Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 4 released May 26th)
Polls: 1950s (Results), 1966 awards (May 28th), 1935 (May 29th)
Challenges: Comedy, Western, Iberian Peninsula
Film of the Week: Unter den Brücken, June nominations (May 29th)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2A: Poland vs Mexico (Jun 4th), Match 2B: Tajikistan vs Italy (Jun 14th)

Are you anti-natalist?

Two-parter: 1) Are you anti-natalist? 2) Is life a gift or a burden one doesn't ask for?

Poll ended at September 12th, 2019, 4:25 pm

1) No! I'm pro-natalist. Big families are better!
3
5%
1) No! People should do whatever they want.
13
20%
1) I'm not sure. No idea. Don't care.
2
3%
1) Yes! But I think couples should limit the number of children the have.
3
5%
1) Yes! To be honest, I wish we could start shrinking the planet's population.
13
20%
2) Life is a gift and everyone should make the most of it.
11
17%
2) I'm not sure. No idea. Don't care.
9
14%
2) Life is a burden that no one asks for.
11
17%
 
Total votes: 65

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 11785
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Are you anti-natalist?

#81

Post by Armoreska » May 20th, 2020, 8:30 am

Onderhond wrote:
May 20th, 2020, 8:04 am
I have no real moral reservations about suicide, but that's some poor argumentation ...
I'm not surprised anymore, but care to elaborate?
What's your moral framework anyway?
Image
currently working towards a vegan/low waste world + thru such film lists (besides TV): 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Luis Bunuel, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3952
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#82

Post by Onderhond » May 20th, 2020, 8:42 am

I believe in broad personal freedom, as long as it doesn't trespass on other people's freedom.

The problem with suicide is that it does. It may require better structural solutions for people who want to commit suicide, but for now that's not a reality. People who commit suicide create a mess that a lot of other people need to clean up/deal with.

It's also weird to compare it to other ways people are "allowed" to harm themselves, as nothing is as final and impactful as suicide for a person and his immediate environment.

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 11785
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

#83

Post by Armoreska » May 20th, 2020, 9:16 am

I imagine most people agree with your first statement, me included. (Except I would include an even broader community than simply other people)

I don't believe that a person should live for the sake of others to an extent that he/she should suffer existence just because his/her death may be a temporary inconvenience to a few people.

Considering that death is inevitable (+ in a lot of cases uncalled for, unlike suicide), a suicide will not change the fact that others have to deal with your death.

Existence may also be a net burden on others, so removing it may end up increasing freedom for others. People cannot quantify this, so looking at how suicide in general affects others from a utilitarian perspective seems like a bad argument.

The only way I can see this argument working is if the immediate environment is given priority and has a particular configuration. For example, if a person who decides to commit suicide has biological or adopted children or animals in their care, and this person's ceasing to exist would put them in a tough situation with no backup option, or they will become a burden on someone else.
Image
currently working towards a vegan/low waste world + thru such film lists (besides TV): 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Luis Bunuel, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3952
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#84

Post by Onderhond » May 20th, 2020, 11:11 am

Armoreska wrote:
May 20th, 2020, 9:16 am
I don't believe that a person should live for the sake of others to an extent that he/she should suffer existence just because his/her death may be a temporary inconvenience to a few people.
A person should not live for the sake of others ... but shouldn't cause inconvenience to others either. When faced with the choice, I think you should always shoulder your own burdens. That's also a part of individualism.
Armoreska wrote:
May 20th, 2020, 9:16 am
Considering that death is inevitable (+ in a lot of cases uncalled for, unlike suicide), a suicide will not change the fact that others have to deal with your death.
True, in the case of many suicides though, that means people who aren't trained for it/aren't expecting it. Often it means family members. There's a difference between someone dying in a retirement home and hanging yourself to be found by your kin.
Armoreska wrote:
May 20th, 2020, 9:16 am
Existence may also be a net burden on others, so removing it may end up increasing freedom for others. People cannot quantify this, so looking at how suicide in general affects others from a utilitarian perspective seems like a bad argument.
If you are a burden to someone alive, it is up to the other person to deal with that. Either he shoulders it or cuts you off, that is his decision. Also, I don't want to be burdened with other people's crap simply because their burden is net bigger than my inconvenience.

What I wouldn't mind is "facilities" for people who want to commit suicide, so it can be handled gracefully/respectfully. I'm not very versed in the psychological aspects of wanting to commit suicide, but I assume so psychological/physiological evaluation would be necessary.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24705
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#85

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » May 20th, 2020, 6:45 pm

Armoreska wrote:
May 20th, 2020, 9:16 am
I don't believe that a person should live for the sake of others to an extent that he/she should suffer existence just because his/her death may be a temporary inconvenience to a few people.
True, but this is not the purpose of suicide prevention. Suicide prevention is about trying to get people to see options to live for themselves and be happy with their lives, not to guilt them into suffering for the sake of others. That video has a really myopic view of both what drives people to consider suicide and what drives suicide prevention strategies.

I'm not denying people with those views exist there are many of them, but they are not, for the most part, the people actually doing the hard work of counselling suicidal people.

I also want to add that weak and myopic arguments like those in that video are exactly those used by anti suicide freedom advocates. They love to paint those who want assisted suicide to be legal as bloodthirsty or indifferent to death and as fundamentally anti-life, as opposed to the reality that most people who support legal assisted suicide, like myself, are people who recognize the complexity of life situations and that while suicidal people need counseling to make sure they consider all their options and the gravity of the possible decision that they also have a right to determine, ultimately, what's best for them. For the vast majority of suicidal people suicide is not the best option for them, but to deny that for a small percentage of people it is, is as foolish as that video which pretends to argue edgily that actually suicide is good.

Post Reply