• hakunawazo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The freedom and the secure feeling of being able to decide for yourself when you want to die under certain circumstances.
    For me, morality (right or wrong) comes into play when a balanced middle way has to be found between an individual’s lack of alternatives to dying and external help and advice against it.
    It’s almost the same issue as making counseling mandatory before an abortion.

    • jasory@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Again why is this relevant? This is simply vague posturing.

      You need to show that people have a right to have their wishes fulfilled, that this right extends to dying, and with much more difficulty show that society should place limits on it but cannot prohibit it.

      I would consider the latter to be impossible, because as soon as you permit a third-party to set criteria for the permissibility of an action, there is nothing stopping them from setting unachievable criteria.

      • hakunawazo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I partly agree to your last sentence. But this moral dilemma couldn’t be solved if we see it absolute black or white.

        To stay with the example of abortion: In my country, you need a state-recognized counselling certificate (by approved state or private organizations) for this and must comply with a wait time of three days. I don’t see any impossible hurdles here if you want to achieve this goal and they don’t change the rules by will. Of course, legislation could change this, but that would be another problem.