The right to self-inflict harm

[Jyosua]

Alright since this is the underlying issue in a number of fiercely debated things, I say we share our viewpoints on this. I'm tired now, but I wanted to make sure this topic was created. I'll type up my viewpoints and reasoning later, along with some reading material to go with it.

[quanta]

First things first, I'm talking about physical harm primarily and then secondarily economic (property) harm. Not emotional harm.

I'd say there is no right to harm or not harm yourself. However, it is almost always preferable when given the choice between laws that have the effect of protecting some individuals from themselves while somehow hurting completely unrelated bystanders and laws that have the effect of allowing those individuals to hurt themselves rather than those others to choose laws of the second type.

In other words, it's better to let people hurt themselves when the alternative is for them to harm others even if indirectly.

Also, I'd say that often attempts to protect someone from harming themselves by necessity infringe upon other rights that people have, and those rights are generally more important than protecting someone from themselves, so that alone isn't a good enough reason for any form of regulation or law.

I might elaborate more later.

Edited August 15, 2009 by quanta

[Agro]

You certainly have the right to harm yourself, as you have the right to life, I think. It's your body, and it's yours to do with what you want. However, what I do not approve of is people who put themselves in risky situations while ignoring the consequences (such as not wearing a seat belt in a car). I think it can be said that this right is abusable.

For example, if one were to commit suicide via jumping off a building, they are likely not to consider the fact that they may fall onto someone else's car at the bottom, or cause mental trauma to other when they hit the ground. In addition, their family members would suffer much grief at their loss.

So yes, we have a right to harm ourselves, but we do not have a right to harm others in the process.

[Jyosua]

The basis of "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness" is John Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property/Possesions". The thing about the right to allow yourself harm, is that under which of these does it lay? Certainly not "Life" for that's contradictory. Possibly, it could be considered a civil liberty. Or, because you might get off on pain, it might make you happy. If we're considering John Locke's "Property", I guess your body could technically be considered your property, and thus yours to abuse.

I see the problem as, it falls under none of these categories completely. The closest one it comes to is "Liberty", and in a document fit to protect people, I see it odd that the liberty for them to hurt themselves is left in.

Someone recently said to me that they don't legislate stupidity and morality. That's all fine and good, but for the sake of humanity, I have a conscious that makes me feel guilty letting people who stupidly wish to inflict self-harm, be it via stupid decisions or via illness, do so simply because a philosopher said we should let them, and we decided to base our constitution on it.

[Rehab]

If you help provide an atmosphere where they're able to seek help and don't encourage hurt, you've done all you can without infringing on rights as far as stopping self-destructive shit(imo, dur). Actually getting over it vs. not once that's accomplished is an individual's fight.

[quanta]

The basis of "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness" is John Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property/Possesions". The thing about the right to allow yourself harm, is that under which of these does it lay? Certainly not "Life" for that's contradictory. Possibly, it could be considered a civil liberty. Or, because you might get off on pain, it might make you happy. If we're considering John Locke's "Property", I guess your body could technically be considered your property, and thus yours to abuse.

I see the problem as, it falls under none of these categories completely. The closest one it comes to is "Liberty", and in a document fit to protect people, I see it odd that the liberty for them to hurt themselves is left in.

I'd definitely consider it property. In fact, it's the most important form of property and the only form of property you can't legally have taken away from you (except by execution and maybe a few other extremely rare cases). And with that comes the same thing that is true for lots of property. You can do whatever you want to it essentially as long as it doesn't hurt/damage someone else's property.

Of course, I'm being rather loose here, I don't approve of people jumping off of building, bridges, etc. because that's not their property. If you're going to kill or harm yourself I think it should be done on your own property.

For example with smoking, I think people should be allowed to smoke, but only as long as it's o.k. with the owner of whatever building or piece of land you're sitting on.

Someone recently said to me that they don't legislate stupidity and morality. That's all fine and good, but for the sake of humanity, I have a conscious that makes me feel guilty letting people who stupidly wish to inflict self-harm, be it via stupid decisions or via illness, do so simply because a philosopher said we should let them, and we decided to base our constitution on it.

There are some areas where what is moral is fiercely contested; I'd argue this often occurs when there's no clear reason for that moral based upon how a behavior inflicts harm upon others. Legislating morality other than that which harms others or their property can end up very badly.

As for legislating against stupidity, this seems a bit to me like trying to put out a chemical fire by throwing water on it. It might work, but there's also a chance you just make the whole conflagration even bigger. Better to attempt to handle it with ways other than force. Public ad campaigns against what is viewed as stupid can be acceptable, trying to change the incentives to be or not be stupid in a way that doesn't involve possible arrest for a certain behavior can be acceptable, outright banning a stupid behavior usually isn't acceptable.

The other problem I have with that whole line of logic is I can't think of many organizations I would consider less efficient or more wasteful (and thus stupid in terms of how they treat property) than the government. Having them legislate against stupidity strikes me as the blind leading the blind in a sense. Not because every congressman is stupid or anything like that, but because the set of incentives a congressman has in doing his job is very different than for almost any other type of job i.e. doing something incredibly stupid for a private employer will likely get you fired, doing something otherwise stupid as a congressman can be a great way to get re-elected.

I just don't see any good reason why in general, I or anyone else should be allowed to decide what is stupid or moral for someone else and then vote or legislate in such a way that enforces my preferences on them.

Edited August 15, 2009 by quanta

[Crystal Shards]

Um... I dunno, maybe this is just me, but what are you going to do if someone hurts/kills his- or herself? Arrest him/her, even if it's a carcass? You can't really ban suicide or other forms of self-harm. You can have all the moral backing in the world, but it's still someone else's body, and I seem to remember a quote that says something along the lines of, "My rights extend as far as my nose," or, "My rights extend as far as someone else's body," etc. It's a right of property, like quanta said: my body is my property. I own it, I inhabit it, and no one can tell me what to do with it unless my actions are going to harm someone else. The government often tries to protect unintentional harm to oneself, but it generally only gets involved when self-inflicted harm is going to harm other people as well or the encompassing population who engages in said self-harm has an effect on society as a whole.

[Jyosua]

Um... I dunno, maybe this is just me, but what are you going to do if someone hurts/kills his- or herself? Arrest him/her, even if it's a carcass? You can't really ban suicide or other forms of self-harm. You can have all the moral backing in the world, but it's still someone else's body, and I seem to remember a quote that says something along the lines of, "My rights extend as far as my nose," or, "My rights extend as far as someone else's body," etc. It's a right of property, like quanta said: my body is my property. I own it, I inhabit it, and no one can tell me what to do with it unless my actions are going to harm someone else. The government often tries to protect unintentional harm to oneself, but it generally only gets involved when self-inflicted harm is going to harm other people as well or the encompassing population who engages in said self-harm has an effect on society as a whole.

That's not necessarily true. There's this law in Florida called the Baker Act, and if you're suspected of maybe attempting or going to attempt to inflict self-harm, you can be put in a mental facility for evaluation and subsequent mental health help. Sure, they won't put you in jail, but they still handcuff you, and it hurts like a bitch. I also swear they abuse that law though for the stupidest reasons...

[Crystal Shards]

Yeah of course you CAN make it illegal, but I mean what's it going to accomplish? Someone who seriously wants to hurt themselves is just going to do it anyway. Even if my cousin hadn't had access to a gun, he would have found some way to kill himself. That's what he wanted to do. Making it "illegal" wouldn't have stopped him, and in cases like that if you succeed it really doesn't matter what laws are in place. And then consider shows like Jackass. That's for "entertainment," so does that count? Would that be illegal? Because then anyone who wanted to could go that route and not get arrested, if it was even on his or her mind.

In less severe cases, I can understand it... to an extent. But a general "you are not allowed to hurt yourself" law (for example) wouldn't fix anything, and trying to push morals into people isn't going to help either. Some people are just plain stupid, and some people really do want to hurt themselves.

[Celice]

I'd prefer that all choices relative to the self be left to one's self. If someone wishes to harm themselves, they have right to do so.

Ultimately, one's life should be left directed by one's self. No matter the extent of "damage" done by one's actions, no one should have the right to intervene. This is not to say that it won't, but in effect, if there's no direct need for intervention (this death will cause the death of others directly, not indirectly [harm of pilot = failing plane; suicide =/= death of another by their will] ). Or something.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Self harm is fine to legalize, if only because it's your body, you should be able to choose what to do with it.

In addition, and this might be more important to me, it is much easier to overcome something (self harm, addiction, etc), when that thing is legal. When you can freely talk about something without worrying about the law, then you are more likely to seek help.