Comment by raw_anon_1111
4 days ago
My only definition of “morality” is are you doing something that affects other people. If you aren’t doing anything to hurt other people, I consider that “morally neutral”. If you aren’t doing anything to help other people, that’s “morally good”.
How is my hypothetically deciding to end my own suffering “morally bad”? I don’t owe suffering from a terminal illness to anyone.
Your calculation for what you will suffer to enjoy another day of life may be different than mine and that’s fine.
> How is my hypothetically deciding to end my own suffering “morally bad”?
Because you’re saying that life is not worth living at some point. But that’s just my level of morality. I think life is so rare and precious that I do not even want to miss the suffering that’s given to me.
And that’s your personal choice. No one is advocating killing people who don’t have the mental capacity to decide.
The action by the man in the original article is advocating for the killing of oneself. His advice is to avoid suffering it is best to kill yourself. Approving of that message is advocating for death over suffering and that’s just something I disagree with. It is my personal choice, but his personal choice has an impact on society so it’s not really a personal choice. If we find it acceptable for people to kill themselves to avoid suffering or in his case to avoid future suffering than I think this is something that needs to go beyond personal choice.
2 replies →