I wouldn't really call that scenario similar, I don't think the dynamics are similar enough to really compare them. Has there even been battles won or lost by some kind of mass suicide? Not sure. Do you know? It's possible, I guess, but I don't know. Could soldiers and public perception be influenced somehow by a mass suicide in a battle? I think so, but I just don't know enough about that to make a bold opinion on it. I don't think this is a valuable analogy to get lost in in this conversation because it's just too fantastical and beyond either of our scopes of knowledge or ability to even properly relate to. A better comparison would be an example of a POW killing themself instead of facing torture/death at the hands of the enemy, and yes, that does take away power. That is the whole idea behind it and the effect it has. The enemy force would feel a level of defeat if their captor took his own life and the general public would have a strong opinion on it (good or bad) which would affect support for the troops/war, morale, public perception and future procedures. The victim would be controlling his own destiny, reducing his suffering, or whatever else he felt was his reasoning but the point is, it's HIS reason and HE is in charge. It's all about power. Physically forcing him to remain alive against his wishes would transfer that power back to his captors.
Back to the scenario we are talking about, yes, it does come down to a matter of showing force. See my previous example, see also examples of a person wanted for a crime killing themselves before facing justice. Authority is diminished (embarrassment, respect lost) and the public feels slighted because they didn't get to dictate the outcome (loss of control/respect /power). Even when the desired outcome is a death sentence, clearly death alone is not what is wanted...it's death by a certain method or means controlled by others, not the victim. This is not very different from our scenario in that it is about control/loss of control and how the general public will react to that. A political prisoner killing themself by not eating is entirely a matter of taking their own life in their hands, using the only means of protest they have left.
Is it moral to let someone kill themself? In custody, I feel it's proper and moral to remove ways to harm oneself like sharp objects or string for instance, if a person is suicidal (no physical force involved, just removing harmful things), but it is not so moral to put physical force on someone who is not a threat to others (a peaceful protester who is not harming anyone but themself). That whole 'this is for your own good' thing is gets questionable. I believe the limit comes in when you put force on someone who is mentally sound and only harming themself. It's not immoral to let a person of sound mind choose not to eat. As long as they are mentally competent and you are offering them food, you are in no way responsible for their death should they choose not to eat. Someone starving their own self can easily fix it themself if they want to, there is no need to force feed them except to exert power and take away their means of protest.
What do you think of the MRM?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I wouldn't really call that scenario similar, I don't think the dynamics are similar enough to really compare them. Has there even been battles won or lost by some kind of mass suicide? Not sure. Do you know? It's possible, I guess, but I don't know. Could soldiers and public perception be influenced somehow by a mass suicide in a battle? I think so, but I just don't know enough about that to make a bold opinion on it. I don't think this is a valuable analogy to get lost in in this conversation because it's just too fantastical and beyond either of our scopes of knowledge or ability to even properly relate to. A better comparison would be an example of a POW killing themself instead of facing torture/death at the hands of the enemy, and yes, that does take away power. That is the whole idea behind it and the effect it has. The enemy force would feel a level of defeat if their captor took his own life and the general public would have a strong opinion on it (good or bad) which would affect support for the troops/war, morale, public perception and future procedures. The victim would be controlling his own destiny, reducing his suffering, or whatever else he felt was his reasoning but the point is, it's HIS reason and HE is in charge. It's all about power. Physically forcing him to remain alive against his wishes would transfer that power back to his captors.
Back to the scenario we are talking about, yes, it does come down to a matter of showing force. See my previous example, see also examples of a person wanted for a crime killing themselves before facing justice. Authority is diminished (embarrassment, respect lost) and the public feels slighted because they didn't get to dictate the outcome (loss of control/respect /power). Even when the desired outcome is a death sentence, clearly death alone is not what is wanted...it's death by a certain method or means controlled by others, not the victim. This is not very different from our scenario in that it is about control/loss of control and how the general public will react to that. A political prisoner killing themself by not eating is entirely a matter of taking their own life in their hands, using the only means of protest they have left.
Is it moral to let someone kill themself? In custody, I feel it's proper and moral to remove ways to harm oneself like sharp objects or string for instance, if a person is suicidal (no physical force involved, just removing harmful things), but it is not so moral to put physical force on someone who is not a threat to others (a peaceful protester who is not harming anyone but themself). That whole 'this is for your own good' thing is gets questionable. I believe the limit comes in when you put force on someone who is mentally sound and only harming themself. It's not immoral to let a person of sound mind choose not to eat. As long as they are mentally competent and you are offering them food, you are in no way responsible for their death should they choose not to eat. Someone starving their own self can easily fix it themself if they want to, there is no need to force feed them except to exert power and take away their means of protest.