The annual U.S. firearm suicide rate in 2022 increased to the highest documented level since at least 1968, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
And what is freedom? Why is it morally relevant? Using vague weasel words doesn’t really permit any evaluation of a claim. This is why statements like “freedom” and “liberty” are political claptrap you will never see them in formal ethics.
The freedom and the secure feeling of being able to decide for yourself when you want to die under certain circumstances.
For me, morality (right or wrong) comes into play when a balanced middle way has to be found between an individual’s lack of alternatives to dying and external help and advice against it.
It’s almost the same issue as making counseling mandatory before an abortion.
Again why is this relevant? This is simply vague posturing.
You need to show that people have a right to have their wishes fulfilled, that this right extends to dying, and with much more difficulty show that society should place limits on it but cannot prohibit it.
I would consider the latter to be impossible, because as soon as you permit a third-party to set criteria for the permissibility of an action, there is nothing stopping them from setting unachievable criteria.
I partly agree to your last sentence. But this moral dilemma couldn’t be solved if we see it absolute black or white.
To stay with the example of abortion: In my country, you need a state-recognized counselling certificate (by approved state or private organizations) for this and must comply with a wait time of three days. I don’t see any impossible hurdles here if you want to achieve this goal and they don’t change the rules by will.
Of course, legislation could change this, but that would be another problem.
Part of (inner) dignity is self-determination. So in the end, freedom again?
And what is freedom? Why is it morally relevant? Using vague weasel words doesn’t really permit any evaluation of a claim. This is why statements like “freedom” and “liberty” are political claptrap you will never see them in formal ethics.
The freedom and the secure feeling of being able to decide for yourself when you want to die under certain circumstances.
For me, morality (right or wrong) comes into play when a balanced middle way has to be found between an individual’s lack of alternatives to dying and external help and advice against it.
It’s almost the same issue as making counseling mandatory before an abortion.
Again why is this relevant? This is simply vague posturing.
You need to show that people have a right to have their wishes fulfilled, that this right extends to dying, and with much more difficulty show that society should place limits on it but cannot prohibit it.
I would consider the latter to be impossible, because as soon as you permit a third-party to set criteria for the permissibility of an action, there is nothing stopping them from setting unachievable criteria.
I partly agree to your last sentence. But this moral dilemma couldn’t be solved if we see it absolute black or white.
To stay with the example of abortion: In my country, you need a state-recognized counselling certificate (by approved state or private organizations) for this and must comply with a wait time of three days. I don’t see any impossible hurdles here if you want to achieve this goal and they don’t change the rules by will. Of course, legislation could change this, but that would be another problem.