Discussion "Life is a prison if you can't leave it easily whenever you want !"

[Alucard]

An unconditional right to painless suicide for any adult would be the guarantor of our existential freedom. Only this right would allow us to dispose of our life, to look death in the face and to assume the human condition serenely.

If we dared to depart from our habit of thinking consisting in opposing life to death in a Manichaean way, we would quickly understand that a right to a gentle death would not only help to die better, but also – and above all ! - to live better. Not to be held prisoner in life, to always have a way out in case misfortune strikes us, to be treated as a grown-up human being capable of thinking for himself and moving towards a peaceful conclusion: wouldn't these be reassuring prospects for becoming freer and happier?

Existential freedom would be the power to leave life easily and peacefully when one chooses. Whether it's cults, prisons, mafias or romantic relationships with "narcissistic perverts", the environments from which one cannot leave without reprisals are never healthy. However, life is a prison if you cannot leave it easily when you want, because then our desertion cannot be bought with horrible suffering. Wouldn't doing justice to life amount to stripping it of its prison characteristics to make it look like a poetry club? To love a person or a thing, it must be chosen freely, that is to say without constraint: the exaltation of "the love of life" should therefore begin with the defense of the right to painless suicide.

Perverse instrumentalization of the idea of free will

We are often told that we are not forced to live since we are always free to commit suicide. Certainly, we can always cut our veins, defenestrate ourselves, immolate ourselves… But the invocation of free will is not enough to solve the ethical problem of existential confinement. A slave, always free to disobey his master, is nevertheless forced to obey him under pain of sanctions. At the same time, without methods of peaceful death within our reach, we are certainly always free to commit suicide, but we nevertheless remain constrained to live, because by committing suicide we expose ourselves to excruciating pain and the risk of failure. In a word, free will does not exclude coercion. To do something out of fear of the consequences if you don't do it is to do it under duress. To live for fear of dying is therefore to live by constraint. Only a painless right to suicide would therefore make it possible to truly live by personal decision – which would give life an irresistible taste of freedom…

Autonomy and happy lucidity

To consider that human beings should not have the right to kill themselves gently when they want is to think that their life does not belong to them, that they are nothing but the property of others, of society and the state. This is what is called, in philosophy, reification: the fact of being considered as a thing. To dispose of one's life is above all to have the choice between keeping one's life or not, without the second option being made horribly painful. To be deprived of this fundamental right constitutes a serious violation of our dignity as human beings. Power hates the possibility of suicide, because it is a means of independence: when you are no longer afraid to die, you dare more to boldly disobey and "live your life".

The right to painless suicide would allow us to be at the same time lucid, serene and respectful of the laws. We would know that no matter what, we could always unchain ourselves from misfortune, which would be infinitely reassuring. Existence, on the temporal plane, would consist of a trek towards a peaceful end. Finally, we could prepare ourselves for a dignified death without plunging into illegality: a beautiful reconciliation between the legal and the legitimate. As the physicist Bernard Diu wrote, there should be a right to IVV, to "Voluntary Interruption of Life", "there should be the simple right to leave".

(Translated with Google Translate)
Gabriel Noncris​

 

[FuneralCry]

Yes, existence is certainly prison like when we live in a world that makes it as difficult for us to die as possible and where our right to die is not respected. It's like we are punished for other people's decisions to selfishly procreate, we were forced into a life that we never asked for and we have to struggle so much in finally leaving this life behind.

I find it horrific how we are denied guaranteed ways out of this life, the society that we live in certainly is pro suffering, others would rather have us deteriorate until old age rather than respecting our right to exit peacefully. I agree that it could make life more bearable for people knowing that the way out of this life is always there without having to resort to potentially risky methods. After all death is the most natural thing ever and the stigma surrounding death should be removed. As humans we only exist just to die and then eventually be forgotten about anyway.

 

[jodes2]

Life is a trap. Once born we're tied to obligations that keep us here

 

[Forever Sleep]

This is great and so well reasoned. I think most of us fear pain and a long drawn out death. Even people who aren't necessarily suicidal and who love life don't want to end up suffering in the end. I agree that it would be a comfort to many people if they knew the option of a peaceful death was there if things became too much to bear.

I also agree that (whether it be an illusion/ delusion) modern people love the idea of self autonomy and freedom. Yet the absolute fundamental choice on whether to live or die is (at the very least) restricted by our governments.

 

[Sunset Limited]

Life is a trap. Once born we're tied to obligations that keep us here

Life is truly a trap. SI is very strong, if you manage to defeat it, guilt for the family awaits there. Few of the thousands of chemicals offer a peaceful death and are inaccessible. All this combined, we must have committed a great crime to deserve a flesh prison.

 

[jodes2]

Life is truly a trap. SI is very strong, if you manage to defeat it, guilt for the family awaits there. Few of the thousands of chemicals offer a peaceful death and are inaccessible. All this combined, we must have committed a great crime to deserve a flesh prison.

Flesh prison, love it

 

[wiltedLotus]

I love all of this, it's like a modern day update of Schopenhauer's essay on suicide…nice work!

 

[theboy]

true

 

[Alucard]

The parable of the prisoner who dreamed of freedom

One warm spring evening, an old prisoner, dressed in white, spoke :

"My fellow human beings, despite your many differences, you all have one thing in common : you are prisoners, like me, but you are not aware of it. Admittedly, your prison is vast : you have schools, towns, institutions, forests, oceans, etc. You indulge in your various activities and you believe that you are free. But your cell mates who are suffering martyrdom and who want to leave discover with horror that escape is very difficult and often painful. It's both because of their bodies, which aren't programmed to easily fly away from here, and because of you, who prevent them from leaving peacefully.

However, the environments from which it is difficult to flee are always unhealthy : it is difficult to flee from a sect, from a cellar where one is chained, from the influence of a perverse person, etc... Conversely, it is easy to run away from a poetry club, a game of tennis or a love affair with a non-violent person... we can leave easily can be healthy for the spirit, because only they respect our freedom and our dignity. If I am in a house of my own free will, I can enjoy being there. But if I'm locked up in the house, an unhealthy climate will set in and I'll just want to get out... unless I end up agreeing to be a captive, or worse, persuading myself that it is I who choose to stay in the house despite the doors being locked.

Comrades, why don't you apply the same reasoning to life ? Yes, if you can't easily get out of life whenever you want, then by definition life is a prison. However, one cannot truly love a prison... However, some of you now have keys allowing you to easily get out of life: if these keys were made available to everyone, then the doors of life would be definitively open (without having to be forced) and we would no longer be prisoners, which would fundamentally change the human condition by giving life an irresistible taste of freedom. Having an exit door available at all times would make us more serene and our dignity would no longer be violated by an expropriation of our life. So I ask you : when will you stop blessing your chains and kidnapping one another ? »

And the prisoner disappeared in a halo of white vapor tinged with the mystical gold of the twilight rays.​

 

[Alucard]

 

[TAW122]

An unconditional right to painless suicide for any adult would be the guarantor of our existential freedom. Only this right would allow us to dispose of our life, to look death in the face and to assume the human condition serenely.

If we dared to depart from our habit of thinking consisting in opposing life to death in a Manichaean way, we would quickly understand that a right to a gentle death would not only help to die better, but also – and above all ! - to live better. Not to be held prisoner in life, to always have a way out in case misfortune strikes us, to be treated as a grown-up human being capable of thinking for himself and moving towards a peaceful conclusion: wouldn't these be reassuring prospects for becoming freer and happier?

Existential freedom would be the power to leave life easily and peacefully when one chooses. Whether it's cults, prisons, mafias or romantic relationships with "narcissistic perverts", the environments from which one cannot leave without reprisals are never healthy. However, life is a prison if you cannot leave it easily when you want, because then our desertion cannot be bought with horrible suffering. Wouldn't doing justice to life amount to stripping it of its prison characteristics to make it look like a poetry club? To love a person or a thing, it must be chosen freely, that is to say without constraint: the exaltation of "the love of life" should therefore begin with the defense of the right to painless suicide.

Perverse instrumentalization of the idea of free will

We are often told that we are not forced to live since we are always free to commit suicide. Certainly, we can always cut our veins, defenestrate ourselves, immolate ourselves… But the invocation of free will is not enough to solve the ethical problem of existential confinement. A slave, always free to disobey his master, is nevertheless forced to obey him under pain of sanctions. At the same time, without methods of peaceful death within our reach, we are certainly always free to commit suicide, but we nevertheless remain constrained to live, because by committing suicide we expose ourselves to excruciating pain and the risk of failure. In a word, free will does not exclude coercion. To do something out of fear of the consequences if you don't do it is to do it under duress. To live for fear of dying is therefore to live by constraint. Only a painless right to suicide would therefore make it possible to truly live by personal decision – which would give life an irresistible taste of freedom…

Autonomy and happy lucidity

To consider that human beings should not have the right to kill themselves gently when they want is to think that their life does not belong to them, that they are nothing but the property of others, of society and the state. This is what is called, in philosophy, reification: the fact of being considered as a thing. To dispose of one's life is above all to have the choice between keeping one's life or not, without the second option being made horribly painful. To be deprived of this fundamental right constitutes a serious violation of our dignity as human beings. Power hates the possibility of suicide, because it is a means of independence: when you are no longer afraid to die, you dare more to boldly disobey and "live your life".

The right to painless suicide would allow us to be at the same time lucid, serene and respectful of the laws. We would know that no matter what, we could always unchain ourselves from misfortune, which would be infinitely reassuring. Existence, on the temporal plane, would consist of a trek towards a peaceful end. Finally, we could prepare ourselves for a dignified death without plunging into illegality: a beautiful reconciliation between the legal and the legitimate. As the physicist Bernard Diu wrote, there should be a right to IVV, to "Voluntary Interruption of Life", "there should be the simple right to leave".

(Translated with Google Translate)
Gabriel Noncris​

This is an excellent post, and yes, even if one is technically free to CTB as many prolifers falsely claim, what they don't mention is the possibility of failure, going via violent means (even causing collateral damage in some situations), and the consequences of failing said attempt or being prevented from doing so (if caught).

Regarding autonomy, yes many people in power (including the masses of prolifers in the world) seem to be against pro-choice as they fear it threatens their grasp and control of them. This seems to be true in many governments and societies as they don't wish to lose their workers or people who pay taxes, consume, and produce stuff for them (government and society) to use.

Therefore, yes, life is indeed a prison as one cannot easily, or readily leave it without going through so much hassle, even at the risk of failure and consequences that follow failure.

 

[Alucard]

Montesquieu, Persian Letters, Letter 76

Usbek to his friend Ibben, at Smyrna

European law is dead against suicide. Those who kill themselves suffer, as it were, a second death: they are dragged with ignominy through the streets: their infamy is published, and their goods confiscated.

It seems to me, Ibben, that this law is very unjust. When I am loaded with grief, misery, and contumely, why should I be hindered from putting an end to my sufferings, and cruelly deprived of a remedy which is in my hands ?

Why should I be forced to labour for a society to which I refuse to belong? Why in spite of myself, should I be held to an agreement made without my consent? Society is founded upon mutual advantage; but, when it becomes burdensome to me, what hinders me from leaving it? Life was given me as a blessing; when it ceases to be so I can give it up: the cause ceasing, the effect ought also to cease.

Will any prince require me to be his subject, if I reap none of the benefits of subjection? Can my fellow-citizens require our lots to be so unequal; theirs, usefulness—mine, despair? Will God, unlike other benefactors, condemn me to receive favours which are a burden to me?

I am obliged to obey the laws while I live under them; but, if I cease to live, can they still bind me?

"But," some one may say, "you disturb the order of Providence. God has joined your soul to your body; in separating them, you oppose His designs and resist His will."

What force is there in this argument? Do I disturb the order of Providence, when I alter the qualities of matter, and square a ball which the first laws of motion, that is to say the laws of creation and preservation, made round? Certainly not; I only exercise a right which has been given me; and, in that sense, I can disturb, as my fancy dictates, the whole order of Nature, without any one being able to say that I oppose Providence.

When my soul shall be separated from my body, will there be less order, less harmony, in the universe? Do you think that that new combination will be less perfect, and less dependent upon general laws; that the world would lose anything by it; that the works of God would be less great, or rather less immense?

Do you think that my body, become a blade of grass, a worm, a grass-green turf, will be changed into a work of nature less worthy of her; and that my soul, freed from all its earthly trammels, will become less sublime?

All these ideas, my dear Ibben, have their only source in our pride. We do not feel our littleness; and, however small we may be, we wish to count for something in the universe, to cut a figure there, and to be of some consequence in it. We imagine that the annihilation of such a perfect being would degrade all nature: and we cannot conceive that one man more or less in the world—what do I say?—that the whole world, that a hundred millions of worlds1​ like ours, can be more than one small frail atom, which God perceives only because His knowledge is all-embracing.

 

[ShanaRei]

This is so true. When the first person I was close to in my life died, I was extremely envious. I didn't understand why, but I knew that I wasn't the only one who felt that way. Now it all makes sense as I get older.