/lit/ - Literature

>>7106076
It should be a right to a peaceful death but it will be unlikely the case because of the principle of life from all humanist doctrines, doctrines which have been in power for the last centuries.

Until, of course, the feminists discovered that abortions are alright and must be enticed by the states since from now on, the principle of pain is more valued (if you desire something from the society, you must say, from now on, that it makes you sad and oppressed). From this, there is no longer a justification to forbid a painless manner to give death to yourself, paid by the states.

With the declining population, only the euthanasia is considered. The state does not want to give too much liberties, especially in liberal societies. The humanists of today do not understand that the philosophical suicide can be considered, since all they see is through pleasure/pain. Plus, the naysayers say that it opens the door to the suicides in mass. This is really quite a dilemma for all those humanist societies who rely on consent, whereas they violate this consent on a daily basis already, even from your birth (think of your nationality where your state does not ask you if you wish to be part of it, where the states do nothing to favour the stateless state (for individuals), or to move abroad etc.).

I think that in a few generations, probably after the century, we will come back from this life penalty, just like we came back from the death penalty. This statement is statistic, which means that a lot of countries will adopt this stance, but there will still be a few to refuse it)

the picture is the poster of an italian film on euthanasia and the last death is a form of philosophical suicide that so few understand.


I think that there is legitimate concerns over euthanasia. Typically, that we already abandon the old in some hospices with the result of them being sad and ill. The euthanasia/suicide-for-the-old would be a bad solution to a false problem.

>>6637830
Is should be a right to a peaceful death but it will be unlikely the case because of the principle of life from all humanist doctrines, doctrines which have been in power for the last centuries.

Until, of course, the feminists dicovered that abortions are alright and must be enticed by the states since from now on, the principle of pain is more valued (if you desire something from the society, you must say, from now on, that it makes you sad and oppressed). From this, there is no longer a justification to forbid a painless manner to give death to yourself, paid by the states.

With the declining population, only the euthanasia is considered. The state does not want to give too much liberties, especially in liberal societies. The humanists of today do not understand that the philosophical suicide can be considered, since all they see is through pleasure/pain. Plus, the naysayers say that it opens the door to the suicides in mass. This is really quite a dilemma for all those humanist societies who rely on consent, whereas they violate this consent on a daily basis already, even from your birth (think of your nationality where your state does not ask you if you wish to be part of it, where the states do nothing to favorize the stateless state (for individuals), or to move abroad etc.).

I think that in a few generations, probably after the century, we will come back from this life penalty, just like we came back from the death penalty. This statement is statistic, which means that a lot of countries will adopt this stance, but there will still be a few to refuse it)

the picture is the poster of an italian film on euthanasia and the last death is a form of philosophical suicide that so few understand.


I think that there is legitimate concerns over euthanasia. Typically, that we already abandon the old in some hospices with the result of them being sad and ill. The euthanasia/suicide-for-the-old would be a bad solution to a false problem.

>>6563083
>Why isn't suicide considered a right like abortion?
because fo the principle of life from all humanist doctrines, doctrines which have been in power for the last centuries.

Until, ofc, the feminists dicovered that abortions are alright and must be enticed by the states since from now on, the principle of pain is more valued (if you desire something from the society, you must say, from now on, that it makes you sad and oppressed). From this, there is no longer a justification to forbid a painless manner to give death to yourself, paid by the states.

OFC, with the declining population, only the euthanasia is considered. The state does not want to give too much liberties, especially in liberal societies. The humanists of today do not understand that the philosophical suicide can be considered, since all they see is through pleasure/pain. Plus ofc, the naysayers say that it opens the door to the suicides in mass. This is really quite a dilemma for all those humanist societies who rely on consent, whereas they violate this consent on a daily basis already, even from your birth (think of your nationality where your state does not ask you if you wish to be part of it, where the states do nothing to favorize the stateless state (for individuals), or to move abroad etc.).

I think that in a few generations, probably after the century, we will come back from this life penalty, just like we came back from the death penalty. This statement is statistic, which means that a lot of countries will adopt this stance, but there will still be a few to refuse it)

the picture is the poster of an italian film on euthanasia and the last death is a form of philosophical suicide that so few understand.

most suicides come from depression
philosphical suicides are too rare to be comprehended therefore accepted
suicides are the destruction of the commitments wherein the suicidee is engaged
suicide threatens the society, especially when the death is absent in being confined to hospitals

thankfully the euthanasia and its ridiculous reactions will permit to legalize it, but reasoned peaceful fearless suicide per se will remain obscure for generations.

>>5986504
>>>Disagreed. The authentic will to live could result in suicide.
>
>Only if you agree with Schopenhauer that being alive means more suffering than committing suicide.
This is not true, and by far. You can perfectly come to suicide, after a bit of reflection, with and from peace, no need for some illness or sadness as in most suicides. It is hard to understand but it does exist and I am not even sure it coincides with the philosophical suicide. Anyway, this kind of suicide will never be accepted socially of course while, philosophically, it is the only true question about suicide as euthanasia remains a phony subject (why should you wait to have cancer at 60 to reflect upon your life by reflecting first about its end ?) and only permits us to avoid the real question.

Watch Miele, an italian film for instance.

>>5986504
>>>Disagreed. The authentic will to live could result in suicide.
>
>Only if you agree with Schopenhauer that being alive means more suffering than committing suicide.
This is not true, and by far. You can perfectly come to suicide, after a bit of reflection, with and from peace, no need for some illness or sadness as in most suicides. It is hard to understand but it does exist and I am not even sure it coincides with the philosophical suicide. Anyway, this kind of suicide will never be accepted socially of course. Philosophically, it is the only true question about suicide. Euthanasia is a joke and only permits us to avoid the real question.

Watch Miele, italian film for instance.