Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A person may have a duty to die in order to relieve famil... — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A person may have a duty to die in order to relieve family members or loved ones of burdens imposed by that person's continued living.

    Afterlife & Death
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Continuing to live can impose sufficiently great burdens on family members or loved ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fairness requires that a person not impose unreasonable burdens on others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When the burdens imposed on others by continuing to live are sufficiently great, fairness grounds a duty to die.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Duties arise from voluntary obligations or universal moral law, not from the mere fact of being a causal burden on others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's categorical imperative cannot universalize a maxim requiring death to relieve others, as it instrumentalizes persons as means to familial convenience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If burden-imposition generated duties to die, then disabled, elderly, and dependent persons would systematically bear lethal obligations, violating their equal moral standing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.John Hardwig's burden-based duty to die conflates the loved ones' interest in relief with a moral claim that overrides the patient's right to continued existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Family members who experience care as burdensome retain the option of withdrawing care voluntarily, so the burden is contingent on their choices, not solely the patient's continued living.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Grounding a duty to die in relational burdens makes the duty's existence dependent on the emotional and financial circumstances of others, producing morally arbitrary obligations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Afterlife & Death

    Related

    Continuing to live can impose sufficiently great burdens on family members or lo...Duties arise from voluntary obligations or universal moral law, not from the mer...Fairness requires that a person not impose unreasonable burdens on others.Family members who experience care as burdensome retain the option of withdrawin...
    +5 moreShow less
    Grounding a duty to die in relational burdens makes the duty's existence depende...If burden-imposition generated duties to die, then disabled, elderly, and depend...John Hardwig's burden-based duty to die conflates the loved ones' interest in re...Kant's categorical imperative cannot universalize a maxim requiring death to rel...When the burdens imposed on others by continuing to live are sufficiently great,...

    Similar

    When the burdens imposed on others by continuing to live are sufficien...82%Continuing to live can impose sufficiently great burdens on family mem...81%A duty to die need not be grounded in consequentialist or utilitarian ...78%A person may be benefitted or harmed by things that happen while she i...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: suicide
    View source passageHide passage
    However, the thesis that there may exist a “duty to die” need not be defended by appeal to overtly consequentialist or utilitarian reasoning. In the course of articulating what he terms a “family-centered” approach to bioethics, the philosopher John Hardwig (1996, 1997) has argued that sometimes the burdens that a person imposes on others, particularly on family members or loved ones, by continuing to live are sufficiently great that one may have a duty to die in order to relieve them of these b
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit