat...take revenge and
At the same time he finishes his life...ends his sufferings.

This makes him the worlds most dangerous person..as no-one can stop him...No one can snatch the right to die.

Why dont we realise.. Let them live...otherwise
they will die??
Do you agree???
(Im Phd student of Psy)

Answer 1

i find your line of reasoning intriguing. in fact, i'm still digesting it; but thought i'd attempt a quick response...

your list regarding options in the face of oppression seems complete, but a more thorough discussion of what 'oppression' is is probably in order...what is being oppressed (in your description) seems to be the 'right to life;' so then one's definition of what 'life' is must be explored as well.

in my view, this is the heart of the issue: a definition of 'life' (or the right to it) which includes a sense of exclusivity (ie. hierarchical sort of worthiness to that right) is innately flawed (and flawed in such a way as to be beyond repair without radically changing and thereby abandoning it).

such a defintion can never result in anything remotely resembling a 'just' outcome:

*for example, if such a view (again, a view holding as one of its precepts that only IT can be correct) is held by a societal majority, it necessarily oppresses other portions of the society (regardless of whether that oppression is purposeful or done beneath a veil of ignorance).

*on the other hand, if such a view is held by a societal minority, that minority is psychologically crippled and one can expect dire consequences: ie. if your definition of life states that your view of what life is is the only way to correctly interpret existence and you see the majority not existing according to this view than #3 (from your list) cannot be considered an option...

so in your conclusion you state:
"[You] Let them live..."
In my view, the elliptical 'you' in your imperative, and the antecedent to 'them' both hold what they mistakenly believe are mutually incommensurable views of what 'life' is....so i don't see how one can ever "let" the other...anything.

specificities of faith, ethics, or politics are meaningless...none are inherently wrong are right...unless/until people stop thinking that is merely an idealistic truth and can understand it for the practical reality it is then...?

(still working on my undergrad...hope to get to phd someday too. Good luck!)

Answer 2

Suicide has been legal for a number of years, after all what would be the point of charging a dead person? Also attempted suicide is also legal as no crime has been committed against another.
The law simply doesn't allow assisted suicides, this is because it cannot justify one human being taking the life of another and is based on the sanctity of life rather than the quality of life principles.

However i have a sneaky suspicion that what you are saying is allow the oppressed to have their own way to prevent suicide bombers/mission of retaliation. My answer to this is that you will never solve terrorism by giving in to demands, there are a number of people living on this planet, many with very different ideas on how everyone should be living, by giving in to one group, you are no doubt oppressing another and thereby creating another terrorist cause.

Answer 3

Absolutely the most dangerous person in the world is the one with nothing to lose. Thats why these suicide bombers are so dangerous, they are brainwashed to believe that there is no hope in this life and the goal is to get to the next life with the 72 virgins and accolades from Allah. Very difficult to reach the "true believers".

Answer 4

While abortion, euthenasia, suicide & the death penalty in extreme murdering organised crime cases are ok by me, I still feel it is our duty to try all we can to dissuade people from committing suicide. If we managed to make those people feel needed, wanted, talented, beautiful & important, we would truly have done a substantial bit in improving the world.

Answer 5

KATE YOU MIGHT BE IN THAT POSITION ONE DAY/I wonder what your answer will be then // if a person is in so much unbearable pain and ask to be put to sleep permanently then the right to do so should be all theirs and i notice you say no but you don't give an alternative

Answer 6

I understand what you are asking, No society cdannot take away mans right to life or the right to death but they do, we should all have the inherent right to live or die as we want not what society thinks we want

Answer 7

hmmm i wouldn't say that becuase i think human beings havnt got the right to die , if there family does not want them to i dont think they should be able , them might be in pain (mentally or physiclly but i dont believe that suiceded or being lawfully put to sleep is the best way

Answer 8

I think i get what you are saying - and I think i agree - people should have the right to end their lives if they so choose.

Answer 9

if a person wishes to die it is their choice,but it is the job of the hospitals to save these lives not to help to end it all if at all possible.-------suicide is a horrible sad way to end a life.LIFE IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT !

Answer 10

what i don't get is that suicide is breaking the law but what can they do if you manage to do it, it's not like you can be charged and put in jail!!!