Totalitarianist

If you are a sociopath, and you cannot therefore feel sympathy, and you are homeless, and you are predisposed to be outside the law, it is your moral duty: for such conditions cannot be satisfactorily altered by any other means. Or if this example is to any degree wanting for a desirable alteration in your mind proportional to my imaginitive representation (whether physical or mental) of the reader if the said reader's said alteration is one of someone's desire without me (and therefore an incorrect desire), and you cannot thereby agree with the conclusion thereto, perhaps any other undesirable human condition that is difficult to alter would justify committing suicide. If one is mentally deficient, or inferior in some other significant way, what then has he to live for as a member of the State?

This great justification, wherewith I have lived my whole life, is correct, I do assure you.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Embodiment of The Absolute Idea ]</p>

99Percent

I disagree strongly. You only live for your own sake. Suicide is only morally justified for your own sake, not for the sake of others or for the "State". There is no duty to others, only for yourself. This is what Ayn Rand means by being selfish.

Totalitarianist

And yet that lady "philosopher" Ayn Rand is a blockhead. But her stupidity is unimportant. What is important is this: wholes are greater than parts. Organs have less reality than one's whole body. For if you isolate them, they are nothing: in a way, they lose their definition. So it must be stressed: parts have less reality than the whole. A citizen is a part of the state. He is like a very small organ. Some are inefficient, and some other expendable.

Rember this: that if your heart were isolated from the rest of the universe, it would no longer be a heart; it would be nothing; its definition would be lost if the human body existed not. Precisely the same with humans as members of the state, or whatever greater whole.

Edit: Citizens must function for the greater good, as hearts function for the body.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Embodiment of The Absolute Idea ]</p>

sweep

I agree that we aren't all equals, but as we are all treated as unequals, we create and perpetuate difference, which leads to 'mentally deficient' people.

For me, I need to look down on others in order to feel better about myself and my own actions. Otherwise I question the fabric of my existence, and I demean myself. If, on the other hand, I become less certain, and accept that I might not be so special, according to my own or other peoples definitions, then I alienate myself less, and remove the boundaries, which essentially help to create a more cohesive community, as opposed to a pretentious exclusive community.

Ronin

Eotai ~

Qualifying that condition which is "difficult to alter" is where you do not adequately promote your 'idea' as viable.

If the State of which you speak has no sympathy to diligently try to treat the mentally ill or 'undesirable human condition' in a humane and compassionate manner in order to bring them healing prior to that desperate act...then we, as the 'parts' of the State in your analogy, have not functioned fully for the 'greater good'.

As a humanist, I would find no value living in the 'throwaway' societal model you present ~ but, then again, that just may actually be my problem.

sweep

we do live in a throwaway society, don't we Ronin?

how about the homeless? psychiatry offers drugs for depression and not long term solutions.

what does 'the community' offer those rendered weak by lack of support by parents and peers?

Ronin

Us, sweep...only us.

Acinom

I don't like Ayn Rand either. Plowing through The Fountainhead was absolute torture. But I hold to the Kantian point of view that we should treat other human beings as ends in themselves, not as means. We can't just treat another person, who has the same rational capacity, who experiences the same joys and pains (although some to more extremes than others) as tools that we can just discard at will.

Would you kill your own mother once when she becomes old, gets Alzheimer's, and becomes useless to society?

The Other Michael

Hello Acinom,

When do you reach the point of no longer being obliged to prolong your mother's existence?

Should you impoverish yourself and your family in order to keep a nearly brain-dead person alive?

cheers,
Michael

catman

Suggesting murder is against the rules catman.

I suggest that you reread the posting rules for IIDB

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/forumrules.html" target="_blank">here</a>

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: crazyfingers ]</p>