Discussion Yale lectures in the rationality of suicide.

[Mendex]

Now, i have respect to the professor Shelly Kagan from Yale.
Thanks to not demonize or cover a seriously theme like suicide.

 

[Deleted member 22624]

Looks like suicide is not a taboo theme in ethical courses to talk about it.

For the 0.0000001% of the population that get to study there, anyway. For everyone else it's all smiles and rainbows

 

[Symbiote]

I advise you to look up Thomas Joiner, he's supposedly the expert on suicide. He's a professor who studies Suicidology.

 

[Raminiki]

Interesting in all his examples life starts off as 'good'. I don't believe that's the case. It may start off good, bad or neutral. He mentioned the fantastic container and then skewed all his examples as if that was definite. The neutral container is more likely. Life has no value except what you assign it based on your unique perspective. Life is not intrinsically valuable.

There were other things I disagreed with based on existential, absurdist and nihilistic terms.

And antinatist views weren't considered either. Suffering is guaranteed for all life, and that should be taken into account when making judgements on when it's rational to suicide. If suffering is guaranteed from the moment of birth and avoiding suffering is the better outcome, logically you'd be better off never being born.

In fact, as an antinatalist I would suggest not a neutral container, but a terrible one. If you take into account that suffering is guaranteed, and you will objectively cause suffering to others, your own life has a negative value because to have any good in your life, you must exploit others and make their suffering greater. The fact is life is a carnival of exploitation, suffering, injustice and constant killing. Survival of the fittest for the one at the expense of many others. Pleasure for one as suffering for many others.

How do you decide whether your life has more value than other life? More than another human? More than the factory farmed meat animals that live a lifetime of guaranteed suffering and torture? More than a tree? More than an amoeba? His focus was on the entirely egocentric with the considerations being only of one's own life, disregarding its conjunction with other lives.

In my subjective opinion, the good in life is contingent on inflicting bad on others. Therefore its weight is always negative. Life is a desperate, pointless struggle against other life.

Morality is also subjective. I would personally disregard morality as having any weight in a rational decision as it's a social construct and irrelevant to your level of suffering.

Whether something is rational or moral is meaningless in the end. Death cares for neither so they are irrelevant to death. Their relevance is in how much you value and weigh them in life.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

 

[SuicidallyCurious]

This world was ruined by many men from Yale like bonesman war criminal bush. The institution owes this video and much more to those who want to avoid the hellscape

 

[Abir_london]

Thank you for sharing

 

[makingsure4]

There is a part 3 also. I really enjoyed these series.

 

[whitefeather]

Interesting in all his examples life starts off as 'good'. I don't believe that's the case. It may start off good, bad or neutral. He mentioned the fantastic container and then skewed all his examples as if that was definite. The neutral container is more likely. Life has no value except what you assign it based on your unique perspective. Life is not intrinsically valuable.

There were other things I disagreed with based on existential, absurdist and nihilistic terms.

And antinatist views weren't considered either. Suffering is guaranteed for all life, and that should be taken into account when making judgements on when it's rational to suicide. If suffering is guaranteed from the moment of birth and avoiding suffering is the better outcome, logically you'd be better off never being born.

In fact, as an antinatalist I would suggest not a neutral container, but a terrible one. If you take into account that suffering is guaranteed, and you will objectively cause suffering to others, your own life has a negative value because to have any good in your life, you must exploit others and make their suffering greater. The fact is life is a carnival of exploitation, suffering, injustice and constant killing. Survival of the fittest for the one at the expense of many others. Pleasure for one as suffering for many others.

How do you decide whether your life has more value than other life? More than another human? More than the factory farmed meat animals that live a lifetime of guaranteed suffering and torture? More than a tree? More than an amoeba? His focus was on the entirely egocentric with the considerations being only of one's own life, disregarding its conjunction with other lives.

In my subjective opinion, the good in life is contingent on inflicting bad on others. Therefore its weight is always negative. Life is a desperate, pointless struggle against other life.

Morality is also subjective. I would personally disregard morality as having any weight in a rational decision as it's a social construct and irrelevant to your level of suffering.

Whether something is rational or moral is meaningless in the end. Death cares for neither so they are irrelevant to death. Their relevance is in how much you value and weigh them in life.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

Portuguese parliament approves law to legalise euthanasia

Portugal's parliament voted on Friday to legalise euthanasia, setting the country up to become the seventh in the world to allow terminally ill patients to seek assistance from a doctor to end their life.

www.reuters.com