Philosophy classes usually teach the ethics of suicide as some sort of a cost benefit analysis, don't they? Or, they argue that the rationality of imposing death rests on the returns longer term life not outweighing the short term pain. The crucial aspect being that the point at which such a consideration is made is as critical. That is, if one were to consider a person X who had pain Y at time t1, it does not matter what the pain becomes at time t2. What matters is the judgment of the benefits of a life well lived at a later point as compared to the pain Y at the time t1. This has all sorts of inherent issues given the judgment at time t1 is by very definition under a 'cloud'. But that is not the point of whatever this is. Most Philosophy departments will deal that question in their introductory courses.
What isn't clear is if Y weren't pain but insult. Not pain inflicted by insult but the epistemic insult of life itself. I wish to propose, there is a number unto which the external stimuli do outweigh the insult. Only time t1 here is the age of the person.
No comments:
Post a Comment