Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The aged or others who have already made substantial contributions to societal welfare would be morally permitted to engage in suicide
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Human dignity and the duty to preserve life are not exhausted by social contribution but inhere in personhood itself (Kant, Groundwork 4:429).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Treating life's permissibility as contingent on completed obligations reduces persons to instruments of social utility, violating the humanity formula.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Social obligations are not fully dischargeable at a fixed point, since ongoing relationships—familial, civic, mentorial—generate new duties continuously (Hardwig, 'Is There a Duty to Die?').
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The premise that contributions 'discharge' obligations misrepresents the web of ongoing relational duties that persist regardless of prior service rendered.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Once an individual has discharged her obligations under the societal contract, she is no longer morally obligated to continue her life
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The aged and others who have made substantial contributions have already discharged their societal obligations
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.