Happy hour today was, as it always is, enlightening and interesting to nearly no end. I think that it's fantastic that we are able to have the rational discourse that we can without resorting to ad hominem idiocy.
One part of the table (to which I gravitated nearer the latter half of happy hour) was embroiled in debate regarding guns, defense, pacifism, and the like. I brought up a point about the availability of guns and the rate of suicides correlating heavily, to which another party responded that suicide is perhaps justifiable. This caught me off guard, and led me to think about what we read for class today, about Utilitarianism and perhaps the idea of happiness itself--it seems like something we've been wrestling with since the class began is the idea of "judging happiness." Can we really judge happiness? Can we really justify subscribing to the Mill-ian belief that we should strive for a higher happiness? What in the hell is happiness?
I can't seem to figure these out for the life of me, and I think they're important things to talk about when we consider, as our class title might suggest, the philosophy of "happiness."
Anybody have thoughts here?
Suicide is tragic. Of course we can imagine or are aware of circumstances in which an individual under duress, in a state of painful and irremediable illness, or for some other cause in extremis, feels driven and compelled to end it all. But "rational" seems hardly the word for so desperate a choice.
ReplyDeleteI read a story recently about Jumpers from the Golden Gate through the years who've survived. In overwhelming numbers they report having felt profound regret for their choice almost instantly, within a second or two of leaping.
They were lucky. Life is good.
This is Ken Mory. This seems to be the only way I can leave posts on the blog..... two points to make...... the (possibly) glib one first...... ad hominim "attacks", properly thought out, seem to be the only argument deflection that might be justifiable. If the efficacy of an argument can be considered to be somewhat dependant upon its source, then an AH may be reasonable when focused on the source's record of rationality, possible bias, or reliability concerning resource material. An approach such as "you're a dum-dum poopie-head" or "so-and-so is an ass" does not constitute a reasonable attack and is somewhat puerile, but should not be verboten except as part of a mutual agreement to engage solely in efficient/useful discourse. Sometimes a passionate, though factually null, statement is necessary to assist a participant in removing emotion from an argument...... point two..... Suicide IS sad, tragic, and usually not well considered. This being said, the only two true natural rights humans are born with are the right to die and the right to fight for that which we believe we should have. All other so-called "natural" rights extend from these. While I am not an advocate of suicide, per se, I do believe that, in the spirit of true libertarianism, a given individual has the right to kill themselves. For me, personally, I feel that suicide is not a way to keep life from getting any worse, but rather a simple way to ensure that it never gets better. In keeping with both of these principles, I simply say that I am not trying to tell others how to live, but that I now follow and WILL follow my own conscience.
ReplyDelete