As I understand it, people should live by the common law, which is, “do all you’ve agreed to do” and “don’t encroach on anyone else or their property.” But how does suicide fit into that? I believe suicide is wrong, but it isn’t encroaching on anyone else…so what should be the view towards suicide in a common law society? And for that matter, what’s wrong with doctor-assisted suicide, as long as the patient wants it? I think it is morally wrong, but what is to stop people from engaging in it, since it does not seem to go against common or natural law. Thoughts on that?
is legal positivism, it is the promise theory of contract.
the title theory of contract is the libertarian way.
it fits into it fine?
have you considered that you may be mistaken. or at least confusing diferent meanings of the word ‘wrong’
Explain the title theory and promise theory a bit more?
To encroach on someone else (murder, theft…) is morally wrong.
To not do what you’ve said you will do is morally wrong.
To kill yourself is morally wrong.
At least that’s the way I look at it, you can disagree with me on that, but that’s not my point. My point is, for those who do believe suicide is morally wrong, how does it fit into common law. And if you don’t think suicide is morally wrong, don’t bother replying to this.
There’s a difference between morally wrong(sin) and ethically wrong(crime). Murder and theft are crimes, but suicide and double dipping are sins.
It doesn’t. Suicide is a person deciding to destroy his property. What kind of trial are you going to have with a corpse? BTW I also believe suicide is morally wrong.
That’s nonsense. If you’re a self-owner, then killing yourself can’t be morally wrong. Sorry if you don’t like that, but it’s like saying, “not procreating is morally wrong”, or “being overweight is morally wrong”, or “smoking is morally wrong”.
Sorry, but I bothered because you’re advancing a false premise, then claiming it cannot be challenged.
Not following.
I can see it not being morally wrong if you have no other obligations that you took on before you decided to opt out. Time obligations, or monetary. Why wouldn’t it be morally wrong if you kill yourself and owe a many others time and money?
Good, then we agree. Suicide is not immoral.
How is that any different than leaving town? Is travel also immoral? Is it immoral to smoke if I owe money?
You’re conflating two different things.
There are no moral absolutes.
Morals are subjective choices. This is why morals change over time, why slavery was in the Bible, etc. People assign their own subjective value to various things, but they are not absolute. Killing is wrong in most people’s minds, and yet there are situations where a person may kill another person and feel morally justified. There are no one-size-fits-all morals that are always true, absolutely.
If we, as libertarians, hold the self-ownership principle as our preference, then what we are saying, in the situation of suicide, is that a person is choosing to destroy their own property. This is justified, if it’s yours you can do with it what you will, as long as it does not encroach on somebody’s property.
If you owe people money and you comitt suicide it is not “wrong” since they have accepted the liabilites that go along with lending out money. Adding this element to suicide is kind of stretching it though
What is the other thing?
I thought that was difference between morals and values?
Now I’m following. Thanks
I can’t say I agree with most of what you all are saying, but it does raise interesting questions and ideas.
I am not interested in debating the premise (suicide is morally wrong) at this point, but rather, if there are people out there who agree with me, I’d like to hear your ideas on how suicide may or may not fit into common law.
It would fit in with inheritance law. That’s about it.
They are both subjective forces.
Values are something within you.
Morals tend to come from some “commandment on high” to placate some sort of “natural, uncivilized tendencies” in mankind.
As for the OP’s original topic.. common law is just as subective, and a preference you live by. That’s fine.
However, let’s see if I can get this: if you owe money, have any outstanding debts, and you commit suicide, one would assume a certain amount of your property (equal to the value of the debt) would revert to the debtor. The rest of the property, if any is left, reverts to whoever inherits? Or maybe the one who inherits the property thus inherits the debt.
I didn’t see this post until after I posted my idea. I like this one much more than mine.
I do not understand your dilemma. Do you think there is a way to stop suicide?
It will be whatever everyone wants it to be. You will have no say as to what me or anyone else thinks of suicide. You will not be able to dictate what the view of suicide “should be”.
Under most libertarian property rights theories, you have a right to do with your property whatever you want, including your own body. But an interesting question might be, do these theories require that you pay back all your contractual debts before committing suicide in order not to be violating your creditors’ rights?
Common law can only be applied to the living, so it doesn’t matter if suicide is morally wrong.