track chick wrote:
yes, i agree with that. what i mean is that if someone who wants to die is selfish, someone who wants them to stay alive (although their experience of life is negative and something they don't want) is probably being selfish too.
Please help me understand, what is the essence of how you use “selfishness”?
As I was alluding to in my prior message, sometimes selfish acts are altruistic and deemed positive, sometimes called selfless(e.g. giving up one’s seat to an older person). This may be called selfless because the person giving up his or her seat would end up more uncomfortable; however inside that person’s mind, the act of not giving up the seat would create cognitive disonence for him or her. In effect the selfless act is done, although it was subjectively selfish.
In fact, I believe as we all operate out of our subjective realm, all controlled or planed acts are selfish. It is so because either short or long term the subjective world of the person will be rewarded in some way ( by the addition of something pleasurable or the taking away of something painfull or frieghtinening. Many people act with kindness or altruism because, thank Gd the act is rewarding.
Sometimes selfish acts negate the positive afect on others.( stealing money from a friend).
It seems collectively we define selfish acts when objectively someone gains at the other’s expense.
It seems the question is one of semantics.
Going back to your statement, I would agree that someone who wants to keep a person who wants to commit suiside alive a selfish act , if we look at it from the perspective desire or will of the actor that attempts to save; however in my opinion it isn’t selfish in the objective sense. The act of saving someone from suiside in most casses is an act of kindness and humanity.
Time has a way of changing people’s attitudes and states of mind. If one considers life prescious, it seems in most cases preventing someone from self harm is an act that is heroic and of good intention. Hopefully the person who survives by the effort and energy of the actor would over time get better. If there wasn’t an actor, that person may have died.
In addition, the people that are tangable to the potential suiside victim would be spared the burden of the hurt and haunting bad thoughts that would pervade their lives.
Sometimes the argument can become conveluded if you consider a terminal patient needing the aid of a doctor to uthenise that person. Now I’ve opened a can of worms.
I assume we both have the notion of a person that is despairing, despite having a healthy body, someone that could be helped and have his or her quality of life restored.
Am I on track?