Should We Be Allowed To Intentionally Harm Ourselves?

[panpareil]

I do not see that that follows. For example: A wild animal is typically unowned, but you do not have licence to do as you please to it.

An animal can only be property, either of an individual or the state. It cannot participate in governing.

If we are each our sovereign, then we have complete authority to harm ourselves. If we are not sovereign and others are sovereign over us then what happens to us is decided by others. Ownership involves sovereignty. When we loose sovereignty we also loose ownership and the right to object to treatment by others. No rights make any sense unless they are based on personal or divine sovereignty. If they are based on other men there is the problem of circularity or situationalism. In other words where is the source of sovereignty if it is not the self.

[Qryos]

~ In a society, most everyone has interactions with others & so one's actions create reactions among others.

Quite often those reactions are negative when one is self-destructive.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Self harm takes so many forms: Poor diet, bad career choices, shoes that don't fit well and hurt the feet; coats that don't provide enough warmth; the wrong kind of plastic storgage devices for food.....

How much protection can society really force on the individual? Every choice we make has consequences and we make a lot of choices. The world can not protect us from our selves.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Brother Kaman]

The world can not protect us from our selves.

Nor should it.

[RevRussellP]

no with exeptions for me... example if i were to go preaching in an unsypothetic country and was arrested and told to stop preaching or face the death penalty i would choose to continue preaching knowing theoutcome. while i would not be picking up the gun and shooting myself i would be making the concious choice to put myself in harms way to defend my beliefs which would cause myself to be harmed....depends on your point of view but is self harm in a fashion.

[Fawzo]

no with exeptions for me... example if i were to go preaching in an unsypothetic country and was arrested and told to stop preaching or face the death penalty i would choose to continue preaching knowing theoutcome. while i would not be picking up the gun and shooting myself i would be making the concious choice to put myself in harms way to defend my beliefs which would cause myself to be harmed....depends on your point of view but is self harm in a fashion.

One thing about the truth though is that it doesn't need to be defended. It "is" and no matter what anyone believes, thinks says or does it still "is" unblemished and perfect after all is said and done.

[RevRussellP]

One thing about the truth though is that it doesn't need to be defended. It "is" and no matter what anyone believes, thinks says or does it still "is" unblemished and perfect after all is said and done.

This is true but that being said as sentient beings we have a duty to represent that truth to ensure it is heard and defended to the best of our abilities. It is our duty to take accountability for the truth and if required defend it with our lives through peaceful acknowledgment of it againt those who would attempt to prove otherwise using whatever methods they will, to not defend the truth is to support those attempting to obscure it.

[Fawzo]

This is true but that being said as sentient beings we have a duty to represent that truth to ensure it is heard and defended to the best of our abilities. It is our duty to take accountability for the truth and if required defend it with our lives through peaceful acknowledgment of it againt those who would attempt to prove otherwise using whatever methods they will, to not defend the truth is to support those attempting to obscure it.

Says who......if some idiot wants to call a tree a motorcycle am I required to defend the labeling of that tree and stand there and argue with that delusional person .... to what point.

Living your life by the way of Truth is the best way to dissolve the ignorance of others. That is the light that draws others out of the darkness and towards the light. Truth needs no defense so why defend something that needs no defense, that is like one lighting a match to keep the sun warm. You're wasting your breath and gonna wind up with burnt finger tips sure enough trying to keep the sun warm.

Others attempting by whatever means to "prove" that what isn't true is Truth is as much as a waste of time as those defending truth. In the End the Truth will be known as illusions and false belief systems fail the test of time. I do believe we are beginning to see that happening within our own lifetimes.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Fawzo

[revtimothybland]

I answered Yes with Restrictions on both.

My reasoning is thus: I'm a firm believer in "An it Harm None, Do as Ye Will." After doing my own reasearch, I've discovered that pretty much everything, with some exceptions, isn't all that harmful to yourself as long as it's in moderation. Thus, one should excercise self control. And harming another is NEVER good. But even doctors are starting to agree that a single glass of red wine every so often even while pregnant is healthy, even for the child. Not needed, and certainly harmful if you have any more than that, but, still. In moderation, certain things are acceptable. If you cannot control yourself, there is a problem. We punish murderers and rapists because they cannot control themselves. So, obviously, certain things are just so bad they shouldn't be allowed at all. But I see no difference in the raging alcolholic and the wife-beater. Both require serious psychological help because they simply cannot control themselves.