Conflating grief-based harm with role-obligation violation improperly expands the scope of duty in ways Kant himself resisted, since Kant grounded the suicide prohibition in duties to self, not to others.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Conflating: Conflating means mixing together or treating two different things as if they were the same thing, when they're actually distinct. It's a logical error where someone blurs important differences between concepts, ideas, or situations to make an argument seem stronger than it is. For example, conflating "being critical of a policy" with "being disloyal to your country" wrongly equates two separate things.
Duty to self(as distinguished from duties owed to others): A moral obligation you have to yourself—things you shouldn't do to yourself because they violate your own moral standing, not because they harm other people.
Grief-based harm(as a type of harm being distinguished from violations of duty): Pain or suffering that someone experiences because they're sad about losing someone—like the emotional damage a surviving relative feels after a death.
Kant(as used in epistemology and metaphysics): Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an influential German philosopher who argued that our minds shape how we experience reality, and that we can only truly know things as they appear to us, not as they are in themselves.

Based on where you are in your exploration