Hacker News Reader

Comment by quasse | Hacker News Reader

> At some point that net loss must overrule the individual's autonomy.

I'm curious why you think of this as such a concrete fact. It is hard to understand that you would consider it your right to override such a core component of human autonomy (the choice to continue living) because they owe you/society something.

If someone's suffering is so great (be it physical *or* mental) that they have reached a point where they personally would trade human life for non-existence, who are you to say "Sorry, we own you. You cannot make that choice"?

I am sorry if my comment sounds judgemental because I am genuinely interested in your opinion about who would ever be qualified to make that decision and decide "No, this person is bound to us."

View on HN

> It is hard to understand that you would consider it your right to override such a core component of human autonomy (the choice to continue living) because they owe you/society something.

I'm curious why you consider individualism to be the default state that should be assumed, while my very broad statement that there is some level of social responsibility that overrules individual autonomy at some point (where that point is being the question) is the one that needs justification. I'm specifically calling out that I'm unsure where that line is, just that there is a threshold where individual entitlement must give way to the needs of the community.

This has been the default position of every human society we're aware of, so much so that it's essentially the definition of a society. It's wired into our biology. Radical individualism that teaches otherwise is a very new phenomenon.

That said, neither position can be argued for logically, because they operate on totally different axioms.

I don't think you're off base by saying that people have a level of social responsibility to the people they live around. I think that can be argued perfectly logically.

What I'm not sure I agree with is that it translates to a responsibility to stay. Isn't someone who emigrates permanently away from their local community breaking the same social contract as someone who chooses medically assisted dying? Should that be prevented for the same reasons?

I can see the position that MAID is genuinely abdicating a true responsibility in some extreme cases, like a parent with minor children.

If there exists a social responsibility then there exists a responsibility to stay. Emigration could very well be abdicating social responsibility, but not irrevocably so, and in the modern world much of your responsibility to those you left behind is still fillable even after emigrating. Dying is irrevocable and puts you entirely out of reach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com