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 self that would exercise the right to die is necessarily annihilated in its exercise, making suicide categorically unlike any other property disposal.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Many legitimate rights are exercised without the agent existing afterward (e.g., donating one's body to science, setting burial instructions).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The annihilation of the self is a *consequence* of the act, not what makes it categorically different—many choices have irreversible consequences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If the right to bodily autonomy is foundational, its scope shouldn't depend on whether the agent survives to experience the outcome.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Property rights presume the owner exists after exercise to enjoy or manage consequences; suicide eliminates this prerequisite entirely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Other rights (selling property, voting) are reversible or create future states the agent can experience; death is categorically irreversible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The self that decides to die cannot ratify or regret the decision post-exercise, unlike with any other autonomous choice.
?
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.