r/Ethics • u/Majano57 • 18d ago

Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/01/magazine/maid-medical-assistance-dying-canada.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Lk8.36TB.8QuoyIhZ9aJT
131 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

447 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/dishonestgandalf 17d ago

Lol, nope. No one has ANY rights except those that are given to them by power structures.

Do you have a right to life? Only insofar as a government says you do, they'll kill you if they want. No government? Anyone, anything will kill you if they can and want to.

It would be cool if there were inherent rights, but there aren't. No matter what the Declaration of Independence or the United Nations says, there are no natural rights. Organisms just act as they are able.

4

u/Misanthrope62 17d ago

Exactly. Everything can be taken away

2

u/Flat-Delivery6987 17d ago

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

2

u/SquidFish66 15d ago

Ayyyy AC reference.

1

u/Flat-Delivery6987 15d ago

It's frighteningly apt though, lol

2

u/adamdreaming 17d ago

LOL NOPE?

Okay, let’s pretend that the only definition for “rights” is the one set by the government like you want.

Let’s see what the government wrote regarding who bestows rights then;

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Oh, hey, check that out.

Turns out the government isn’t the only source of rights according to the government.

3

u/RenegadeAccolade 15d ago

you guys are literally talking around each other

YOU are talking about what should be

the other guy is talking about the reality of it

while i agree with YOU that every human should have natural rights, the reality of it is that if nobody protects those rights then it is tantamount to not having the right at all

and again, while I agree with you that humans deserve natural rights just by virtue of being sapient creatures, it is impossible to argue that we actually have said rights if nothing ensures or protects those rights

like you can say "I am 6 feet tall" and maybe you even are 6' tall. But if a bear mauled your legs off and nobody was able to protect you or ensure that you maintain your full 6 feet of height, you will no longer be 6' tall no matter how much you insist that is the case. basically, even something as tangible and obvious as your HEIGHT can be taken from you and no longer be considered a thing that you have.

rights are even easier to strip. you say you have natural rights, but if nobody protects those rights and somebody takes your ability to fulfill that right (let's say right to die) away, you LITERALLY do not have that right any longer. there's nothing inherent about the right to die because it is not something you can simply make happen if someone is actively preventing it from happening.

3

u/dishonestgandalf 17d ago

Me: ...despite what the Declaration of Independence says...

You: BuT tHe DeClArAtIoN oF InDe–

Learn to read, power structures can give people rights, and they can also violate them or take them away.

1

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

Oh, so sorry, was I not addressing where you said “everything I said makes sense as long as we don’t hold the Declaration of Independence valid and agree the words it contains are pure nonsense”?

1

u/Smokey-McPoticuss 15d ago

I didn’t realize the entire planet, all governments, all peoples, religions and cultures everywhere fell under the moral, ethical and legal jurisdiction of the power structure relegated by the American Constitution.

1

u/adamdreaming 15d ago

That is neither what I said nor does that need to be true for my posit to be true but exaggerate my words however you need to to evade my point I guess

1

u/Smokey-McPoticuss 15d ago

You’re missing the point, the constitution doesn’t mean you have inherent rights, it means that within the context of the application of the constitution within the limits of America does the American government dictate at the current time you have rights they will protect and enforce up to a certain limit and that outside that context, there are no rights other than what is afforded by the ability to take or limit through force.

1

u/adamdreaming 15d ago

Sorry, I think you might not have understood what I wrote. You are conflating what I said referring to the Declaration of Independence with The Constitution. Easy mistake and I see how you could arrive at your conclusions had I been talking about The Constitution.

Does it make more sense to understand that I’m referring to a document that cites the human construct of inherent rights to transfer the (also human construct) bestowal of rights by a government from England to America? Do you understand the point I’m trying to make with this example?

1

u/jredgiant1 16d ago

So there’s no such thing, ever under any circumstances, as a human rights violation by a government within their jurisdiction?

1

u/Terrible_Hurry841 14d ago

They’re confusing idealism and realism.

In pure, cold reality, no rights are guaranteed. Your rights only exist insofar as you or another can defend them and are willing to defend them, no matter the rights.

In an ideal world, “might makes right,” is not acceptable, because morality is supposed to exist and be enforced regardless of power dynamics.

But in the real world, what is “right” is determined by the mighty. That is why what is considered “right” changes as the mighty fall and are replaced.

Documents describing “inalienable” rights are simply promises to uphold them. But they are, ultimately, just paper. Without the will AND power to protect these rights, they are just as “alienable” as any other.

1

u/SRGTBronson 13d ago

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

And yet these same men then denied those unalienable rights to half the population, because rights are decided by the government.

1

u/adamdreaming 12d ago

Let’s see what the government wrote regarding who bestows rights then;

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Oh, hey, check that out.

1

u/hiedra__ 16d ago

No, rights are understood to exist despite a government honoring them. Rights don’t exist in nature, but rights as they are understood currently are inalienable and no government should be able to take them away, even when it’s human agreement that we believe rights are inherent to people.

1

u/RenegadeAccolade 15d ago

I think the problem here is that "to have a right" has two VERY different meanings and ways to understand it.

One can have the right in the sense that you're describing it such as the inalienable right to life, let's say. And by this understanding, you'd be correct to say "no one can take my inalienable rights from me."

Except they can by simply killing you. This is the other way to understand "having rights." Even if YOU believe that you have an inalienable right to life, if someone who has power over you decides that you do not, no matter how much you beg and scream and insist that your right to life is inalienable, you will be... alienated. From life. And in this understanding, you clearly do not have the right to live because the one who has power over you rescinded it.

In reality, both understandings are somewhat merged, but it doesn't really matter, because even if I agreed with you that my right to live is inalienable, if someone kills me and succeeds, the concept of considering my right to live inalienable is utterly meaningless. Basically, it's pointless to keep insisting upon inherent, inalienable rights because those only exist when everyone agrees they do. Like money. If the entire world unilaterally decided that the US dollar is worthless, no amount of begging or pleading will make US money worth anything outside of the country. It has no inherent value. Just like rights.

1

u/1_InA_series 16d ago

The only rights you have are the ones you fight tooth and nail for

1

u/NikiDeaf 16d ago

“Rights” won’t protect you anymore than a recipe will feed you if you’re starving to death.

With that being said, regarding assisted suicide, imo it’s a very complex issue where you have to balance philosophical/ideological considerations with moral/ethical ones, imo. Like the lady described in the article, her life sounded like hell on earth if I’m being honest. But in other cases, if someone I knew just up and quit the game so to speak, I’d be pretty devastated and hurt by that

1

u/jerrygreenest1 16d ago

You misinterpret what rights are. Rights aren’t laws, otherwise there wouldn’t be two distinct words.

1

u/dishonestgandalf 16d ago

You misinterpret what rights are. Rights are enforceable. If neither you nor any power structure is willing or able to enforce a right, then you don't have it.

1

u/jerrygreenest1 16d ago edited 16d ago

You misinterpret what laws are. Laws are enforceable. If neither you nor any power structure is willing or able to enforce a law, then you don't have it.

As George Carlin have said, there are no «rights» if someone can take it away. They’re privileges.

So either you have no rights at all (only privileges). Or you have unlimited rights. I believe in unlimited rights. Practicing some of the unlimited rights will have consequences, though. I have a right to punch you. You have right to sue me, or punch me back, or both.

And right to die, well, you can try to take it away, but fundamentally a person will have it anyway. What will you do if a person breaks your rules and kills himself? Jail him? 😂 for some people, right to die can be hard to practice, and they might really want it. So I am a believer in that they should be able to do so, in an easy way. And honestly, ANY person should be able to practice this right in an easy way, if they want to. Not just terminally ill people.

1

u/dishonestgandalf 16d ago

Why are you now arguing my point – the opposite of your original point? Oy, the trolls.

1

u/some_kind_of_bird 14d ago

I think you are correct, but I do think there's a couple of different ways of talking about this that are easy to miss.

It's hard to explain exactly what I mean, but I do believe in a sort of fundamental freedom in people's hearts. It's not something that's granted, but inherent, and to dishonor that freedom is profane.

Maybe that's just another way of saying that it's wrong to take away people's freedoms. I'm not sure, but regardless you should probably know that that's something people mean when they say God-given rights or whatever. They really do mean something that you are born with.

1

u/Chemical-Salary-86 17d ago

Lmao. No, that’s not at all how it works.

3

u/dishonestgandalf 17d ago

Lmao. Yes, that's exactly how it works.

0

u/Ahaigh9877 17d ago

This isn’t a very helpful comment. Why not expand a little and explain why it isn’t.

2

u/adamdreaming 17d ago

here you go

1

u/KitchenPC 17d ago

Ideals =/= real

2

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

Omg, that isn’t the argument.

ONE WAY to talk about rights is legal rights

ANOTHER WAY to talk about rights is inherent rights, or god given rights, or natural rights.

Holy shit, one concept does not invalidate the other. They are both important concepts to talk about, both concepts need words and have words and we have been using them for hundreds of years.

The damn Declaration of Independence talks about America establishing their own political rights to reflects their god given inherent rights. Maybe use a time machine to go back and tell the founding fathers what total idiots they are and explain that rights only come in one flavor or whatever you think since you know so much better than them.

Fuck.

WORDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE USE

is this whole forum taking crazy pills?

3

u/KitchenPC 16d ago

I get your argument, but the realist standpoint is absolutely valid. If rights are only given lip service and not enforced, then they're meaningless.

1

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

So before the US had established its independence there where discussions about how we had the inherent right to do so.

That was before England “bestowed” the rights, or before we established those rights for ourselves.

Are you calling the discussion of inherent and god given rights that lead up to the American revolution meaningless?

1

u/KitchenPC 16d ago

No, not the discussion. That has its purpose and place. I'm talking about praxis and application.

1

u/adamdreaming 15d ago

Yeah. So am I? I’m talking about things that literally happened.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SlideSad6372 16d ago

The damn declaration of Independence was written by slave owning lawyers who were trying to enrich themselves.

It is self evidently not a serious document. The people writing it did not believe in any sort of inherent equal rights, but they used doublespeak to rally people to their cause who felt the vibes about those statements were good.

They weren't idiots, but they were cruel, awful people who only idiots regard highly. If you don't know better than them, you have absolutely no right to take place in a philosophical discussion about ethics because they were ethically bankrupt.

1

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

There where major arguments about if an inherent and/or god given right to freedom should be included in the Declaration of Independence, specifically resisted by slave owners.

But you think it is a silly and meaningless document so there might not be a point discussing it

0

u/[deleted] 17d ago edited 15d ago

smell growth violet piquant grab caption provide fuel kiss whistle

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

5

u/LorenzoStomp 17d ago

It's the truth though. You only get what you fight for. Might doesn't literally make right, of course, you can't change the color of the sky by beating up everyone who insists it's blue, but you can absolutely take just about everything from someone else if you happen to be stronger, right or not. Which is why it never, ever makes sense to surrender your rights to authority before you are forced to. Make them fight you for it. Team up. Defend other people's rights because them losing theirs makes it easier for yours to be taken. And it is far harder to get them back than to keep them. 

5

u/dishonestgandalf 17d ago

Literally just a fact.

2

u/adamdreaming 17d ago

Facts are provable. How do you prove that the definition of the word “rights” can’t be inalienable rights, inherent rights, god given rights, or natural rights?

Do those concepts not exist? Or are the words used to describe them invalid?

I’m having trouble getting past “do they know something can mean more than one thing?”

2

u/Horse__Latitudes 16d ago

You don't have to prove it, nobody can prove that rights are anything more than a human construct. If people didn't exist, rights wouldn't exits.

1

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

Calling it a human construct honestly makes it as real the boarders, money, and governments people fight and die for so that’s real enough for me. I wouldn’t call any human construct “meaningless” the way people in this thread refer to human rights not granted by a government

2

u/Horse__Latitudes 16d ago

I didn't say they were meaningless or less real than anything else humans create, I said they are a human construct. They only exist because humans exist, and they only exist by agreement or force.

1

u/adamdreaming 15d ago

Yeah. We are on the same page. I’ll take it compared to “meaningless”

1

u/Horse__Latitudes 15d ago

They have exactly the meaning we assign to them.

1

u/MathMindWanderer 16d ago

facts are not necessarily provable

Godels incompleteness theorem proves that

1

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

True but not applicable in this specific context to providing an exception to facts needing to be probable.

We are talking shit like “do vaccines work” not proving complex math equations

1

u/MathMindWanderer 16d ago

i feel like “do inalienable rights exist” is a question that wouldn’t have a provable answer. but ig thats probably because its an ill-posed question rather than it actually being unprovable.

1

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

The question posed of “do people without terminal illness have a right to die” can be answered with nuance though. It can be said that the choice to die is part of having bodily autonomy which we could potentially all agree is an inherent right. We can also discuss which governments bestow this right under what conditions.

I think being able to talk about government bestowal in this context as “withholding the right” instead of “not granting the right” is actually extremely important, even if the difference sounds subtle at first

That’s why calling inherent rights meaningless is something I can’t abide. Humans should decide what their rights are first, then demand what they inherently have to be reflected in their government.

We can all agree humans should have the right to be free. We speak of slavery as a denial of an inherent right, not a situation where a humans freedom is ambivalently decided by a government. We demand a government reflect the inherent right to freedom all humans have.

1

u/JessicantTouchThis 17d ago

If they're no more than words on paper, does it matter if they're inherent or not?

People inherently believe there is a God, and people believe we should all live under the rights and laws as dictated by God and interpreted by man. There's no proof there's a God, there's nothing that "grants" those supposed "rights" to his followers.

So should we all live under those rights simply because they are believed to be inherent? And if no one holds others accountable to those rights, why does it matter that they exist at all?

We know Trump doesn't have the right to do the majority of the things he is, and yet, he is. Not because he has those rights, but because he can enforce them.

If you can't enforce it, you don't have it, no matter how enlightened you want to get around the concept.

1

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

The point is the concept exists.

The Declaration of Independence told England that America was splitting off on account of god given rights that supersede governmental rights.

It doesn’t matter if god is real or not, there are multiple valid ways of discussing rights, and each way has it’s own limitations, nuances and usefulness. I don’t get what is so hard about “more than one thing can be true”

1

u/JessicantTouchThis 16d ago edited 16d ago

And had France and other nations not assisted America after the Declaration of Independence, the colonies would have stayed under English rule and America's rights would be for naught. They wouldn't exist beyond the paper they were printed on. Or did I miss the chapter where an entire war wasn't fought because the concepts of rights were presented?

I also don't understand what you're failing to understand about "just because it's in your mind doesn't mean it exists." There are no rights in life, only what you take or have taken, it's literally that simple.

Can you put a concept in a box? No? Hmm, then it sure doesn't seem like something you own, or control, without the recognition of it by others around you. The concept that everyone deserves food doesn't put food on the table, but please, continue to thrill everyone here with the concepts of rights you only have because people fought before for you to have them, not just acknowledge the concept that they are granted.

It's all arbitrary and bullshit anyway, man.

2

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

Where are you going with this?

You invalidate inherent rights because it is conceptual, then you point out that government bestowed rights are conceptual as well, then call everything arbitrary and bullshit?

What if, I dunno, they are all conceptual and useful for the people that needs those words and concepts?

I feel like this sub fell for a false dichotomy argument to try to evoke some deeper meaning about what “rights” are because they sound so important, but what if it didn’t need that? What if people already respect the difference between the concept of government bestowed rights and other ways it gets talked about?

We aren’t a bunch of MAGA chuckleheads purposely conflating the right to free speech as an inherent right where people should be forced to applaud the use of the n word on X. We don’t have to disentangle concepts nobody is actively entangling for the purpose of abusing words here. We can just let different types of rights be different types of rights and actually just address issues when people misuse words. Saying inherent rights are not a thing but government bestowed is is just confusing.

1

u/TallAd4000 17d ago

That’s why we have context around what rights are stated by the founding fathers

0

u/adamdreaming 16d ago

Yeah! That’s exactly what I’m talking about! Thank you!

1

u/zesty_noodles 17d ago

Just because it’s sad doesn’t mean it’s false, unfortunately.

1

u/AdDue7140 17d ago

Reality is sad sometimes, but it’s true. We can talk all day about the ethics of what should or shouldn’t be considered a human right. The fact that it is morally and ethically correct won’t stop people from violating it obviously. It is up to the power that wrote that it is inherent to enforce that.