The Right To Die - Euthanasia.

Yes, there is.

Society has a basic need to value life (at least the lives of its members). This means that the end of a life should be treated seriously. If you allow people to take their own lives, it contradicts a basic need of social society.

Are you going to argue the extreme position; that people have the right to take their own lives at any time for any reason?

Without respect for the needs of the individual?

Define 'The NEEDS of SOCIETY', Please, max?
Then, Define 'NEEDS'?
Then, Define 'SOCIETY'?

Then, actually, 'think' before you post bollux.

cheers.

Yes.

Well put!

Can't think of any good reason to deny them their human right.

No need to be an ass about it. You can disagree, or question without childish insults.

You are asking a question about morality.

Morality is a sociological construct. Humans developed morality because humans as social creatures would be unable to survive without a sense of morality. Without a set of behaviors dictating a set of "duties" that individuals have to other members of a social group, human would go extinct.

We have moral rules against suicide because these rules have clear survival benefits... not just to the individual, but also to the society.

Do you really need me to define "society"?

To the people who are answering with a simplistic view of moral absolutes... let's ask the question. If you have right to die (a pretty drastic and final state)... do you have the right to be a slave?

If someone chooses to sell themselves into slavery, with all of the loss of humanity entailed, should that be a right? What is the difference?

What insult?
I defer 'morality' in my op.

You are following your initial 'bollux' with a new level of (Semantic-prose) 'more bollux'.

STOP preaching your Instilled-cultural-programming at me - And 'THINK'.
Do YOU Deserve to make your OWN life-Choices, or Do others OWN that right?
ARE YOU SUBJECT TO ANOTHER'S PREFERENCES?

Not 'shouting' - Just stressing EMPHASIS.

'The Right To Die'
Does Not Precede or equate to - (a pretty drastic and final state) Just because you, subjectively, prescribe it so.

What's the strawman (With the slavery) about?

You are being silly.

Let me make this very clear. You are absolutely subject to another's preferences. You live in a society. This society has police with guns and an army with guns. The society makes laws and has penalties for breaking these laws. If you break them in a serious enough way, the society can physically take you and put you in a cell.

You have the rights that society decides to give you.

Once you start talking about what "rights" you "deserve"... then you are talking about morality. I am not sure on what basis you deserve anything outside of society. Does a zebra deserve to not be eaten by lions?

I want to live in a society that values life and dignity. I do not want to live in a society where there is an absolute right to die... and whatever leverage I have as a member of society I use to that end.

I don't see how allowing people to determine the time and manner of their own death conflicts with those values.

Max - I respect that you are a plaything for the 'guys with the biggest guns' and I respect that you defend your 'awarded' right to be said plaything.
But don't assume anyone, anywhere exists in likemindedness to you. Heaps of folk follow the pathological plot because they don't know/desire of an alternative.
The 'programming' 'Plato's-cave' is highly precise and inherent worldwide.
'Other' than the cave - Is Unrealistic - I understand.

I value ALL things in equal measure - I also value others' choices And would allow assisted-termination - Were it my shout.

You are just as much as a plaything as I am Mark. You are clearly choosing to live in society, and you are just as much forced to live by society's rules as I am.

Really? I am assuming that you understand that allowing suicide as an absolute right would make most Westerners quite uncomfortable.

Imagine a TV network paying $1 million for people to commit suicide for entertainment. Or a company paying off workers for their suicides to get out of a contract.

It seems pretty clear to me that once you treat life as a commodity that someone can buy or sell as she wants, you get very quickly to a point where deeply held values are violated.

If a person wants to have their earthly time cut short, for whatever reason, they should be allowed to do so in a quick, painless, efficient manner. Whether it is due to severe depression or a medical condition as well as other reasons, should not matter. Plenty of folks want to continue living even under difficult circumstances, it's against the law to go against their choice (unless for some reason the law optioned them the death penalty for a crime).

Sturgis,

Can you answer the case where someone pays for someone else to commit suicide. This could be for entertainment, for a business reason (an insurance company for example buying out an obligation for elderly customers), or for organ donation.

Do you really mean "for whatever reason"?

Yes, I do mean for whatever reason. Who are we to decide for another?

Apart from that, I do not endorse the idea of having the termination being turned into a public spectacle, such as a regularly occurring television show or other made solely for profit exhibition.

I don't understand, Sturgis.

1. You support the right for people to commit suicide for whatever reason.

2. But you don't "endorse" the right of people to die for whatever reason.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "endorse". Either we allow people to commit suicide for whatever reason, or we don't. If someone wants to get money for their family by creating a public spectacle killing themself, that would be included in whatever reason.

And what about suicide for organ donation?

You can't have it both ways, if you are staking out an absolutist position where someone can commi t suicide for whatever reason...whether you endorse the consequences of this position is rather irrelevant.