Here's an interesting story on the issue of human rights and suicide.
A 16 year old monk sets himself alight and dies. The people that assisted in this process get sentenced for their part in this. Human Rights Watch, the bastion of human rights and supposedly a clear thinking and principled organisation, complains about the sentencing. I think they can't see the wood for the trees.
I'd argue that our declining morality sets up this contradiction in the issue of rights, and I can see its only going to get worse.
On one hand:
1. A 16 year old is too young to consent to certain activities.
2. Suicide is wrong; Suicide was once seen as a mental problem.
3. Adults (such as the 46 year old uncle involved) are supposed to act as guardians to the young.
4. Life is precious
5. People that kill others, or help kill others should generally be punished
On the other hand:
1. The right to kill one-self is a very important right to the new wave of humanists*
2. 16 year old's can make their own decisions - (and this decision is rational?)
3. The adults around 16 year olds aren't responsible for any sort of due care
4. Shame on the government for prosecuting people that help 16 year olds kill themselves
And as I said, the organisation Human Rights Watch is on the wrong side of morality.
*To be fair, there is a subtle difference between self-sacrifice and suicide, and this case could arguably skirt those boundaries, but then I find myself wondering why the 46 year old uncle didn't come up with the brilliant idea of offing himself in place of his nephew.
China jails monks for assisting suicide
A 16 year old monk sets himself alight and dies. The people that assisted in this process get sentenced for their part in this. Human Rights Watch, the bastion of human rights and supposedly a clear thinking and principled organisation, complains about the sentencing. I think they can't see the wood for the trees.
I'd argue that our declining morality sets up this contradiction in the issue of rights, and I can see its only going to get worse.
On one hand:
1. A 16 year old is too young to consent to certain activities.
2. Suicide is wrong; Suicide was once seen as a mental problem.
3. Adults (such as the 46 year old uncle involved) are supposed to act as guardians to the young.
4. Life is precious
5. People that kill others, or help kill others should generally be punished
On the other hand:
1. The right to kill one-self is a very important right to the new wave of humanists*
2. 16 year old's can make their own decisions - (and this decision is rational?)
3. The adults around 16 year olds aren't responsible for any sort of due care
4. Shame on the government for prosecuting people that help 16 year olds kill themselves
And as I said, the organisation Human Rights Watch is on the wrong side of morality.
*To be fair, there is a subtle difference between self-sacrifice and suicide, and this case could arguably skirt those boundaries, but then I find myself wondering why the 46 year old uncle didn't come up with the brilliant idea of offing himself in place of his nephew.
China jails monks for assisting suicide
"16 year old's can make their own decisions - (and this decision is rational?)"
ReplyDeleteAnd you'll find those carping for this sort of thing usually have some sort of creepy sexual interest in 16 year olds and i'd also say a bit younger too.