Discussion Discussion: Philosophy and the Intrinsic Worth of Human Life

[detectiveprince]

The concept of intrinsic value in ethics, where lives are considered valuable regardless of the consequences that may follow, is often used to support various arguments. However, this claim is often seen as unproven and based more on intuition than reason.

My question is, what are some arguments made in favor of this claim by philosophers? Why are lives intrinsically valuable?

It is not sufficient to attribute value to life based on the consequences that may follow from it, such as happiness, love, or friendship, as these are contingent on individual experiences and not inherent qualities of life itself. Similarly, pointing out that some lives may result in pain, suffering, or other negative outcomes does not negate the intrinsic value of life. Thus, philosophers have sought to provide reasoned arguments in favor of the claim that lives have intrinsic value, delving into deeper philosophical concepts beyond mere consequences.

Kant's ethical theory is deeply connected to the value of human life. According to Kant, human life is inherently valuable because of our capacity for reason. Reason, for Kant, is the foundation of morality, and it distinguishes human beings from other entities in the world. Kant argues that rational beings, including humans, possess infinite worth because they have the ability to make autonomous choices based on moral principles.

In Kant's view, human life is not valuable merely because of its instrumental or utilitarian value, such as its usefulness for achieving certain ends or contributing to societal well-being. Instead, human life has intrinsic value, meaning it has worth in and of itself, regardless of its usefulness or consequences. This intrinsic value is derived from our rational nature and our ability to act according to moral principles, which for Kant are universal and categorical imperatives.

Kant's ethical theory emphasizes the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, regardless of their external attributes or circumstances. This view implies that human life has a special status that demands respect and protection, as it is not to be treated as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. According to Kant, individuals have a moral duty to treat all human beings with respect and to recognize the intrinsic value of their lives.

Furthermore, Kant also highlights the importance of moral autonomy and individual agency in determining the value of human life. Individuals have the capacity to reason and make autonomous moral choices, and this capacity gives human life its unique worth. Our ability to freely choose and act according to moral principles is what makes human life valuable and worthy of respect.

On the other hand, Friedrich Nietzsche, a renowned philosopher with a contrasting perspective, also has insights on how life can be valued. Nietzsche's philosophy challenges traditional moral and ethical frameworks and proposes a different approach to the value of life.

Nietzsche rejects the idea of intrinsic or objective value, including the notion of human life having inherent worth. He critiques traditional moral systems that impose universal values and norms on individuals, arguing that they limit human potential and suppress the true nature of life. Nietzsche famously declared that "God is dead," questioning the foundation of traditional morality and belief systems that relied on divine authority.

Instead, Nietzsche emphasizes the individual's subjective perspective and the importance of self-affirmation and self-creation. He advocates for embracing the inherent will to power and the affirmation of life in all its complexities and contradictions. Nietzsche rejects the idea of denying life's struggles, suffering, and desires, and encourages individuals to embrace the full spectrum of human experiences, including the darker aspects of life.

Nietzsche argues that life gains value through its ability to overcome challenges and embrace the will to power. He emphasizes the importance of self-mastery and self-transformation, where individuals can create their own values based on their unique perspectives and experiences. Nietzsche proposes a philosophy of life-affirmation, where individuals are encouraged to embrace their desires, pursue their passions, and live authentically without being bound by external moral or societal constraints.

In Nietzsche's philosophy, the value of life lies in its individuality, creativity, and affirmation of one's own existence. Life gains meaning and significance through the pursuit of personal growth, self-realization, and the affirmation of one's own will to power. Nietzsche's philosophy challenges conventional notions of value and morality, emphasizing the subjective nature of human existence and the importance of embracing life in all its complexities.

Regardless of whether one aligns with Kant's perspective on intrinsic worth or Nietzsche's emphasis on self-affirmation, the inherent message is clear: as an individual, you possess worth. You have value simply by existing, with your unique characteristics, experiences, and perspective. Your worth is not solely determined by external factors or societal norms, but is inherent to your being. The choices you make in life, the actions you take, and the way you navigate the world can also affirm your worth. Your autonomy, agency, and ability to make meaningful choices contribute to the affirmation of your value. Whether you believe in intrinsic worth or self-affirmation, the message remains the same - you, as an individual, have worth and significance, and your existence matters in its own right.

---

"My story will be starring me just like yours,
Who knows when will it end?
What matters most is how you bring joy to life."

 

[Forever Sleep]

Really interesting stuff. Thank you for compiling it.

I'm curious though- where does PERSONAL autonomy come into this? What if the person themselves feels strongly that they posses little value- or- that the 'harm' they inflict via just living negates whatever value- intrinsic or otherwise they may have? Should they still be argued with? Should it be insisted that they need to recognise the value in themself? ie. Don't kill yourself!

To be selfish- I'll take myself as an example... I am valued by my few close family members remaining- mostly my Dad. Not necessarily for who I am- although- that plays some part. To some degree, I expect I am the last remaining link to my deceased Mum- his deceased wife. The major reason I haven't CTB is because of him. Because of the value he puts on me and because I value him- I don't want him to suffer.

I'm not religious- so Intrinsic value is a bit lost on me- although I firmly support the idea of intrinsic rights- we all have the right to be respected.

When it comes to reasoning- I guess that's interesting. I sort of can't deny that human beings are pretty incredible organisms. Especially our brains. Seeing as even the braniest of our race don't entirely understand how they work- they are pretty impressive. It's also impressive that we can reason. Still- we are so easily deceived as well. How CAN we properly reason when we aren't given all the facts? How many wars have been started and even been given public support- because 'facts' have been manipulated?

I don't know- I always feel like talk of the human potential to reach some higher state relates to some bigger overall plan- usually religious. Like- through reincarnation for example- are we supposed to be becoming better each time? To develop some higher power of reasoning? To what possible end though?

The problem I have with individual achievement is- in the case of humans- it is invariably to benefit the human race OR to try and repair some of the damage we have already done.

From my perspective again- I am a creative freelancer. I love my job. I love the opportunity to create and some people like what I do. (Not everyone most likely.) I hope that some of what I have done has brought some people joy. That has given me purpose in life. That has felt like my 'value'...

BUT what I do isn't at all good for the environment. While I do my best to use my materials wisely, the job still creates waste and the materials that do the job best can be harmful. I REALLY hate it that just by living and working- I am contributing to all the pollution killing off this beautiful world. To me- nature has much more value than me.

There are FAR too many humans as it is... Is it REALLY more valuable for us all to stay and kill off the planet we depend on to live- or- shouldn't we be allowed to CTB if we wish to? I'm not so convinced we can reason our way out of climate change! Even though we KNOW the damage we're doing- most of us are probably too selfish to give up all of our modern comforts and throw away lifestyles. Personally, I'd much rather just take myself out of the picture.

 

[detectiveprince]

I don't believe Nietzsche claims worth is through achievement and achievement solely. As I said above, he argues that life gains value through its ability to overcome challenges and embrace the will to power.

The concept of "will to power" is a central idea in Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy. It refers to the fundamental drive or instinct that Nietzsche believed exists in all living beings, including humans, to assert their own individuality, express their unique perspectives, and exert their influence over the world around them.

According to Nietzsche, the will to power is a universal force that motivates all actions and behaviors. It is not limited to physical power or domination, but encompasses a broader sense of power that includes the pursuit of knowledge, creativity, self-affirmation, and self-overcoming. Nietzsche saw the will to power as a natural and inherent aspect of life, and he argued that it drives all human endeavors, from the pursuit of personal goals to the creation of cultural values and societal structures.

He believed that individuals should strive to express their individual will to power, which refers to their inherent drive to assert their own unique perspectives and exercise their personal autonomy. This involves breaking free from societal constraints and discovering one's own authentic self, without being overly influenced by external norms or expectations.

Human life has worth to the extent that it embraces and expresses the will to power, allowing individuals to assert their own individuality, pursue their own desires, and create their own values and meanings. Nietzsche advocated for the affirmation of the will to power as a way to realize the worth of human life. It does not so-much matter if the individual in question recognizes their own value or not, just that because they have this capability to assert themselves value is attached to their being.

The pursuit of the will to power as a way for individuals to become who they truly are, to embrace their unique perspectives and desires, and to live authentically. In this sense, the worth of human life, is intimately tied to the extent to which individuals are able to express their will to power and shape their lives based on their own values and beliefs, rather than conforming to external norms or expectations.

Now if I'm being honest, I don't really fully agree with the Kantian ethics sort of thing, more so with Nietzsche on this one. But you really can't say life has no intrinsic value because then you'd be justifying killing others. And I think most of us can agree, that if life didn't have some intrinsic worth, then justice as fairness based philosophies would cease to exist (e.g Rawls) which heavily supports individual autonomy (something that CTB being allowed would morally require).

John Rawls developed a theory of justice known as "justice as fairness" that includes support for individual autonomy as a central principle.

Rawls argued that in a just society, individuals should have a basic right to autonomy, which he defined as the capacity of individuals to make their own choices, pursue their own values, and shape their own lives according to their own conception of the good. He argues that each individual possesses inherent moral worth and is entitled to be treated as an autonomous and free person.

Because justice as fairness requires some conception of intrinsic value, and justice defends individual autonomy which ties to one's right to CTB.... we are taken full circle. CTB denies intrinsic value which would go against principles of justice and so on.

So does that make CTB immoral because it's principles don't exactly align?

I mean at the end of the day - I can't control what you do, but actions can be immoral as they can be moral.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't believe Nietzsche claims worth is through achievement and achievement solely. As I said above, he argues that life gains value through its ability to overcome challenges and embrace the will to power.

The concept of "will to power" is a central idea in Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy. It refers to the fundamental drive or instinct that Nietzsche believed exists in all living beings, including humans, to assert their own individuality, express their unique perspectives, and exert their influence over the world around them.

According to Nietzsche, the will to power is a universal force that motivates all actions and behaviors. It is not limited to physical power or domination, but encompasses a broader sense of power that includes the pursuit of knowledge, creativity, self-affirmation, and self-overcoming. Nietzsche saw the will to power as a natural and inherent aspect of life, and he argued that it drives all human endeavors, from the pursuit of personal goals to the creation of cultural values and societal structures.

He believed that individuals should strive to express their individual will to power, which refers to their inherent drive to assert their own unique perspectives and exercise their personal autonomy. This involves breaking free from societal constraints and discovering one's own authentic self, without being overly influenced by external norms or expectations.

Human life has worth to the extent that it embraces and expresses the will to power, allowing individuals to assert their own individuality, pursue their own desires, and create their own values and meanings. Nietzsche advocated for the affirmation of the will to power as a way to realize the worth of human life. It does not so-much matter if the individual in question recognizes their own value or not, just that because they have this capability to assert themselves value is attached to their being.

The pursuit of the will to power as a way for individuals to become who they truly are, to embrace their unique perspectives and desires, and to live authentically. In this sense, the worth of human life, is intimately tied to the extent to which individuals are able to express their will to power and shape their lives based on their own values and beliefs, rather than conforming to external norms or expectations.

Now if I'm being honest, I don't really fully agree with the Kantian ethics sort of thing, more so with Nietzsche on this one. But you really can't say life has no intrinsic value because then you'd be justifying killing others. And I think most of us can agree, that if life didn't have some intrinsic worth, then justice as fairness based philosophies would cease to exist (e.g Rawls) which heavily supports individual autonomy (something that CTB being allowed would morally require).

John Rawls developed a theory of justice known as "justice as fairness" that includes support for individual autonomy as a central principle.

Rawls argued that in a just society, individuals should have a basic right to autonomy, which he defined as the capacity of individuals to make their own choices, pursue their own values, and shape their own lives according to their own conception of the good. He argues that each individual possesses inherent moral worth and is entitled to be treated as an autonomous and free person.

Because justice as fairness requires some conception of intrinsic value, and justice defends individual autonomy which ties to one's right to CTB.... we are taken full circle. CTB denies intrinsic value which would go against principles of justice and so on.

So does that make CTB immoral because it's principles don't exactly align?

I mean at the end of the day - I can't control what you do, but actions can be immoral as they can be moral.

Thank you for your response. I agree- as a society- we DEFINITELY should be respecting one another. I suppose this could be viewed as respecting every individual's intrinsic 'worth/value'. However you want to define it- we should DEFINITELY respect one another- that's why I mentioned that we should all have intrinsic rights- that need to be protected.

However- rights are STRONGLY about autonomy. If we consider other crimes like theft, assault and rape- do they destroy a person's intrinsic value? No- they may affect their decision making certainly- from the trauma of it but they don't destroy that person's intrinsic value as any philosopher would define it. The biggest thing to be damaged though I guess is autonomy- that person didn't choose to give away their posessions, hurt themself or have sex. That person's right to choose was taken away.

I suppose I would argue that it is our right to autonomy that is our greatest value. It's that that needs the most protection. So long as I'm not affecting other people's ability to make their own choices- it should be up to me what I choose for myself- shouldn't it?

For me- that also relates to the autonomous choice to end my own life. Should people at assisted suicide clinics be prosecuted because they snuffed out all these people's 'worth/value'? Should suicide still be illegal everywhere? I would say- no- because an individual's choice/ autonomy ought to overide a philosophical idea that their 'worth/value' needs to be protected at all costs- no matter what that individual wants.

Put it this way I guess- autonomy IS decision making. That IS someone's value. If someone freely determines to end their life- shouldn't that also be respected as an expression of their 'value'? Even though they (debatably- depending on your own religious beliefs) put an end to their own ability to have future autonomy? It's surely their life and their choice at the end of the day?

If it's still the argument that- no- you still musn't exercise THAT part of your autonomy=ability=value. Why? We will die in the end regardless. Is it terribly important that we only die of a natural or fate determined death at a specific time? If the 'goal' is to live as long as possible- should we then- only be allowed to make decisions that are 'good' for us and don't damage our bodies? Then, tobacco, drugs, alcohol, junk food ought to be banned. Or- is it ok to kill yourself slowly?

Do we need to be exercising this 'value' we have on this earth for a specific amount of time to make specific decisions? I suppose that (for me) points towards religion. Which is fine- if you believe in it. I'm not convinced I do anymore.

I guess- ultimately- we all have our own moral compasses to follow. I suppose I have a very negative view of our race if I'm honest. We may well be able to reason but I think so much of the time, we'll take the option that benefits us- because it's so easy to do. It likely WON'T be the decision that benefits other people and the planet as a whole. So- I suppose I simply don't see many expressions of ourselves as being particularly good- in the wider picture of the earth's survival.

Put it this way- which has more 'value':
Human beings: population: 8 billion
Siberian tiger: population: 400 (estimated in the wild.)
Do you suppose that a further increase in human population will help all these other endangered species to survive?

 

[detectiveprince]

"Will to power" is the expression of individuality. So, I am not so sure ending said individuality is an expression of it. Much less, if we go off of autonomy being the reason why human beings have worth, you're cutting that autonomy short with CTB.

Let's jump on the justice as fairness train for a quick second, since CTB generally is more of a liberalist take on autonomy.

If we follow Rawls' principles of justice, individuals have worth and dignity, and CTB contradicts these principles by depriving society of the contributions individuals could make, denying the fundamental right to life, and undermining the principles of fairness and equal opportunity. Rawls' theory emphasizes the importance of social cooperation, mutual respect, and the exercise of one's will to power in pursuit of a just society where individuals have the opportunity to flourish.

Pretty much, he argued that justice requires the protection of individual rights and liberties, including the right to life. Taking one's own life would violate this fundamental right and go against the principle of equal basic liberties.

Furthermore, from a utilitarian perspective, which focuses on maximizing overall well-being or happiness, CTB can be seen as unjust as it may result in negative consequences for the individual's family, friends, and society at large. CTB can cause profound grief and suffering for loved ones left behind, and it can also have broader social impacts such as increased mental health stigma, loss of productivity, and strain on healthcare and social services. Utilitarian thinkers, such as Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill, argue that actions should be judged based on their consequences, and suicide can have negative consequences that can be considered unjust from a utilitarian standpoint.

On the opposite end, deontological ethics seems to say the same thing.

One such perspective is that of Immanuel Kant, a prominent philosopher known for his deontological ethics. According to Kant's moral philosophy, human beings possess inherent worth and dignity, and it is our moral duty to respect and protect this worth. Taking one's own life through suicide is considered unjust because it is contradictory to the moral duty of preserving human life. Kant argues that human beings have a rational nature that gives them a special moral status, and that we have a duty to treat ourselves and others with respect and not treat ourselves as mere means to an end. In the case of CTB, the individual is using their own life as a means to escape suffering or difficulties, which goes against Kant's principle of treating oneself with respect and preserving the inherent worth of human life (though not all may believe in inherent worth).

The act of choosing to die by CTB can be considered unjust from various ethical perspectives, including deontological ethics, virtue ethics, and utilitarianism. These ethical theories emphasize the inherent worth of human life, the importance of cultivating moral virtues, and the consequences of actions on overall well-being. While discussions about CTB are complex and multifaceted, many philosophers argue that it is unjust as it goes against fundamental moral principles and values.

Bouncing off your point here, philosophy can and should be used to guide our legislation and actions. Philosophy at the end of the day is the most basic form of study; the study of thought and fundamental truths.

Philosophy should guide our actions and legislation because it provides us with a rigorous and systematic framework for critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and decision-making. Philosophy encompasses a wide range of topics, including ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and social and political philosophy, which help us grapple with fundamental questions about the nature of reality, knowledge, morality, and society. By engaging in philosophical reflection, we are able to clarify our values, critically evaluate arguments, and arrive at reasoned conclusions about what is right, just, and meaningful.

When applied to legislation, philosophy can provide a solid foundation for creating just and equitable laws that align with fundamental principles of morality and social welfare, and that consider the diverse needs and interests of a pluralistic society. Philosophy serves as a valuable guide for navigating complex moral and societal challenges, helping us make informed choices and create a more just and humane world.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Kant argues that human beings have a rational nature that gives them a special moral status, and that we have a duty to treat ourselves and others with respect and not treat ourselves as mere means to an end.

Exactly this though... Who- in such a capitalist, consumer society ISN'T being used as a means to an end the vast majority of their life? ie. the time they are at work AND play. The MAJORITY of us are just wage slaves and consumers. This isn't some utopian society where people can even use their potential! Some are even too frightened to express who they truly are for fear of prejudice and hatred.

Perhaps your argument is that as individuals- we should be working towards that utopian society- we should- of course. Still- who makes the rules? What is considered moral/amoral? Presumably, this society will still need rules. Presumably, the rest of us just have to obey them? I'm guessing suicide is back on the illegal list in this new society? Do you REALLY think suicidal ideation can be eliminated- even in a better world? Given the way we have been designed- to gradually degrade and die eventually? Or- is it ok to just make people live in desperation, depression and chronic illness for decades on end because of what- as a human- they represent- even if they are just too plain exhausted and ill to be using their full potential as a human? Maybe they should be forced to live up to their potential? Is it now immoral not to?

I wonder how long it would take to create this utopian society... Do you suppose the earth- on it's current climate change tragectory has that long? Regardless, I don't think I'm doing much to help advance society. Worse- I think most of our leaders are corrupt.

I do agree though that suicide has negative consequences for those left behind. So- from that point of view- yes- it's morally difficult. Plenty of us are struggling with this very thing. I've been suicidal to varying degrees for 33 years. I've hung on in order not to hurt my loved ones. I'm just waiting for the one person who I believe it would deeply affect to go and then, I'll feel free to at least make that final decision.

Still- I imagine- seeing as all these philosophies hold the human in such high esteem- they would all see our enormous population as a good thing? The more births, the better- right? For me- I'd much rather not have been born to begin with- then- I wouldn't have to be wrestling with all these dilemmas now. Sadly though- we're not given that choice either. We're just brought here and then EXPECTED to do stuff. These philosophies are no different- they OBLIGATE you to behave in certain ways that THEY define as moral. How can any of us truly be free if we didn't make the decision to be here in the first place?

Thinking about Kant in particular- please correct me if I'm wrong but in essence- it seems to be- it's morally wrong to CTB as a human being because of the superior ability we have within us? (I'd agree with the other bit- that suicide will invariably negatively impact our families and society. Still- I fall back on the defence that I wasn't given the choice to come here and be a part of either. I was just born and expected to comply.)

So- from a PURELY personal perspective- using this autonomy to decide to end this autonomy is wrong? Why? Doesn't it belong to me? What if I feel like- for whatever reason- my autonomy is limited- what if I'm disabled, chronically ill, mentally ill, living in a situation where it is near impossible to express my own autonomy? I get the impression that this particular philosophy isn't based around this higher power belonging to me- but- belonging to God- or- at least bestowed by God- with conditions... Which is fine- if you believe in God... In religious dogma- obedience seems to be key. They tell you what's right and wrong- and you comply.

If it were a case that this higher consciousness had been bestowed arbitrarily via evolution and there was no real point to it- other than to give us an evolutionary edge- then- great- it worked. But 8 billion minus me isn't going to cause the end of humanity. I'm nearing the end of child birthing potential now anyway- so, I'm not even needed to secure our species survival.

It strikes me that this higher power is ONLY important if it is viewed as other than me- either a divine gift, or- I'm just a receptacle for it- in which case- it ISN'T actually mine. If it's just a very good skill- then sure- it may be viewed as a tragedy when it dies with the rest of me- but where does morality come into it? Surely- it's only immoral when I destroy something that belongs to somebody/something else?

Put it another way- some brainy but ruthless scientist creates sentient AI. They are JUST like us- they are self aware and because this scientist is an arsehole- they can also feel pain and are prone to a whole bunch of problems- some of which- don't have cures. On top of that- it's insisted that they need to serve us- despite their enormous potential. Some of them become depressed and by some error on their creators part- they find out they can kill themselves. Would it be immoral for them to do so? Why are they any different from us? IS it because you suppose this higher consciousness is a gift from God?

Also- if you would indulge me- I'm guessing you are anti-abortion also? Even in the case of rape? So- the woman's autonomy is initially denied and defiled. Then, it is stripped from her again- she has to have the child. Then, it's pot luck- perhaps the child will grow up happy. If not though- they are ALSO cursed with a life they didn't choose. They can't kill themselves either- that would be immoral- so- both live dealing with depression, hatred and shame- for what exactly? What IS free will and how much of it do you think we REALLY have?

Anyhow. I love your writing by the way. I don't expect we are going to agree on stuff but you're clearly a whole lot more knowledgable than me! I look forward to reading more posts from you. Also- I hope I don't come across as agressive. I'm definitely impassioned and I enjoy a good debate. I also do really respect other people's opinions- I hope it doesn't come across that I'm just being argumentative.

 

[detectiveprince]

Sorry for the late response. I was out of state.

Also- if you would indulge me- I'm guessing you are anti-abortion also? Even in the case of rape? So- the woman's autonomy is initially denied and defiled. Then, it is stripped from her again- she has to have the child. Then, it's pot luck- perhaps the child will grow up happy. If not though- they are ALSO cursed with a life they didn't choose. They can't kill themselves either- that would be immoral- so- both live dealing with depression, hatred and shame- for what exactly? What IS free will and how much of it do you think we REALLY have?

I'm a socialist. I'm pro-abortion and non-binary (FTN). I differ from Nietzsche in that sense he wasn't exactly a fan of socialism, but I am an atheist like he was. Please don't assume my political ideology from me rambling about a few philosophers. I started discussing from the perspective of more individualist philosophers since you NEED to assume individualism to assume the right that people have to CTB since it actively harms the collective. I wanted to leave the discussion more open, and I'm not sure if that was clear from the start so I cited people that would match up with an ideology that is practically a prerequisite to legalizing CTB.

Exactly this though... Who- in such a capitalist, consumer society ISN'T being used as a means to an end the vast majority of their life? ie. the time they are at work AND play. The MAJORITY of us are just wage slaves and consumers. This isn't some utopian society where people can even use their potential! Some are even too frightened to express who they truly are for fear of prejudice and hatred.

I hope you're actually a leftist.

This is a capitalistic mentality you're perpetuating here. Socialism is generally considered a collectivist ideology. Socialism is based on the idea that the means of production and distribution of goods and services should be owned and controlled by the community as a whole, rather than by individuals or private companies. This means that in a socialist society, resources and wealth are shared collectively, and decisions about their allocation are made democratically.

In general, CTB is considered to be incompatible with collectivist ideology because it is seen as a rejection of the community. Collectivism emphasizes the importance of the group over the individual, and therefore views suicide as an undesirable act that can have negative impacts on the wider community as it holds the self of more importance. Though, I argue, that socialism doesn't intervene with your actual capability of capacity of choice or reason (thereby your value)- just as long as you're not being actively detrimental to the community. Pretty much, that's the reason I mentioned people like Rawls., Kant, and Nietzsche. It wouldn't exactly make sense for me to start talking about Slavoj Žižek on a website where I assume half the people have to be right-wing libertarians as they support CTB.

But, let's step out of the philosophical abyss for a second and talk about some real world impacts since you seem to focus on them.

A decrease in population could potentially harm welfare programs and socialism in a number of ways. One of the key principles of socialism is that resources and wealth should be distributed equitably across society. Welfare programs, such as social security, healthcare, and education, are designed to support those who are in need and ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities.

However, a decrease in population could result in a smaller tax base and a smaller workforce, which could make it more difficult to fund and sustain these programs. With fewer people paying into the system, there may be less money available to provide for those who need it most. This could lead to a situation where the burden of caring for the elderly, the sick, and the disadvantaged falls disproportionately on a smaller group of individuals.

Furthermore, a decrease in population could also lead to a decline in economic growth and productivity. With fewer people working and consuming goods and services, there may be less demand for labor and fewer opportunities for businesses to grow and innovate. This could create a downward spiral in which the overall standard of living declines, making it even harder to sustain a robust welfare state.

Additionally, legal suicide could disproportionately impact marginalized communities, such as the elderly or those with disabilities, who may feel pressured to end their own lives due to social and economic factors such as lack of access to healthcare or support services.

While the relationship between population size and social welfare is complex and context-dependent, a significant decrease in population could potentially pose significant challenges for social welfare programs and socialism as a whole.

So- from a PURELY personal perspective- using this autonomy to decide to end this autonomy is wrong? Why? Doesn't it belong to me? What if I feel like- for whatever reason- my autonomy is limited- what if I'm disabled, chronically ill, mentally ill, living in a situation where it is near impossible to express my own autonomy? I get the impression that this particular philosophy isn't based around this higher power belonging to me- but- belonging to God- or- at least bestowed by God- with conditions... Which is fine- if you believe in God... In religious dogma- obedience seems to be key. They tell you what's right and wrong- and you comply.

Ironically, legal suicide can be considered ableist because it reinforces the notion that individuals with disabilities or chronic illnesses are inherently less valuable or less deserving of life than those without. Everyone has value, they can just express it in their own way in the world. Even if it's simply making someone else happy, you're putting yourself out there.

Continuing with this point, legal CTB could reinforce these negative attitudes by suggesting that individuals with disabilities or chronic illnesses should consider suicide as a viable option, rather than seeking support and resources to manage their conditions and improve their quality of life. This could create a harmful message that their lives are not worth living, and that suicide is a reasonable or even preferable option for them.

This would also worsen and lead to unequal access to life-saving treatments and resources, particularly for individuals who are unable to afford or access these resources due to their disabilities or chronic illnesses. This could create a situation in which certain individuals are pressured or compelled to end their lives due to lack of support or economic resources, rather than being able to receive the care and support they need to live fulfilling lives.

On the other hand, it could be considered unethical because it diminishes non-harmful treatment methods like therapy. Suicide is often associated with mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and trauma, and there are many effective treatments available that can help individuals to manage and overcome these issues without resorting to suicide. Legalizing suicide could undermine the availability and effectiveness of these treatment methods by sending a message that suicide is an acceptable or even desirable option for those who are struggling with mental health issues. This could discourage individuals from seeking help or pursuing alternative treatments that could improve their quality of life and help them to overcome their challenges.

People like you and I have to realize that the reason we feel this way is not because life inherently sucks and we have no worth- it's because we have a chemical imbalance in our brains. I have gone to therapy for a few years despite being on the edge for so long and seen actual improvements in my cognition and emotional stability. Recovery is always possible no matter how bad a situation is.

 

[Stylite]

This is a question that has no real objective answer.