Discussion There would not be (substantial) change WRT the right to die until an monumental event happens.

[TAW122]

The title is long, so the actual title would be "There would not be (substantial) change in society with respect to the right to die unless an monumental event happens." Anyways, there is a quote that I heard from a user somewhere on the Internet (cannot remember where exactly) which led me to think what if it took a shift in the attitude on the value of life itself to get large scale changes in how humanity views life? Would we be ok with that? What about if and when it causes the end of humanity through decades or even a century and no other human being came into existence while the current human beings die off due to natural causes, self-choice, and/or other causes (not having enough humans to replace the aging and dying population, like 0.2 birthrates across the world)?

My Personal View:
Personally, I will be ok with that consequence for humanity itself based on my perspective of life is full of suffering with fleeting times of pleasure, and it is also consistent with the antinatalist and nihilistic philosophies regarding life and existence. Life itself has no meaning and that meaning is derived from a subjective perspective such that humans just inherently assert that life has value while the universe or 'life' itself doesn't claim itself to have value (nihilism towards life). This is just a human assertion. The people who never came into existence, while never experiencing pleasure, can never suffer either (antinatalism perspective). Both antinatalism and nihilism are consistent with my views, because if there was no problem to begin with, then there would never need to be a solution (to be discovered, found, and implemented).
@FuneralCry

Since I believe in a means to an end in solving problems, a harm that leads to a permanent a long term benefit would be justified in the end. One such example is the spending on money in order to generate more money, or investing something to gain more of another thing. Life and sentience itself is the root of all our pleasures and suffering, so being in charge and having ownership over one's own life and fate is the most important right because everything else that comes with it (the rest of our civil rights, human rights, and everything else is under the umbrella of 'life' and 'sentience' itself). Therefore, if there was such an event that forced humankind to change it's ways (particularly) for the better, personally, I would be ok with it (even if it meant making an 'exception' or a temporary cost). It's like how there are many advancements and benefits that we enjoy today because of sacrifices made in the past, even if it were horrible or cost someone, some party, or came at a price.

With regards to the case of voluntary euthanasia, even if there was collateral damage (which is a harm and in the short time, I'll concede, a negative) but led to long term changes that benefit the community, us, and overall society, (from a pro-life prohibitionist society to a more tolerant, progressive society at the minimum-- or even more permissive and very open), I would be ok with it because the sacrifices that were made (while short term was negative and suffered), it led to an overall benefit as a whole. A few (sacrifices) for the greater benefit of many. Before one claims but that is tribalism, I would like to rebut with that we wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if there weren't people who fought for the concept of human rights. Also, the crux of the right to die also evolved from the introduction and concept of civil rights and human rights (in general). More specifically the right to personal freedom as well as the my body my choice, and that (most of the civilized world recognizes that suffering and harm = bad, therefore the reduction of both things is a good, or a benefit). With that said, here is a scenario below as food for thought:

The black button scenario, thought experiment, ethics and morals question:
The black button scenario is more like a thought experiment (in this video at 35:56) posed as an ethics question. The black button scenario is essentially, would you push it to cause (temporary) immense suffering (the burden and cost upfront), but later result in permanent end to ALL suffering forever? In other words, a permanent solution to a permanent problem (existence and sentience) albeit with a temporary heavy cost upfront.

What do you think, would you be ok with a (temporary) sacrifice (even if negative, or tragic) even if it leads to benefits and (long term) peace? Why or why not?

 

[FuneralCry]

I just think that no matter what, it's unacceptable how there is a lack of acceptance towards the right to die. Having a legalised peaceful way out is the way to prevent so much unnecessary torture and to me such a thing could only be beneficial. We are all going to die anyway so people should be able to choose when to exit, and it's cruelty to want to deny that option. Nobody should be forced to exist and it's harmful how methods like N are illegal, as after all life is the source of all suffering and it's important for people to be able to have the option to escape from a world where chance determines everything and where anybody can end up in a situation of extreme torture at any point. I think that it would be for the best if there was some kind of event that changed attitudes towards the right to die, but I cannot see anything like that really happening.

 

[thevaccumguy]

Ayyyyy, good question. But Imma leave quoting famous philosophers to someone else this time. With that out of the way, let's read into the monumental event part. A monumental event has to bring with itself a great reason for persuasion and change. What can such an event be? First thing that comes to mind, realistically is a disease (yeah, fuck covid). Assume that in this disease, people do not necessarily die, but become completely unable to fend for themselves or even function properly as a proper human being, in short becomes a vegetable with full consciousness. Now increase this number to a million, or a hundred million. A hundred million completely self-conscious people trapped in their own bodies, being tortured themselves just by living and, pardon my words, burning a literal through through the taxpayers money.
This can end in two ways. One- government finds a cure. Two- they are euthanized. Now such a large scale incident would no doubt leave it's mark on human civilization and mindset and open up a complete new discussion on what exactly is being trapped in one's body.
Radical changes take time, sometimes a lot.
Mercy killing was a concept, ironically , I think the mass first got the idea from zombie movies. Think of that what you will.

The title is long, so the actual title would be "There would not be (substantial) change in society with respect to the right to die unless an monumental event happens." Anyways, there is a quote that I heard from a user somewhere on the Internet (cannot remember where exactly) which led me to think what if it took a shift in the attitude on the value of life itself to get large scale changes in how humanity views life? Would we be ok with that? What about if and when it causes the end of humanity through decades or even a century and no other human being came into existence while the current human beings die off due to natural causes, self-choice, and/or other causes (not having enough humans to replace the aging and dying population, like 0.2 birthrates across the world)?

My Personal View:
Personally, I will be ok with that consequence for humanity itself based on my perspective of life is full of suffering with fleeting times of pleasure, and it is also consistent with the antinatalist and nihilistic philosophies regarding life and existence. Life itself has no meaning and that meaning is derived from a subjective perspective such that humans just inherently assert that life has value while the universe or 'life' itself doesn't claim itself to have value (nihilism towards life). This is just a human assertion. The people who never came into existence, while never experiencing pleasure, can never suffer either (antinatalism perspective). Both antinatalism and nihilism are consistent with my views, because if there was no problem to begin with, then there would never need to be a solution (to be discovered, found, and implemented).
@FuneralCry

Since I believe in a means to an end in solving problems, a harm that leads to a permanent a long term benefit would be justified in the end. One such example is the spending on money in order to generate more money, or investing something to gain more of another thing. Life and sentience itself is the root of all our pleasures and suffering, so being in charge and having ownership over one's own life and fate is the most important right because everything else that comes with it (the rest of our civil rights, human rights, and everything else is under the umbrella of 'life' and 'sentience' itself). Therefore, if there was such an event that forced humankind to change it's ways (particularly) for the better, personally, I would be ok with it (even if it meant making an 'exception' or a temporary cost). It's like how there are many advancements and benefits that we enjoy today because of sacrifices made in the past, even if it were horrible or cost someone, some party, or came at a price.

With regards to the case of voluntary euthanasia, even if there was collateral damage (which is a harm and in the short time, I'll concede, a negative) but led to long term changes that benefit the community, us, and overall society, (from a pro-life prohibitionist society to a more tolerant, progressive society at the minimum-- or even more permissive and very open), I would be ok with it because the sacrifices that were made (while short term was negative and suffered), it led to an overall benefit as a whole. A few (sacrifices) for the greater benefit of many. Before one claims but that is tribalism, I would like to rebut with that we wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if there weren't people who fought for the concept of human rights. Also, the crux of the right to die also evolved from the introduction and concept of civil rights and human rights (in general). More specifically the right to personal freedom as well as the my body my choice, and that (most of the civilized world recognizes that suffering and harm = bad, therefore the reduction of both things is a good, or a benefit). With that said, here is a scenario below as food for thought:

The black button scenario, thought experiment, ethics and morals question:
The black button scenario is more like a thought experiment (in this video at 35:56) posed as an ethics question. The black button scenario is essentially, would you push it to cause (temporary) immense suffering (the burden and cost upfront), but later result in permanent end to ALL suffering forever? In other words, a permanent solution to a permanent problem (existence and sentience) albeit with a temporary heavy cost upfront.

What do you think, would you be ok with a (temporary) sacrifice (even if negative, or tragic) even if it leads to benefits and (long term) peace? Why or why not?

As of agreeing, the reasons for affirmation also works against it. Like yeah, if I'm alone and become a sacrifice for such an incident , I probably wouldn't mind. Say it's someone who got caught in such an incident who really wanted to live, say in a crippling pandemic. Probably not. Events that usher in epochs crush all personal opinions, and that is the point of it as well. There will always be people who'll argue if the long term benefits are worth it and vice versa. Sacrifice is at the end a really personal POV of a large motion of events.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yeah- I agree- the world would need to change significantly I believe for assisted suicide to be more widely accepted- for more people especially. Maybe it could be the emergence of AI- the everyday person can no longer find work to sustain themselves or their families. Perhaps they will indeed choose not to reproduce and get out of here before the AI do the rational thing and wipe us out.

Or- maybe a dramatic increase in violent weather and 'natural' disasters- due to climate change presumably... If floods, hurricanes and fire become a regular occurence everywhere- I expect people will realise they absolutely HAVE to act.

As regards to pushing the button- do you mean killing all life? No- I couldn't do that. What gives me the right to think I know best for everyone else and make the decision for them? I do get it of course- 'save' them from any future suffering. Even spare them from the grief of mourning their loved ones- if we all die together. I do understand why some people would consider it the humane thing to do. Still- you ARE murdering billions of people and maybe ALL life without their consent. I'm pro-choice- which means giving other people the right to choose. Not annhilating everything because 'I know best.' That seems like God level shit to me.

I guess the REALLY difficult question is- if you could prevent life being created in the first place- would you? That's a tricky one definitely. It's not like you're killing anything then. Just potential- the potential for amazing things but also all the horror that comes with it. That's one existential question I'd REALLY struggle with...

How about you? I'm guessing you definitely wouldn't start the life process rolling? I struggle though because I wonder just HOW many people/animals/plants enjoy life- or- at least think it's worth a shot. Again- do we REALLY have the right to think we know best for everyone? Not like it's possible anyway but it's interesting...

 

[TAW122]

@FuneralCry I agree that if humans accepted voluntary euthanasia, a lot of suffering, tragedies, bad actors, and terrible events (barring nature and the universe itself; which is out of our control, beyond us) can be prevented and avoided. It is indeed cruel to not have voluntary euthanasia available for humanity, where people who want to go for any reason (or lack thereof) can access it and not suffer anymore nor cause any harm to existing (and persistent) people (aka pro-lifers) who wish to continue living on their own accord. As an antinatalist, I too, take the position of being against procreation because not only did a non-sentient being never consent to be/exist, it would be (currently) impossible to gain their consent/permission to come into existence.

@thevaccumguy That is an interesting scenario that you described about how a world changing event would lead to several possible outcomes, either to find a solution or choose the next best option, which is mitigation of damage. Indeed, massive changes to human way of life require tremendous amounts of time (decades, perhaps even centuries) before one sees and/or experiences said 'change'. Additionally, when you mentioned about sacrifice being a personal POV, that is an interesting point.

@Forever Sleep Assuming what you mentioned about AI is true, then yes it would be sensible, logical, and even compassionate when humans recognize to avoid 'worse' suffering that preventing future generations from coming into existence (antinatalism) as well as voluntary euthanasia is a must. In such a scenario, this would ensure that current and future human beings, mankind will not suffer worse fates or even involuntary suffering (and eventual death, albeit in a worse, brutal manner). With respect to climate change, I believe that is a potential world changing event too, even if the gradual changes and effects are impacting more people as time goes on. I believe that humanity will be forced to find a solution (somehow be able to cope, weather the natural disasters) or failing that, either die trying (for quite a few of the masses) or mercifully exit to avoid a worse death.

Regarding the philosophical and hypothetical question of pushing the button to eradicate all life permanently, albeit a temporary price to pay (immense, temporary suffering but permanent end to all future suffering eternally), I could see that it wouldn't be right for us to push it. I believe the scenario presented isn't the best one and personally, even if I knew what was best (playing Devil's Advocate here), it still wouldn't be right to make the decision for them (as that would completely undermine and go against the pro-choice stance). As a pro-choicer myself, I would rather have a situation where the button scenario would only (directly) affect me and no one else, in which case, I would weigh the cost/price of (temporary, but immense) suffering to achieve permanent peace and nonsentience.