Do we own our own lives? A discussion on the morality of suicide and voluntary slavery.

[genkaus]

Sure np, always fun to explore these things. IIRC, the aspect of experience of self is the basis of self determination (though additional requirements are generally made and I'm sure we'll get there.)

You still haven't given anything to connect the two concepts. Your premise here is
P: I can experience myself, i.e., I have self-awareness and the capacity for subjective experiences.

Your conclusion is
C: Therefore, I should get to determine what happens to myself.

Not only the conclusion does not follow the premise, we often find it to be not true in the real world. Further, if that is the only basis for self-determination, then it'd apply not only to humans but most of the animal kingdom as well.

Whereas it would be more like "product of" self which gives rise to ownership of property.

Ownership of property and ownership of life are two different concepts. While your may make an argument that right to property is a derivative of right to self-determination, the same cannot be said of the right to life.

---

Maybe phrased it wrongly.

He argued that in a world without god, meaning that there is only one life - this represents freedom. Therefor ending this "freedom" is fleeing into absurdety and into the comfort of delusions. Therefor life must be embraced and not rejected.

I to see the flaws within this way of "reasoning".

I am simply trying to find examples for philosophical arguments against suicide and he (as flaud as his argument might be) is the only one I currently one of the few I know of.

The flaw is his argument is that ending this "freedom" via suicide does not equal fleeing into absurdity and into the comfort of delusions - it is the end, that's it.

Further, by forcing someone to embrace life, you are curtailing his freedom - in the very same way as he may be curtailing his own freedom by choosing to end it.

Basically, the premise that life=freedom is incorrect, which is why the conclusions end up contradicting themselves.

Utilitarism rejects parts of individual liberties which could be considered non benefitial towards sociaty, therefor suicide would be seen as selfish.

but i do see the flaw within that reasoning that under certain circumstances the suicide of an individual can be benefitial for a sociaty.

Accepting or rejecting individual liberties based on benefit to the society is a fundamental flaw of utilitarianism itself. That is not the basis of individual liberties and the justification is an appeal to consequences.

Could you please express yourself clearer in regard to point 2. I cannot find the verb "to void" only the substantive "the void" and with it`s translation your sentence makes no sence to me.

Basically, a contract has two parties, in this case, the society and the individual, who enter into it willingly. If the terms and conditions are no longer acceptable to one of them, then they should have the option of opting out of the contract.

In this case, the contract is that the society continues to provide protection to the individual while the individual continues pay back in terms of services or taxes. The negation of the contract would mean that the individual no longer gets the society's protection and no longer has to work for its benefit. Suicide solved the issue rather neatly.