Posts by hollowgull14

Zachary Rodriguez32 said:The logic behind this law holds up. Imagine a scenario where Subject X wants to eliminate Subject Y and takes them hostage. Subject X threatens Subject Y, forcing them to state on camera that they want to be killed, otherwise Subject X will murder their entire family. Under those circumstances, Subject Y would comply—naturally—only to be murdered regardless. Without this specific statute, that recording would provide Subject X with a perfect legal loophole to walk free. Essentially, without this law, you could get away with murder...

...but if you actually take a moment to read through the thread, you'll see we have already thoroughly dissected this exact issue.

Arthur Barnes said:The point isn't that I'm aiming for total anarchy where subjective morality takes precedence over the law. Rather, I'm looking for a symbiosis that would eliminate—in my view, and I believe there is logic to this—these frankly ridiculous laws. Legalizing drugs? Why not? That's a massive debate entirely separate from what we are doing here, and while it deserves its own deep dive, I’ll steer clear of the "broader context" 😉 surrounding this discussion for now and focus strictly on assisted suicide.

That all makes sense, but there is a catch. When something is prohibited by law, people feel a certain hesitation; the legal ban serves as a social signal that acting outside the law is wrong, immoral, or unhealthy. If heroin were legalized tomorrow, that collective sense of trepidation would vanish instantly. Before you know it, we have a country overrun by addicts.

Arthur Barnes said:I think I’ll take a brief hiatus to mull over my counterarguments until tomorrow, as I can feel my perspective shifting slightly. Though, I remain firmly on the side that a person should be allowed to end their life if they request it; I am simply waiting for the right Musician Idea to fully articulate my position. 👋

😁

Arthur Barnes said:Do you think things would be even more chaotic if drugstores were actually legal? 😉

To be perfectly honest, I haven't the slightest idea. 😕

Arthur Barnes said:I suppose I hadn't viewed things through that lens before.

Frankly, what would be the motivation for separating them? Is it merely an attempt to offload medical costs from the government? That seems to be the only rational explanation. 😕

The reality is that one of the fundamental roles of the state is to establish order within society. Why are certain drugs prohibited in the first place? Why wouldn't we simply adopt a "live and let live" philosophy? Ideally, drug use only harms the individual using it, though you’ll still end up in serious trouble if you get caught with even a tiny amount of powder. Simply put, part of the government's job is to codify what is permissible and what isn't. If we left everything to personal whims, subjective judgments, or individual moral compasses, the world as we know it would cease to function.

If we assume Person B is actually an altruist, their duty would be to steer Person A away from suicide, rather than facilitating it. 😁

Arthur Barnes said:Those traumas belong to Person B, the one who commits the act. The state shouldn't be able to interfere in whether Person B chooses to carry that weight or not. If Person B sees that Person A is suffering immensely—perhaps even begging them to end it (and I don't mean euthanasia here!)—and Person B decides to sacrifice their own mental peace just to ease Person A's burden, why should the government step in? It looks like a private agreement between two individuals where both parties agree to suffer the consequences. 😉

I used those traumas as an example, but if we’re being pedantic about them, one could argue the state *does* care because it eventually picks up the tab for the medical costs and everything else. 😁 But let’s set the trauma aside for a moment and look at this as a contract where everyone loses. In those scenarios, it’s standard for the state to act as an arbitrator. If a police officer sees two people brawling on a street corner in Chicago, they’re going to break it up, regardless of whether those two people actually wanted to fight or intended to hurt anyone else.

Ultimately, the crux of the matter is that this law removes one option from someone looking to end their life. It’s my opinion—actually, I’m quite certain—that without this law, we would see a significant spike in "suicides," which are really just requested killings masquerading as suicides. As I mentioned, it’s often easier to ask someone else to do the deed than to do it yourself. Consequently, more people would likely opt for this route.
Quincy Jones:>

Arthur Barnes says: Regarding the idea that we all act out of self-interest—well, that's true. But this kind of "altruistic" behavior is essentially just masked selfishness (a nod to the Dawkinsian Selfish Gene). However, Person B gains absolutely nothing material by killing Person A (they might gain psychological satisfaction, or perhaps they're just a sadist, who knows?)—so does it still count as premeditated murder?

Yes, it is still premeditated murder. If we tied "intent" strictly to material gain, we wouldn't be able to charge half the mass shooters out there with premeditated murder, since there are plenty of them who kill purely for the thrill rather than for any tangible profit.

I suppose I really ought to get studying, but my motivation is nowhere to be found.😕

Arthur Barnes said:Look, we have Person A. They are depressed, they are struggling, and they are going to end their life. That is an inevitability—a dogma. What difference does it make to the state whether that person commits suicide or if I kill them with legal permission? In both scenarios, the person is dead. The loss to society is already a given; it would have happened regardless of my involvement. 😉

The state might be indifferent to who actually pulls the trigger, but by intervening, it at least removes one path, thereby marginally increasing the odds of saving a life. Besides, it takes a certain kind of courage to take one's own life compared to simply asking someone else to do the deed.

Arthur Barnes said:Fair enough. I used Catholicism merely as an example of why someone might prefer being killed over killing themselves. There are a million different motivations. My point in that specific reply was focused on the comparison between murder and, say, selling a rag.

So, you are suggesting there is no issue if Person B kills Person A, provided Person B suffers no harm. I would argue otherwise; killing someone often carries significant psychological trauma. We even see physical ailments stemming from such trauma. Even if Person B remains perfectly fine physically, there is simply no benefit to them in killing someone. And if there is no benefit, people generally don't do it. (We have already established that self-interest drives all action.) If Person B *does* stand to gain from the death, then we aren't talking about assisted dying anymore; we are talking about murder with premeditation—or whatever the appropriate legal term may be.

Arthur Barnes said:Essentially, it’s all about self-interest rather than morality—interest dictates what we consider moral. It’s much clearer now, I suppose. 😉

Personal interest is the underlying engine behind every move someone makes. However, when we discuss the interests of the state, we are talking about the common good, which shouldn't be conflated with the individualistic definition of interest.

Arthur Barnes said:I have no intention of forcing anyone to kill me. If I were to politely ask someone if they would be willing to end my life—assuming I'm avoiding suicide because my Catholic faith tells me it leads straight to hell—and they agree, I don't see the issue. By killing me, that person hasn't harmed themselves, so I view the transaction as being no different than walking into a CVS and buying, say, a rag. 😉 😕 🙂

If you are Catholic, your action would still be treated as suicide because you requested the end of your life. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger, holds the knife, or whatever else is used... What matters is that you sought to end the life given to you by God and took steps to make it happen, which remains a sin under divine law.

At the end of the day, if you truly want to be the one calling the shots on your own fate, then take full responsibility for it—even if that means making your own exit without dragging anyone else into your mess.

Arthur Barnes said:It would be ideal, provided that one's direct actions don't harm anyone else (even if they're just hurting themselves). If I ask someone to end my life and they comply -> I haven't harmed a single soul besides myself. In that scenario, I maintain the right to determine my own fate.

If I were to kill you, the damage wouldn't stop with you. It hits your family, too. Not to mention the state, which has poured massive amounts of taxpayer money into your education over twelve years—maybe longer if you're on a scholarship. It’s simply not in the collective interest to start swinging at one another just because we feel like it.

Laws are essentially just a dense collection of rules defining the boundaries of acceptable behavior. They dictate what is permitted and what isn't. Ultimately, this massive framework of legislation exists to interfere with individual free will—which is precisely its purpose. It prevents us from sliding into total anarchy. I mean, imagine the chaos if everyone simply did whatever they felt like at any given moment.

Under these standards, murder is viewed as both unethical and reprehensible. It is strictly prohibited by law in any capacity, so I fail to see where the controversy lies.

Besides, if someone truly has a desire to end their own life, they should be left to handle that themselves.

L. NimoyInvadesMetal said:Mrs. Picko is really out here chasing her own tail in that town. 😠

I’m going to have to report this post to a moderator. 🙂

nimblemarlin17 said:And when exactly is that moment going to arrive? We’re going to have to decide which side we're taking—yours or our own, if you catch my drift.

My old man always used to say that it's best to hold onto your own identity and never waver from it. So, think whatever you like; I'll weigh in later. You're always free to change your mind, anyway. 👋

nimblemarlin17 said:You’ll tell us everything when the moment is right, won't you, Azizi? 👋

But Azizi, I am begging you.

That's the plan. I'll come clean to everyone once the timing is actually right. 👋

L. NimoyInvadesMetal said:Then why did you leave?😕

There are certain reasons one keeps to oneself rather than airing them out in public. 👋

hollowgull14🙏