Venting Someone who is an anarchist and/or pacifist has to support the right to suicide

[KillingPain267]

Otherwise it's inconsistent. The right to suicide must be a part of what an anarchist and pacifist supports. As an anarchist pacifist myself I immediately came to support pro-choice when I became suicidal myself but then learned about the movement for the right to choose. And I wouldn't save someone drowning or in cardiac arrest if they had expressed a DNR. I would just stand there and watch. Respecting autonomy is an important right. Otherwise we are all slaves.

 

[BloomingAzaleas]

Not sure if I see the logic for pacifist to logically be pro-choice, they strike me as people would dislike all violence, even self-violence

 

[Michi_Violeta]

I gave up on anarchism due to sheer disappointment in humankind, but I agree: I'd say that every person who believes in democratic and humanistic principles should support the right to die.

Human dignity is the founding principle of democracy and humanism, seeing people as ends in themselves and not just means to an end, and autonomy is at the essence of that dignity. Who are we to impose our concept of dignity on a fellow innocent human? What gives anyone the right to tell someone else how to feel and what should the meaning of their life be? The protection of minorities and the underprivileged is also a keystone of democracy, that should mean effective and accessible mental health care, but it should also mean listening those who don't have a voice: if 99% of people say life is worth living, then the 1% who think it isn't should be respected as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights.

Some people don't want to admit that their views on certain topics are incompatible with their basic values. They pretend to be liberal, but oppose abortion; they call themselves feminists, but mistreat transgender people. It takes guts to live your values and uphold them with coherence because it may involve admitting certain ideas you'd initially be against. But isn't that what democracy is about? Leaving space for things you might disagree with so long as they don't threaten the very system that creates that space?

 

[KillingPain267]

Not sure if I see the logic for pacifist to logically be pro-choice, they strike me as people would dislike all violence, even self-violence

I get why some would dislike it personally, but as pacifists they wouldn't be able to stop someone self-hurting, because they are against force. So they respect someone's self-autonomy and are therefore pro-choice by default. If not, then they are not really pacifists.

I gave up on anarchism due to sheer disappointment in humankind,

Yeah, I'm totally pessimistic about it too. I don't believe humans, the way they are now, can fulfill anarchism properly. Nevertheless, I think it should still be held as an ideal worth striving for and held over (especially power-hungry) people's heads as a moral guideline. So by anarchism I mean the act of not ruling over other humans by force. I also think anarchism and pacifism are mutually inclusive.

I'd say that every person who believes in democratic and humanistic principles should support the right to die.

Human dignity is the founding principle of democracy and humanism, seeing people as ends in themselves and not just means to an end, and autonomy is at the essence of that dignity. Who are we to impose our concept of dignity on a fellow innocent human? What gives anyone the right to tell someone else how to feel and what should the meaning of their life be? The protection of minorities and the underprivileged is also a keystone of democracy, that should mean effective and accessible mental health care, but it should also mean listening those who don't have a voice: if 99% of people say life is worth living, then the 1% who think it isn't should be respected as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights.

Some people don't want to admit that their views on certain topics are incompatible with their basic values. They pretend to be liberal, but oppose abortion; they call themselves feminists, but mistreat transgender people. It takes guts to live your values and uphold them with coherence because it may involve admitting certain ideas you'd initially be against. But isn't that what democracy is about? Leaving space for things you might disagree with so long as they don't threaten the very system that creates that space?

Very good points. I also believe in democracy (that is, real democracy, not the "election every 4 years" clown show nonsense) lol.

 

[BloomingAzaleas]

I get why some would dislike it personally, but as pacifists they wouldn't be able to stop someone self-hurting, because they are against force. So they respect someone's self-autonomy and are therefore pro-choice by default. If not, then they are not really pacifists.

This is not necessarily the case though, being a pacifist may line up being non-forceful for many people, but in the end it really only applies to violence. There are many pacifists out there who support legal/state force to prevent people from carrying out violence, so the use of non-violent force is a toss up based off of their other beliefs about the force. So they do not have to be pro-choice by default.

 

[KillingPain267]

This is not necessarily the case though, being a pacifist may line up being non-forceful for many people, but in the end it really only applies to violence. There are many pacifists out there who support legal/state force to prevent people from carrying out violence, so the use of non-violent force is a toss up based off of their other beliefs about the force. So they do not have to be pro-choice by default.

To me they would be the ultimate hypocrites. The pacifists I've listened to have been against things such as calling the police or even voting (for candidates who intend to use state force). But maybe it's also because I believe anarchism and pacifism are mutually inclusive.

 

[BloomingAzaleas]

To me they would be the ultimate hypocrites. The pacifists I've listened to have been against things such as calling the police or even voting (for candidates who intend to use state force). But maybe it's also because I believe anarchism and pacifism are mutually inclusive.

Maybe if most of the people you've been around were fellow anarchists it makes. I don't but to me no force whatsoever I can't wrap my head around, because there's a lot of different forms of force, not all of them are violent, even something like strikes is force exerted from the proletariat.
To me pacifism just means non-violence, pro-choice is more about human dignity and I don't see it necessarily being related to the issue of non-violence, besides the occasional person seeing self-violence as also violence. So it's a mostly neutral issue when considering only pacifism and pacifism alone.

 

[KillingPain267]

Maybe if most of the people you've been around were fellow anarchists it makes. I don't but to me no force whatsoever I can't wrap my head around, because there's a lot of different forms of force, not all of them are violent, even something like strikes is force exerted from the proletariat.
To me pacifism just means non-violence, pro-choice is more about human dignity and I don't see it necessarily being related to the issue of non-violence, besides the occasional person seeing self-violence as also violence. So it's a mostly neutral issue when considering only pacifism and pacifism alone.

Okay, I'm against force then. But I mean non-consenting force. If someone consents to "forcefully" and violently get his arm amputated due to disease or whatever, then it's okay. If he consents then I wouldn't call it force or violence and thus it still qualifies as pacifism.