Stop ending your stupid posts with characters you copy-pasted from google translate you weeaboo
I'd live to know what word you put into a machine translator that would output two kanas that spells a nonsensical Japanese catch-phrase.
I disagree entirely - If making choices that could inevitably lead to an early death be a choice of ethics, then every person who has ever had fast food or caffeine is of negative moral stature purely because their decisions may lead to their lifespan being shorter. But then, can people not value their own lives differently? What about stunt men who, through their own choices, put their life in jeopardy every day? Same with policemen and soldiers, or people who work in factories or offices? There's an infinite amount of things that can lead to an early death, so is the goal of life to live as long as you can? But you can't control how long your life is anyway, old people are old purely out of luck, luck that they didn't get cancer or get caught by the Vietcong or didn't breathe enough asbestos or they didn't fall out of an 18th story window when they were a baby. Your answer here makes no sense in more than one way. An inanimate object can not "do" anything, and you can't rob yourself of something you already own. The government has no right to dictate what people can or cannot do with their bodies, mind, or soul unless it crosses the line and starts affecting other people. My doing drugs or eating stuffty food is not up to the government.
Except fast foods are unhealthy but not in anyway a death sentence. Stunt men aren't legally allowed to do their stunts without a lot of safety precautions, just like firefighters and policeman have rules and regulations that they are legally bound to abide by or they lose their jobs. It's the government's job to keep people safe and protect their rights, including the rights to liberty and property. While fast food isn't the healthiest thing, it's not so much a danger that it absolutely warrants a relinquishment of our right to liberty. Driving without a seatbelt endangers yourself and your right to life, as does driving with a cellphone, or on the wrong side of the road.
I believe in mental-rehabilitation as well for Self Delete risks, I don't believe anyone should have to die because they were faced with an obstacle they couldn't overcome on their own. I believe it's the government's job to make sure the people live and are able to do so happily.
If doing cocaine makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else, then it's not a negative moral decision. It contributing to an early death is irrelevant, because almost everything contributes to an early death. You're philosophizing backwards here, you're conceiving a reason to supplement a decision you've already made, that cocaine is "bad", and that's corrupt reasoning.
Cocaine doesn't make people happy, it makes them miserable and a slave to the substance. People under it's influence become a danger to themselves and others and often become very violent. I don't see how my reasoning is "corrupt" because I believe people shouldn't be allowed to abuse psychoactive substances.
So we have a right to life, but not death? So if I'm not happy with my life, I can't threaten or end it? That's illegal?
You have a right to life, and not to death. You and everyone else should do everything in their power to make sure your life is as comfortable and as enjoyable as possible, but you have to do the same for everyone else. You don't have the right to end yours, neither does anybody else as you do not have the right to end theirs.
What about Johnny from "Johnny Got His Gun" or countless other war victims and vegetables who want nothing more than for their lives to end because they've simply become breathing statues. Unmoving, in pain, screaming and no one can hear them. Then there's people too distraught to want to live, knowing their lives are going to be full of disappointment and misery and all they can look forward to is growing too old to do anything they wanted to do when they were young, taking out their anguish on neighbor kids playing soccer in their front lawn.
Hence where I supposed that it's everyone's moral obligation to not only protect life but enthusiasm for life as well. Because we are so limited as a collective people in technology and resources, we have to do the best we can. We only get to live once, and after the human experience has ended, there's nothing more. People shouldn't want to propel themselves towards eternal oblivion as well as they shouldn't compel others towards the same end.
Everyone has the right to life and death, as long as they do not harm another person or rob them of their life. Satisfaction does not come with living to be 100, at least for most people. I'd rather live until 55 and see/done all I possibly could in my life. Die happy, not old.
It's easy to say that now, because 55 seems like a lifetime away. You'll feel like dying and killing yourself a dozen times in your life, but afterwards, given time, you'll be glad you never did.
マホ～Rousseau, however, was against the ideal of owning "Property" and also saw the government as a necessary evil, I know you didn't do this, but using his name to argue that stealing property is wrong isn't exactly the best thing you can do. However, I think he did support the concept of liberty and life that you mentioned though.
I also really appreciate his idea where he posed that having a perception of right and wrong forced upon you by a stronger person or party is wrong if their perception becomes wrong after they can no longer force their ideals upon you. I'm more of a John Locke person though, I believe the government is force for good, and if it ceases to be just that, it needs to be dismantled.
