> > There can be a lot of socially induced situations (meaning reversible) from which humans can't get out due to the variety of problems. Poverty is one of them, there are a lot of studies that below some threshold humans are highly unlikely to get out of poverty on their own.
> No, it’s the other way around. Insisting that someone has to stay alive against their own will, when they are suffering for a long time is the opinion that is lacking empathy.
All else aside, that's an easy cop-out for society to avoid dealing with the fixable issues that can cause someone to feel that way.
It like if someone was trapped in a deep hole and can't get out. Instead doing the right thing, which is going though the trouble of trying to get a rope and throwing it down to them (which is a lot of trouble), you walk a way and leave them in hopeless situation, then delude yourself about how moral and empathetic you are by supporting the trapped person's choice to kill themselves instead of starving to death in the hole (which is easier for you). The underlying lack of of empathy is laundered through a twisted, myopic, absolutist appeal to individual rights and autonomy.
> you walk a way and leave them in hopeless situation, then delude yourself about how moral and empathetic you are by supporting the trapped person's choice to kill themselves instead of starving to death in the hole (which is easier for you)
> The underlying lack of of empathy is laundered through a twisted, myopic, absolutist appeal to individual rights and autonomy.
Nope.
The exact opposite argument makes as much sense as claiming that.
I.e. there are a lot of helpless people out there. But “even though we don’t help them, we are ok because at least they can stay suffering on their own and we will not help them in any way at all.”
That is, in fact, even worse than providing assistance for ending the lives of people who do not wish to live in suffering.
And in both cases the fact is that the kind of argument and analogy you are presenting, and of which I provide the flip side, is nothing but a straw man.
Here is the fact: People are suffering. We should do what we can to help end suffering. This includes helping people to end their lives if they wish to.
It’s not a “cop out”. It’s widening the set of tools to help people who are suffering.
> Here is the fact: People are suffering. We should do what we can to help end suffering. This includes helping people to end their lives if they wish to.
> It’s not a “cop out”. It’s widening the set of tools to help people who are suffering.
Come on, dude. It's not "helping" someone to kill them, except perhaps if there's literally no other option possible.
Killing people is cheap an easy, so if it's an option, it's easily the economically rational "solution" that will drive out other solutions. Why spend $1 million to make some group's lives livable, when few $1 cyanide capsules will "end their suffering"? Save the money for yourself and promote the capsules instead. Some "help."
> No, it’s the other way around. Insisting that someone has to stay alive against their own will, when they are suffering for a long time is the opinion that is lacking empathy.
All else aside, that's an easy cop-out for society to avoid dealing with the fixable issues that can cause someone to feel that way.
It like if someone was trapped in a deep hole and can't get out. Instead doing the right thing, which is going though the trouble of trying to get a rope and throwing it down to them (which is a lot of trouble), you walk a way and leave them in hopeless situation, then delude yourself about how moral and empathetic you are by supporting the trapped person's choice to kill themselves instead of starving to death in the hole (which is easier for you). The underlying lack of of empathy is laundered through a twisted, myopic, absolutist appeal to individual rights and autonomy.