[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.7107975 [View]
File: 24 KB, 284x460, 1438093242384.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7107975

>>7107969
Now, the legitimate concern about suicide (=suicide of the young) is that the suicidant has responsibilities. It is the famous cliché that before you die, you subscribe a financial credit and never pay back. Or you conceive children, only to give death to yourself a few years later.

perhaps, some day, out of the cost of sustaining the life for the old, some country will be the ultimate utilitarian and give death to old people for financial reasons, but I doubt it.

I do not think that the state plots against the people to enslave it in some life penalty. I think the politicians talk about what the public want and can hear. The suicide is too taboo now, euthanasia is more or less hear-able, especially with such a old demography. Since I believe that the humanism will remain the doctrine in power for a few generations, once the euthanasia is accepted, it will be the turn of the suicide to be the subject of attention. I think that it just takes time and nobody can have, at once, all the liberties everyone can conceive.
more precisely, they talk about the affairs whereof they are aware, the affairs whereof the public likes. I do not think that many people will be concious of this kind of suicide.

The peaceful suicide having nothing to do with the hedonism, I think that the suicide in general will never be discussed if the doctrine/morality in place still focuses the feeling, such as it is today. I do not see a bunch of more or less healthy persons going into the streets and asking for a drug to peacefully die in stating that somebody hurts them and oppress them. Perhaps the whole mentality of how to deal with requests in a democracy will change, but it will not be for tomorrow if the change in mentality is gradual over time.

>> No.6638163 [View]
File: 24 KB, 284x460, 1432744530330.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6638163

>>6638159
Now, the legitimate concern about suicide (=suicide of the young) is that the suicidant has responsibilities. It is the famous cliché that before you die, you subscribe a financial credit and never pay back. Or you conceive children, only to give death to yourself a few years later.

perhaps, some day, out of the cost of sustaining the life for the old, some country will be the ultimate utilitarian and give death to old people for financial reasons, but I doubt it.

I do not think that the state plots against the people to enslave it in some life penalty. I think the politicians talk about what the public want and can hear. The suicide is too taboo now, euthanasia is more or less hear-able, especially with such a old demography. Since I believe that the humanism will remain the doctrine in power for a few generations, once the euthanasia is accepted, it will be the turn of the suicide to be the subject of attention. I think that it just takes time and nobody can have, at once, all the liberties everyone can conceive.
more precisely, they talk about the affairs whereof they are aware, the affairs whereof the public likes. I do not think that many people will be concious of this kind of suicide.

The peaceful suicide having nothing to do with the hedonism, I think that the suicide in general will never be discussed if the doctrine/morality in place still focuses the feeling, such as it is today. I do not see a bunch of more or less healthy persons going into the streets and asking for a drug to peacefully die in stating that somebody hurts them and oppress them. Perhaps the whole mentality of how to deal with requests in a democracy will change, but it will not be for tomorrow if the change in mentality is gradual over time.

>> No.6563878 [View]
File: 22 KB, 284x460, 41CNRF4YTWL._SL460_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6563878

>>6563593
>Just as a side-note saying "OFC" instead of "of course" distracts from your points.
good to know


>>6563593
>>In addition do you think the state has made the active decision to deny this as a right or more so no politician has any favour to gain by taking a stance?

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.

Now, the legitimate concern about suicide (=suicide of the young) is that the suicidant has responsibilities. It is the famous cliché that before you die, you subscribe a financial credit and never pay back. Or you conceive children, only to give death to yourself a few years later.

perhaps, some day, out of the cost of sustaining the life for the old, some country will be the ultimate utilitarian and give death to old people for financial reasons, but I doubt it.

I do not think that the state plots against the people to enslave it in some life penalty. I think the politicians talk about what the public want and can hear. The suicide is too taboo now, euthanasia is more or less hear-able, especially with such a old demography. Since I believe that the humanism will remain the doctrine in power for a few generations, once the euthanasia is accepted, it will be the turn of the suicide to be the subject of attention. I think that it just takes time and nobody can have, at once, all the liberties everyone can conceive.
>>6563593
>When you say philosophical suicide do you mean a person who has fully embraced absurdism (despite the fact that Camus rejects suicide as a legitimate course of action) or some such and thus realized the futility of life directs one to suicide?

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]