i've often witnessed an insistence upon an obligatory pain olympics in which the legitimacy of ones choice doesn't meet a preferred threshold, often indicating that the individual in question therefore lacks the competency to go through with their decision. this view seems not only contradictory but dismissive, and is often indicative of a pseudorational derision conveniently ran under the banner of common-sense riposte. it inherently panders to a small subset of those who, again, like to champion their obligatory pain olympics in order to reinforce their antipathy towards the perceived lack of credibility and seriousness underlying the site's cause, likely caused by an insecurity and insistence upon the pro-life acceptability of the site: it's a disapproval of immaturity as instantiated by certain members which may give people the wrong idea. to provide an example of the kind of argument used:
say we have a threshold at X which indicates that a person's decision ought to be respected, and have Y as a reason which is past the threshold and above X in terms of the degree of pain associated with both. if X meets the threshold, even if we compare X to Y, X will still be legitimated. now taking Z to be below that threshold, Z will always pale in comparison to X and Y, and, since their representative degrees of pain are associated with some arbitrary threshold, Z will always be invalid; and the position of Z as sufficient enough reason will always be wrongly conflated with an undermining of X and Y which are conventionally granted the appellation of 'real' problems.
but in order to invocate our plaudits toward the undermining of Z in favor of X and Y, we require assumptions to legitimize all three in the first place: assumptions to give Z the bearing of an unfit reason, and X and Y as worthy. but the only individuals who really require this are those who actively inveigh against Z, partly as a countermeasure for maintaining the credibility of their own normative threshold. i argue that this really only serves purpose in offering assisted suicide, which will inevitably amount to an issue of policy and majoritarian ethics. the policing of Z as unworthy seems to be an arbitrary, self-fulfilling antipathy, granted that these individuals are presumably those who despise the undercurrent of pro-mortalism present on this forum.
so what ought to be the case in the larger part of society (Z meets another threshold) seems to actually be the case on here, according to its original intent. if suicide is to be treated as an inviolable right, then we must not assign an arbitrary threshold for acceptability, according to our own insecurities over the legitimacy of the site. if an individual believes that their decision meets another threshold (the threshold for sufficient reason), then the problems are non-trivial: we must assume competency here, as making a judgement upon another individual's competency without any substantive qualifiers would amount to the same bile which the site has consistently tried to eliminate: the need to promote a pro-life agenda, often undermining an individual's autonomy.
if Z meets the threshold for sufficient reason, which is not determined by us but by the individual alone, assuming that impulsivity or external pressures would not grant an individual the capacity to rationally accrue resources through the site (it's intended purpose, without bemoaning anything that may disqualify the individual), then we forcibly assume that the problems are non-trivial, and as such demand that they be accepted, or at the very least not met with mockery or prejudice. so even if X and Y trump Z, if Z meets the threshold for sufficient reason, then it is equally as valid; and to say that something is equally as valid is not to undermine X or Y, but rather to say that all three meet the threshold, and as such are sufficient, though the degree of pain which justifies them all are nonequal.
if you view this as strawmanning particular members of this forum, then i assure you that, even if that's the case, this critique equally applies to pro-life individuals who hold a warped sense of individual responsibility as accrediting their own idea of sufficient reason, whose threshold is inevitably going to be quite high
say we have a threshold at X which indicates that a person's decision ought to be respected, and have Y as a reason which is past the threshold and above X in terms of the degree of pain associated with both. if X meets the threshold, even if we compare X to Y, X will still be legitimated. now taking Z to be below that threshold, Z will always pale in comparison to X and Y, and, since their representative degrees of pain are associated with some arbitrary threshold, Z will always be invalid; and the position of Z as sufficient enough reason will always be wrongly conflated with an undermining of X and Y which are conventionally granted the appellation of 'real' problems.
but in order to invocate our plaudits toward the undermining of Z in favor of X and Y, we require assumptions to legitimize all three in the first place: assumptions to give Z the bearing of an unfit reason, and X and Y as worthy. but the only individuals who really require this are those who actively inveigh against Z, partly as a countermeasure for maintaining the credibility of their own normative threshold. i argue that this really only serves purpose in offering assisted suicide, which will inevitably amount to an issue of policy and majoritarian ethics. the policing of Z as unworthy seems to be an arbitrary, self-fulfilling antipathy, granted that these individuals are presumably those who despise the undercurrent of pro-mortalism present on this forum.
so what ought to be the case in the larger part of society (Z meets another threshold) seems to actually be the case on here, according to its original intent. if suicide is to be treated as an inviolable right, then we must not assign an arbitrary threshold for acceptability, according to our own insecurities over the legitimacy of the site. if an individual believes that their decision meets another threshold (the threshold for sufficient reason), then the problems are non-trivial: we must assume competency here, as making a judgement upon another individual's competency without any substantive qualifiers would amount to the same bile which the site has consistently tried to eliminate: the need to promote a pro-life agenda, often undermining an individual's autonomy.
if Z meets the threshold for sufficient reason, which is not determined by us but by the individual alone, assuming that impulsivity or external pressures would not grant an individual the capacity to rationally accrue resources through the site (it's intended purpose, without bemoaning anything that may disqualify the individual), then we forcibly assume that the problems are non-trivial, and as such demand that they be accepted, or at the very least not met with mockery or prejudice. so even if X and Y trump Z, if Z meets the threshold for sufficient reason, then it is equally as valid; and to say that something is equally as valid is not to undermine X or Y, but rather to say that all three meet the threshold, and as such are sufficient, though the degree of pain which justifies them all are nonequal.
if you view this as strawmanning particular members of this forum, then i assure you that, even if that's the case, this critique equally applies to pro-life individuals who hold a warped sense of individual responsibility as accrediting their own idea of sufficient reason, whose threshold is inevitably going to be quite high
Last edited:
