Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Those who believe in the finality of death i.e., that there is no after-life "“ they are the ones who advocate suicide and regard it as a matter of personal choice. On the other hand, those who firmly believe in some form of existence after corporeal death "“ they condemn suicide and judge it to be a major sin. Yet, rationally, the situation should have been reversed : it should have been easier for someone who believed in continuity after death to terminate this phase of existence on the way to the next. Those who faced void, finality, non-existence, vanishing "“ should have been greatly deterred by it and should have refrained even from entertaining the idea. Either the latter do not really believe what they profess to believe "“ or something is wrong with rationality. One would tend to suspect the former. Suicide is very different from self sacrifice, avoidable martyrdom, engaging in life risking activities, refusal to prolong one's life through medical treatment, euthanasia, overdosing and self inflicted death that is the result of coercion. What is common to all these is the operational mode: a death caused by one's own actions. In all these behaviours, a foreknowledge of the risk of death is present coupled with its acceptance. But all else is so different that they cannot be regarded as belonging to the same class. Suicide is chiefly intended to terminate a life "“ the other acts are aimed at perpetuating, strengthening and defending values. Those who commit suicide do so because they firmly believe in the finiteness of life and in the finality of death. They prefer termination to continuation. Yet, all the others, the observers of this phenomenon, are horrified by this preference. They abhor it. This has to do with out understanding of the meaning of life. Ultimately, life has only meanings that we attribute and ascribe to it. Such a meaning can be external God's plan or internal meaning generated through arbitrary selection of a frame of reference. But, in any case, it must be actively selected, adopted and espoused. The difference is that, in the case of external meanings, we have no way to judge their validity and quality is God's plan for us a good one or not?. We just "take them on" because they are big, all encompassing and of a good "source". A hyper-goal generated by a superstructural plan tends to lend meaning to our transient goals and structures by endowing them with the gift of eternity. Something eternal is always judged more meaningful than something temporal. If a thing of less or no value acquires value by becoming part of a thing eternal "“ than the meaning and value reside with the quality of being eternal "“ not with the thing thus endowed. It is not a question of success. Plans temporal are as successfully implemented as designs eternal. Actually, there is no meaning to the question: is this eternal plan / process / design successful because success is a temporal thing, linked to endeavours that have clear beginnings and ends. This, therefore, is the first requirement: our life can become meaningful only by integrating into a thing, a process, a being eternal. In other words, continuity the temporal image of eternity, to paraphrase a great philosopher is of the essence. Terminating our life at will renders them meaningless. A natural termination of our life is naturally preordained. A natural death is part and parcel of the very eternal process, thing or being which lends meaning to life. To die naturally is to become part of an eternity, a cycle, which goes on forever of life, death and renewal. This cyclic view of life and the creation is inevitable within any thought system, which incorporates a notion of eternity. Because everything is possible given an eternal amount of time "“ so are resurrection and reincarnation, the afterlife, hell and other beliefs adhered to by the eternal lot. Sidgwick raised the second requirement and with certain modifications by other philosophers, it reads: to begin to appreciate values and meanings, a consciousness intelligence must exist. True, the value or meaning must reside in or pertain to a thing outside the consciousness / intelligence. But, even then, only conscious, intelligent people will be able to appreciate it. We can fuse the two views: the meaning of life is the consequence of their being part of some eternal goal, plan, process, thing, or being. Whether this holds true or does not "“ a consciousness is called for in order to appreciate life's meaning. Life is meaningless in the absence of consciousness or intelligence. Suicide flies in the face of both requirements: it is a clear and present demonstration of the transience of life the negation of the NATURAL eternal cycles or processes. It also eliminates the consciousness and intelligence that could have judged life to have been meaningful had it survived. Actually, this very consciousness / intelligence decides, in the case of suicide, that life has no meaning whatsoever. To a very large extent, the meaning of life is perceived to be a collective matter of conformity. Suicide is a statement, writ in blood, that the community is wrong, that life is meaningless and final otherwise, the suicide would not have been committed. This is where life ends and social judgement commences. Society cannot admit that it is against freedom of expression suicide is, after all, a statement. It never could. It always preferred to cast the suicides in the role of criminals and, therefore, bereft of any or many civil rights. According to still prevailing views, the suicide violates unwritten contracts with himself, with others society and, many might add, with God or with Nature with a capital N. Thomas Aquinas said that suicide was not only unnatural organisms strive to survive, not to self annihilate "“ but it also adversely affects the community and violates God's property rights. The latter argument is interesting: God is supposed to own the soul and it is a gift in Jewish writings, a deposit to the individual. A suicide, therefore, has to do with the abuse or misuse of God's possessions, temporarily lodged in a corporeal mansion. This implies that suicide affects the eternal, immutable soul. Aquinas refrains from elaborating exactly how a distinctly physical and material act alters the structure and / or the properties of something as ethereal as the soul. Hundreds of years later, Blackstone, the codifier of British Law, concurred. The state, according to this juridical mind, has a right to prevent and to punish for suicide and for attempted suicide. Suicide is self-murder, he wrote, and, therefore, a grave felony. In certain countries, this still is the case. In Israel, for instance, a soldier is considered to be "army property" and any attempted suicide is severely punished as being "attempt at corrupting army possessions". Indeed, this is paternalism at its worst, the kind that objectifies its subjects. People are treated as possessions in this malignant mutation of benevolence. Such paternalism acts against adults expressing fully informed consent. It is an explicit threat to autonomy, freedom and privacy. Rational, fully competent adults should be spared this form of state intervention. It served as a magnificent tool for the suppression of dissidence in places like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Mostly, it tends to breed "victimless crimes". Gamblers, homosexuals, communists, suicides "“ the list is long. All have been "protected from themselves" by Big Brothers in disguise. Wherever humans possess a right "“ there is a correlative obligation not to act in a way that will prevent the exercise of such right, whether actively preventing it, or passively reporting it. In many cases, not only is suicide consented to by a competent adult in full possession of his faculties "“ it also increases utility both for the individual involved and for society. The only exception is, of course, where minors or incompetent adults the mentally retarded, the mentally insane, etc. are involved. Then a paternalistic obligation seems to exist. I use the cautious term "seems" because life is such a basic and deep set phenomenon that even the incompetents can fully gauge its significance and make "informed" decisions, in my view. In any case, no one is better able to evaluate the quality of life and the ensuing justifications of a suicide of a mentally incompetent person "“ than that person himself. The paternalists claim that no competent adult will ever decide to commit suicide. No one in "his right mind" will elect this option. This contention is, of course, obliterated both by history and by psychology. But a derivative argument seems to be more forceful. Some people whose suicides were prevented felt very happy that they were. They felt elated to have the gift of life back. Isn't this sufficient a reason to intervene? Absolutely, not. All of us are engaged in making irreversible decisions. For some of these decisions, we are likely to pay very dearly. Is this a reason to stop us from making them? Should the state be allowed to prevent a couple from marrying because of genetic incompatibility? Should an overpopulated country institute forced abortions? Should smoking be banned for the higher risk groups? The answers seem to be clear and negative. There is a double moral standard when it comes to suicide. People are permitted to destroy their lives only in certain prescribed ways. And if the very notion of suicide is immoral, even criminal "“ why stop at individuals? Why not apply the same prohibition to political organizations such as the Yugoslav Federation or the USSR or East Germany or Czechoslovakia, to mention four recent examples? To groups of people? To institutions, corporations, funds, not for profit organizations, international organizations and so on? This fast deteriorates to the land of absurdities, long inhabited by the opponents of suicide.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1645 Views: 126 Comments: 0
Those who believe in the finality of death i.e., that there is no after-life – they are the ones who advocate suicide and regard it as a matter of personal choice. On the other hand, those who firmly believe in some form of existence after corporeal death – they condemn suicide and judge it to be a major sin. Yet, rationally, the situation should have been reversed : it should have been easier for someone who believed in continuity after death to terminate this phase of existence on the way to the next. Those who faced void, finality, non-existence, vanishing...
negative. There is a double moral standard when it comes to suicide. People are permitted to destroy their lives only in certain prescribed ways.

And if the very notion of suicide is immoral, even criminal – why stop at individuals? Why not apply the same prohibition to political organizations such as the Yugoslav Federation or the USSR or East Germany or Czechoslovakia, to mention four recent examples? To groups of people? To institutions, corporations, funds, not for profit organizations, international organizations and so on? This fast deteriorates to the land of absurdities, long inhabited by the opponents of suicide.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

Censorship by definition is the suppression...Censorship by definition is the suppression of words, images or ideas that are "offensive". It occurs when certain people succeed in imposing their personal or moral values on others. The debate over censorship deals mainly with the first amendment and whether it is constitutional for a group of people to decide what is right for other people. It has exploded within recent years with the advent of the Internet. Many different kinds of people can and are considered censors. Parents, teachers, administrators and employers who forbid others to speak in certain ways can be censors. In fact, the word censor actually comes from ancient Rome, which referred to someone whose job it was to oversee morals and conduct. Before I get into censorship on the Internet, here are other cases of censorship: Perhaps the first known case of censorship occurred in 1873 with the passing of the Comstock law by Congress. The law was advocated by Anthony Comstock, head of the Society for the Suppression of Vice Explain vice. The law forbade the mailing of anything, in his opinion, lewd, obscene or indecent. In his life burned 120 tons of books and art including the works of Chaucer- Caterbury Tales, Oscar Wilde, Ernest Hemmingway, Eugene O'Neill and John Steinbeck. Censorship primarily occurs in the arts, especially music. The PMRC or Parents Music Resource Center finally after about a decade of pushing forced the RIAA or Recording Industry of America to start use labeling systems and logos such as "Parental Advisory "“ Explicit Lyrics". However, the putting of the labels on the records was left entirely to the record companies who neglected the sticker on many deserving albums. In 1992, Washington became the first state to pass a law forbidding the purchase of cd's with certain logos if you're under 18, this law was quickly deemed unconstitutional. Some performers have been banned from performing certain songs in certain places, for example Ozzy Osbourne was sued thrice after three teens committed suicide and their parents blamed his lyrics in "Suicide Solution", Ice-T was heavily protested for his song Cop Killer in the early 90's which promoted violence specifically on police. Madonna was arrested in Toronto after she ignored warnings of her potential arrest and went on with her normal act of acting out masturbation on stage. The debate over music most definitely flared up again after the shootings at Columbine in which Marilyn Manson was once again accused of causing horrible crimes as many people continue their war with him and his music. Other forms of censorship include the debate over the viewing of violence. In 1996, Congress passed legislation requiring that new televisions be equipped with the v-chip, a computerized chip capable of detecting program ratings and blocking certain programs from view. This comes along with the new ratings you now see at the bottom of certain tv programs such as tv-14 or g. Many tv shows have been forced to change their successful ways such as the WWF. As far as the internet is concerned of the dozens of bills, laws and testimonies passed or debated the biggest was the Communications Decency Act. This Act bans the communication of "obscene or indecent" material via the internet to anyone under 18. This Act like just about all the acts dealing with the preservation of the first amendment is being protested by ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union. After much debate about a year and a half later the Act was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court just as nearly all censorship attempts are. The root of the problem is that people want to decide that people cannot see certain things that are wrong, lewd etc, but the definition of what is wrong is and thanks to our first amendment is always vague at best allowing Americans to forever decide what they want to see. In conclusion, The problem with censorship is that America is "a free society based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she wants "“ or does not want. Freedom of expression for ourselves requires freedom of expression for others and that is at the very heart of our democracy.   

Censorship by definition is the suppression of words, images or ideas that are "offensive". It occurs when certain people succeed in imposing their personal or moral values on others. The debate over censorship deals mainly with the first amendment and whether it is constitutional for a group of people to...

Words: 706 View(s): 156 Comment(s): 0
The constitutions of most of our...The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, 1824 Should guns be banned in America? Should guns be banned? This is one of the widest asked questions. There are those who believe that gun's should be banned, as guns are the number one killer. All around the world, small arms stocks were destroyed in the hope to lower the amount of guns in the world. South Africa's destruction of 24 000 small arms today is part of worldwide small arms destructions "“ 6 000 illegal guns were destroyed in Cambodia, 1 700 in Mozambique, and 10 000 weapons were destroyed in Brazil. Through these destructions governments from around the world are showing their support for the regulation of the small arms trade "“ a trade that kills an estimated 500 000 people each year. Handguns and other firearms have a long tradition in American civilization. The right to bear arms is an American right featured in the second Amendment of the Constitution. In the 18th century, when the constitution was written, times were different; there was a need for armed citizens to insure the safety of the society as a whole. Contemporarily the police department preserves the safety of society and the need for armed citizens is out of date. The founding fathers of the Constitution could presumably never imagine the horrendous outcome of their actions. Every year too many lives are claimed as the result of the American government's inability to fully face up to effects of the issue. Compared to other western countries that have considerably stricter gun control laws America is still viewed as "The Wild-Wild West". The growing gun related death toll in the U.S. has to come to a turning point. Stripping away the constitutional right to bear arms might have the effect that only criminals will have access to guns. It is important to understand that in a society where both criminals and law abiding citizens have access to guns the likeliness of an innocent person getting shot, when both parties are waving guns, is probably greater than if only criminals have guns. A ban on firearms might not be appealing as a short-term solution but it is important that people don't limit their thinking to their generation and not think about the safety of their children, grandchildren and the society people are creating today for them to live in. The main obstacle in removing firearms from citizens in the U.S. is the second Amendment of the Constitution. It reads: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The second Amendment can be interpreted as every citizen right to bear arms. However the key word is "Militia", meaning soldiers or defenders of the State. In the late 18th century, when the Constitution was written, times were very different than those of contemporary America. People were scared of possible invasions from Native Americans, the English, and other nationalities. By "a well regulated Militia"¦" the founding fathers probably meant that citizens could have a muscot standing in the corner just in case anything would happen. Note that the writers of the Constitution added, "A well regulated"¦" in front of the word Militia. That would most likely reveal a controversy in writing this Amendment, some of the founding fathers might have foreseen the possibility of a misinterpretation of this Amendment. In the U.S. there are approximately 200 million privately owned guns, which is statistically close to a gun per person and places more than one gun per home on average O'Donnell 771. In other words, guns are all around. This effects, without a doubt, the whole society structure and the citizens that live within its boundaries. The children that live within a gun infested society are going to suffer the consequences. In fact, kids between the ages 16 and 19 have the highest handgun victimization rate among all age groups. It's not hard to understand why, since there are on average more than one gun per household, kids are likely to find firearm and in some cases even use it. Here are a couple of incidents that occurred not so long ago. All are witness statements taken down by the police and are all in favor of the government to take action: "A shopkeeper who was shot dead in a robbery stepped in front of her killers to save her daughter, said her husband." "Thieves killed Marion Bates, 64, in front of her daughter Xanthe in an attack at their family jewelry store in Arnold, Nottingham, on Tuesday." "A man has died and another has been injured after a drive-by shooting in Hertfordshire." "Police say two men came under fire- most possibly from an automatic weapon- outside the Physical Limit Health and Fitness Club in Brewery road in Hoddesdon Gun Control in the United States of America is a topic that has had some criticism and support by many citizens. The critical people of this topic believe that the guns do not kill people; it is the people that kill people. The supporters of this topic believe that guns lead to violence and a feeling of power over others. They also believe that if guns were eliminated from the public, then violence and death would decrease heavily in this country. These two opposing views leave the federal government open to a decision on whether or not to abolish one of our Constitutional rights, or to keep allowing people the right to own a gun. The majority of crimes committed in the United States were accompanied by a weapon, which was usually a gun. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research dedicates its service to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries. Studies have proven that in 1997 there were 32,436 gun related deaths which calculated out equals 88 deaths a day. A study by researchers from the University of Chicago, John Lott and David Mustard, showed that violent crime is reduced when citizens have a law that allows them to carry concealed weapons. In 1994 a crime bill was passed that included an assault weapons ban that outlawed the manufacturing and selling of semiautomatic weapons and prohibits the manufacturing of copies. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research was established in 1995 and applies an approach to informing the public about guns. The Center attempts to educate the public about firearm injuries and new gun policies. The Center tries to prove that the safety of guns can be regulated as we would regulate the safety of other consumer goods. The Center looks into legal and public strategies to reduce the amounts of injuries and deaths due to the use of guns. The Center creates and evaluates policies to restrict the availability of weapons to high risk users. The faculty of the Center evaluates the effect of gun laws such as those banning the Saturday Night Specials, or permitting the carrying of a concealed weapon. The Center also conducts surveys to find out from the public what people think about gun laws and policies There is like all arguments, a reason why guns should not be banned. There are reasons which have to be accounted for such as the quote "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.". For almost as long as guns have been around gun control has been a major issue throughout the world. As we look back on the past we find that gun control, its is said that gun control doesn't really help reduce crime. Another down side of gun control is that if the government takes away the right to own weapons then they will start to think they can take other rights away. With every new anti gun law passed the crime rate in the United States escalates. For example if you look at the state of Texas or any other state where pro gun laws were recently passed, that allow non felon citizens to purchase and carry a handgun, you can see that crime rates have gone down in these states. It appears that if criminals feel threatened, because their victims may have a gun, they are less likely to attack people. This example shows how gun laws that restrict guns are ineffective because when a law that allows guns is passed crime rates don't go up but actually go down when more people have guns. "Gun laws fail because they do not address the issue. The issue is not possession of firearms, but misuse of firearms. We cannot expect criminals to abide by gun laws when they have already shown a disregard for law and order by their criminal activity. The only people ever affected by gun laws are peaceful, law abiding citizens, who never abuse their firearms right. Recent research is finding gun laws do not reduce the amount of violent crime in our society. Gun laws have succeeded only in disarming the law abiding and making the criminals' work environment safer I submit that our concern should be to make the environment for honest citizens, and this, gun laws have failed to do." Thomas Jefferson predicted these same results when he said, "Laws that forbid the Carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." If someone is a criminal they either don't really care about breaking the law or they don't plan on getting caught. It is absurd to pass laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning weapons because it isn't the citizens, that are obeying the laws,that should be punished for the wrong doing of the criminals. A robber is not going to stop and think wow I better not hold up this store, with this gun, just because it is illegal. Robbing a store is illegal in the first place, but the robber is still going to rob the store, so what is the point of making guns illegal. The law shouldn't be on the gun it should be against the person using the gun. The gun itself did nothing wrong. If a robber robs a store the gun is not thinking or moving by itself so it can't be blamed for the crime.   

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, 1824 Should guns be banned in America? Should guns be banned? This is one of the widest asked questions. There...

Words: 1779 View(s): 314 Comment(s): 0