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

[Jackalope]

I found my mother dying of an overdose when I was 17. Of course I called an ambulance, and I'd do it again if the situation was repeated, regardless of what I think the rational implications of self-ownership are.

My apologies if I hit too close to home with my question, but my point was to illustrate that it is our instincts that keep us from being comfortable with complete self-ownership.

No worries, brother. It did hit close to home, but you had no way of knowing that it would, and while the memory is still painful nearly 30 years later, the memory can't harm me any longer.

In any case, I knew what I was getting into walking into a right-to-die thread. I put my big boy pants on first.

Perhpas another big part of it is our fear of death, and the fact that allowing people to take thier own lives makes us struggle with our own mortality. Some people just do not want to ever be comfortable with anything having to do with death.

Perhaps. If that were the case, I would argue that another's discomfort does not rationally give them right of dominion over that which does not belong to them. Of course, simultaneously, I recognize that I would not wish for people to kill themselves and would intervene.

Yep, I'm an irrational hypocrite. So?

[genkaus]

The main difference that with voluntary slavery you waive your rights. So basically in voluntary slavery you accept to have violence used on you. If you own your own life, then you should have the right to sell it.

For example you could be a masochist who enjoys being physically abused. Or you'd like to be killed in a specific fashion. If you own your own life, why shouldn't you have the right to ask someone else to kill you? I'm trying to come up with a cogent argument against this objection, but I can't find a good one.

Waiver - meaning refusal to enforce - does not negate the right itself. This is the tricky part about owning someone else - that you cannot truly own another person. For example, if you are a masochist or if you want to be killed in a specific fashion, the person doing it for you is not acting against your wishes. The question of coercion does not enter here.

As you said, in voluntary slavery, you accept to have violence used on you. Then, the moment you decide to reject it, the slavery is no longer voluntary. That sounds reasonable to me. Why should you look for any argument against it?

---

The current concept of rights that we hold is that some rights are not subject to waiver. Specificlly the right to self determination, in this context. One of the reasons for this is that no corrective or punitive means to compel another (who has sold themselves to you, for example) is consistent with our application of rights. "Selling ones self" would abrogate the right to self determination, in any case-to which we assign a greater value than the right of ownership. Its a concept called (by some) primacy.

Some rights, as the foundations or fundamental underpinnings of others, take center stage when two rights may -in some scenario- come to odds with each other.

Wouldn't the right to self-ownership be fundamental to the right to self-determination? It is because you own your life that you get to determine what to do with it - not the other way around.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Something is not ownable, because it can't be traded!!!
The core of ownership, is the question..who owns it?

Life is therefor not ownable.

[genkaus]

The french writer and receiver of the nobel prize for literature (and one of my favorite novelists of all time) Albert Camus argued that life itself could be set equal to freedom and that therefor ending your own life is to end your own "freedom" and people should be prohibited from setting limits or ending their "freedom".

Except, right to freedom also means the right not to exercise that right - therefore, setting limits to your own freedom is a perfectly acceptable application of your right to freedom.

Or one may argue with the idea of utilitarianism and say that a individual is bound to a social contract within his sociaty and therefor bound to not act selfishly by commiting suicide?

Firstly, that would depend on the terms of the contract. Secondly, suicide could also be a way to void the contract since after the person's death, the society is not obligated to fulfill any terms of the contract either.

---

Suicide is not immoral because;

1 a person is mentally healthy > than I have no objection (but I won't come to your funeral...), euthansia is the solution, not suicide
2 a person is sick > sickness is not immoral.
3 life can't be owned, traded, claimes or whatever. Life is a fact, or not.

1. Whether or not you object does not make something moral/immoral.
2. Depends on the effect of the sickness on the person's judgment.
3. Facts can be owned, traded etc. and thus so can life.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't the right to self-ownership be fundamental to the right to self-determination? It is because you own your life that you get to determine what to do with it - not the other way around.

Self determination comes from "self" , not ownership. Property rights derive from our concept of ownership(ownership is fundamental to property). Personhood (self) has primacy with regards to ownership (property) ....though we could always disagree. As I understand it, in any case, selling yourself as "property" would abrogate you right to self determinination -sure, you could argue that you exercized that right...but only once, if the contract of ownership were binding you would no longer have the right to self determination (and as you mentioned all means of compelling the unwilling slave are unacceptable)- all of this ignoring that "property" is not current a recognized status for a human being here, obviously. It's been a decade though, might make for some fun, trying to square away self determ with anti-slave.

(we'd probably end up in employees rights - love that one)

[genkaus]

Self determination comes from "self" , not ownership. Property rights derive from our concept of ownership(ownership is fundamental to property). Personhood (self) holds primacy to ownership (though we could always disagree).

Lay it out for me, would you?

What aspect of "self" gives you the right to self-determination?

And what aspect of "self" gives rise to ownership?

[Jackalope]

The french writer and receiver of the nobel prize for literature (and one of my favorite novelists of all time) Albert Camus argued that life itself could be set equal to freedom and that therefor ending your own life is to end your own "freedom" and people should be prohibited from setting limits or ending their "freedom".

He may be a great novelist, but his argument here is shit. Paraphrased: "So that you do not limit your own freedom, we are placing limits on your freedom." Even if his analogy of life=freedom were true (and I think it is not), the latter (an external entity limiting one's freedom) is worse than the former (self-limiting one's own freedom).

Camus argues for a greater evil.

[The Grand Nudger]

Self determination comes from "self" , not ownership. Property rights derive from our concept of ownership(ownership is fundamental to property). Personhood (self) holds primacy to ownership (though we could always disagree).

Lay it out for me, would you?

What aspect of "self" gives you the right to self-determination?

And what aspect of "self" gives rise to ownership?

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.)

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

[Something completely different]

Except, right to freedom also means the right not to exercise that right - therefore, setting limits to your own freedom is a perfectly acceptable application of your right to freedom.

He may be a great novelist, but his argument here is shit. Paraphrased: "So that you do not limit your own freedom, we are placing limits on your freedom." Even if his analogy of life=freedom were true (and I think it is not), the latter (an external entity limiting one's freedom) is worse than the former (self-limiting one's own freedom).

Camus argues for a greater evil.

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.

Or one may argue with the idea of utilitarianism and say that a individual is bound to a social contract within his sociaty and therefor bound to not act selfishly by commiting suicide?

Firstly, that would depend on the terms of the contract. Secondly, suicide could also be a way to void the contract since after the person's death, the society is not obligated to fulfill any terms of the contract either.

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.

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.

[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.