Assisted Suicide
Started by Arthur Barnes · · 👁 7 views · 61 replies
Participants
#22 ·
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.
#23 ·
Arthur Barnes said:Reporting you for making threats.
Even if you had me held in some dark basement and said the same thing, I’d just choose not to say it on camera. If I did, your killing me would technically be legal—and once you go on to commit a quintuple homicide (you didn't specify if I was included, by the way), you'll spend the rest of your life behind bars. At least, that's how it should work.
And honestly, I doubt a criminal who’s already trying to "persuade" me to let him kill me—which implies he wants it to look legal because he's afraid of the consequences—would actually risk murdering my entire family just to end up in prison for good.
Wait, so you're saying you'd rather let me kill your whole family than sacrifice yourself?
#24 ·
hollowgull14 said:Self-interest drives everything people do... but when we start talking about the interest of the state, that’s something else entirely. We're talking about the common good then. You can't just lump that together with what most people mean when they say "interest"...
It’s not exactly in the government's best interest if I go out and take out the guy hunting me down right now. But look at it this way...
Look, you've got Person A. They're depressed, spiraling, totally checked out... they're going to take their own life. It’s a certainty. A total fact. So what's the actual difference to the government if that person commits suicide or if I just end it myself with permission? Either way, the person is dead. The damage to the state is already done regardless, because they were going to do it anyway... 😉
hollowgull14 said:If you're Catholic, that act is basically suicide because you're choosing to end it yourself. It doesn't even matter who pulls the trigger or swings the knife... What matters is that you wanted to end the life God gave you and you went out of your way to make it happen. That’s a sin against divine law.
Look, I only used Catholicism as an example to show why someone might actually want to be killed rather than taking their own life. There are a million different reasons for that. My whole point in that part of the reply was just about how you can't equate murder with selling a rag...
Walter Myers4 said:Arthur Barnes, why aren't you studying?
😍 🤣 🤣
Karen Garcia5 said:Wait, so you're actually saying you'd rather let me kill your whole family than sacrifice yourself?...
Canada... because if I stepped up, I’d be giving your whole twisted plan some kind of legitimacy. But you? You're terrified of getting caught. So you'd have to go out and commit five murders just to cover your tracks, and then the FBI catches you and you're looking at life in prison. That's way too much risk for someone like you... a total coward who just wants to kill me legally. So yeah, in that scenario, I'm not sacrificing myself... not for those reasons...
#25 ·
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.
#28 ·
Good discussion 🙏
That trauma is Person B's problem... the one doing the killing. The government shouldn't be able to step in and decide whether Person B wants to deal with that trauma or not. If Person B sees that Person A is suffering mentally—and Person A is literally begging for it (this isn't euthanasia!)—and Person B decides to sacrifice their own peace of mind just to ease Person A's pain... why should the state care? It looks like a contract between two people where both parties agree to suffer...😉
Regarding the idea that everything is done for self-interest -> sure, that's true, but this kind of "altruistic" behavior is really just masked selfishness (like that Dawkinsian Selfish Gene theory). Still, Person B gets zero tangible benefit from killing Person A (maybe psychological benefits, maybe they're a sadist, who knows?) — does that still count as intentional murder?
hollowgull14 said:So, you're saying there's no issue if Person B kills Person A just because it doesn't benefit Person B? I'd argue it does hurt them, since murder carries massive trauma in most cases. There are even actual illnesses caused by that kind of trauma. And even if Person B stays physically fine, they gain absolutely nothing from killing someone. If there’s no benefit, we don't do it. (We already established self-interest drives everything.) But if Person B actually HAS a reason to kill Person A, then it isn't assisted suicide anymore—it's just premeditated murder or whatever legal term applies.
That trauma is Person B's problem... the one doing the killing. The government shouldn't be able to step in and decide whether Person B wants to deal with that trauma or not. If Person B sees that Person A is suffering mentally—and Person A is literally begging for it (this isn't euthanasia!)—and Person B decides to sacrifice their own peace of mind just to ease Person A's pain... why should the state care? It looks like a contract between two people where both parties agree to suffer...😉
Regarding the idea that everything is done for self-interest -> sure, that's true, but this kind of "altruistic" behavior is really just masked selfishness (like that Dawkinsian Selfish Gene theory). Still, Person B gets zero tangible benefit from killing Person A (maybe psychological benefits, maybe they're a sadist, who knows?) — does that still count as intentional murder?
#29 ·
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? |
#30 ·
If we assume Person B is actually an altruist, their duty would be to steer Person A away from suicide, rather than facilitating it. 😁
#31 ·
hollowgull14 said:Look, let's set the trauma aside for a second and just admit this is about a contract where everyone loses. It’s totally normal for the government to step in as an arbitrator in situations like this. If a cop sees two guys brawling on a street corner, he’s going to break them up... even if they both want to fight and aren't trying to hurt anyone else.
See, I hadn't really looked at it from that angle before.
Honestly, why would they bother breaking them up? Is it just so the state doesn't have to foot the medical bills? That’s the only thing that makes sense to me... 😕
#32 ·
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.
#33 ·
hollowgull14 said:look, part of what the government does is just maintain order among people. why is drugs illegal??? why can't everything just be based on "do what you want" principles? drugs only hurt the person using them, so you're still gonna get screwed if you get caught with a couple grams of powder anyway. basically, one of the state's jobs is setting the rules on what's allowed and what isn't. if we all just acted based on our own vibes, gut feelings, and personal morals, the world wouldn't even look anything like it does now.
You really think things would be more chaotic if there were legal dispensaries? 😉
#34 ·
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. 😕
#35 ·
Look, I’ll give you credit—you make a pretty solid case for that law, but honestly? I don't think things would play out nearly as perfectly as you're painting them. I mean, come on, people always find a way to twist things, right? There would definitely be some loophole where someone could exploit the right to die. And even if we made it totally legal, I just can't see any sane person actually stepping up to kill someone who wants to go out (unless we're talking strictly medical euthanasia). I really don't believe anyone would take that on. Especially since how can we ever be 100% sure what they're thinking? Maybe it's a genuine wish, or maybe it's just a momentary lapse in judgment or a moment of weakness... and let's face it, nobody wants to carry the weight of being responsible for someone else's death. Plus, if you ask me, the person asking to be killed is being kind of selfish. Even if the law says it's fine, there's still morality to deal with, right? You've got the guilt, the endless questions, and a million other things weighing on your soul...
#36 ·
Look, I don't think that would work, if you know what I mean 😉
The thing is, I'm not aiming for total anarchy where everyone just follows their own gut instead of the law. I'm looking for some kind of symbiosis that would get rid of—in my opinion, and I think it makes sense—these absolutely ridiculous laws. Legalizing drugs? Sure, why not? That’s a massive debate on its own and totally outside the scope of this conversation, so I won't get bogged down in the 😉 broader context of this whole discussion right now. I want to focus strictly on assisted suicide.
I'm going to take a quick break and mull over my counterarguments until tomorrow... I can feel my perspective shifting a bit. Though, I still stand by the idea that a person should have the right to end their life if they ask for it. I'm just waiting for Musician to help me fully articulate my position. 👋
The thing is, I'm not aiming for total anarchy where everyone just follows their own gut instead of the law. I'm looking for some kind of symbiosis that would get rid of—in my opinion, and I think it makes sense—these absolutely ridiculous laws. Legalizing drugs? Sure, why not? That’s a massive debate on its own and totally outside the scope of this conversation, so I won't get bogged down in the 😉 broader context of this whole discussion right now. I want to focus strictly on assisted suicide.
I'm going to take a quick break and mull over my counterarguments until tomorrow... I can feel my perspective shifting a bit. Though, I still stand by the idea that a person should have the right to end their life if they ask for it. I'm just waiting for Musician to help me fully articulate my position. 👋
#37 ·
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. 👋
😁
#38 ·
Kate Harris2 said:I have to admit, you make a really strong case for that law.
Thanks. I’m just trying to keep this discussion civil... 😉
Kate Harris2 said:I don't think things would be as perfect as you're making them out to be. People would find ways to abuse the right to die. And even if it were legal, who in their right mind would actually kill someone requesting it? Unless we're talking about euthanasia, I don't see anyone stepping up to that. We can't ever truly know if someone really wants to die or if they're just having a momentary lapse. Nobody wants that kind of responsibility on their conscience. Plus, asking someone to end your life feels selfish because even if it's legal, there's still morality, guilt, and a million other questions...
Based on how I laid it out, I honestly can't see an exploit. That’s why I started this thread—to see if anyone could find a loophole. So far, nothing. 😕
As for the morality and the guilt, that's strictly on the individual who carries out the request.
Check back tomorrow, dammit! 😠 😁
#39 ·
Arthur Barnes said:I was looking through the penal code earlier and found this:Assisted Suicide / Requested Killing
Section 94.
Anyone who kills another person at their explicit and serious request shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one to eight years.
My goodness, I think this might be one of the most nonsensical laws I have ever encountered. 😲
If my neighbor Mark were to come over—and I would make sure to record both audio and video of him stating clearly that he wants me to kill him—and if he were completely serious and composed, and then I actually went through with it... I would end up serving 8 years in prison just for honoring someone's wish. That is, provided that his wish doesn't harm anyone else besides himself, which he has consciously accepted and still insists upon.
What is the actual origin of this statute, and why does the legal system operate this way? Does anyone here see any logic in this? To me, it seems quite foolish, I suppose.
Actually, that law makes sense... imagine if Person X wanted to kill Person Y and kidnapped them instead. Person X could threaten Person Y, forcing them to state on camera that they want to die, or else Person X will murder Person Y's entire family. Person Y would (naturally) comply and then be killed, and without this specific law, there would be a recording providing an "escape route" for Person X. Without such a law, someone could essentially kill whoever they wanted without facing consequences...
#40 ·
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.
🔗 Similar threads
- When health leaves you with no options: Is assisted suicide justifiable? in Psychology & Therapy · Apr 26, 2010
- Is "living in the moment" actually a recipe for career suicide? in Fans · Jul 29, 2026
- Another tragic murder-suicide in Oklahoma in Criminal and Misdemeanor Law · Jul 26, 2026
- Nursing homes and assisted living facilities in Miscellaneous · Jan 14, 2021
- Suicide prevention awareness: Curiosity-driven attempts in Spirituality · Feb 12, 2020