My brain isn't up to this discussion at the moment, which irks me somewhat. There's something that I'm still trying to say but I'm obviously not sure what... Apologies therefore, for the ramblings below:
Can a process of evaluation be objectively rational, even if it produces a result that we regard as inappropriate? I'm inclined to say yes; the process, even the decision is rational for a given value set. Can we say then that a particular value assessment is objectively wrong, given that it leads to an inappropriate outcome? Not really; we can say that it falls outside societal expectation and we can sometimes, maybe often, identify where values have been changed through mental health issues and do not reflect the normal judgement of an the individual concerned, but wrong in an absolute, concrete, universal sense? For me, not so much.
Social mores change with time and circumstance; suicide has, in various times and cultures been seen as either a legitimate (if extreme) expression of protest, an accepted (if unremarked) alternative to prolonged discomfort or a spiritual and temporal sin to be punished in this earthly plane by posthumous humiliation and confiscation of assets and more. It was illegal in the UK until around 50 years ago, but "the Gentleman's way out" was still widely regarded as a more acceptable option than accepting dishonour or financial ruin. Frankly, it's hard to see how trusting other people to identify universal truths isn't - well, irrational.
I accept your point about not wanting to include assisted dying in this debate, but the reason that we increasingly treat it differently is precisely because of the recognition that sometimes, taking one's own life is a reasonable and rational thing to do. There is an often told (if apocryphal) tale of a conversation between George Bernard Shaw and a young actress, where the playwright asked if she would go to bed with a young man who offered her a million pounds; she is supposed to have smiled and said that she might, if he was handsome enough. "How about for a tenner then?", asked Shaw, eliciting the outraged response, "What sort of girl do you think I am"? "Oh, we've established that", chuckled Shaw, "Now all we're discussing is the price". We're in a similar position once we concede that sometimes, suicide is rational. The value of one's own life is a matter of personal perception and is on a continuum; we can legislate to lend authority to the actions of some people over others but we cannot pretend a qualitative difference automatically exists between those who meet our arbitrary criteria, who we would commend for their honesty and realism and those who fall outside and we would reproach for the act.
The vast majority of suicides can probably be said to result from impaired judgement and be deemed objectively irrational. But, I would respectfully submit, not all.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-03-05 12:57 am (UTC)Can a process of evaluation be objectively rational, even if it produces a result that we regard as inappropriate? I'm inclined to say yes; the process, even the decision is rational for a given value set. Can we say then that a particular value assessment is objectively wrong, given that it leads to an inappropriate outcome? Not really; we can say that it falls outside societal expectation and we can sometimes, maybe often, identify where values have been changed through mental health issues and do not reflect the normal judgement of an the individual concerned, but wrong in an absolute, concrete, universal sense? For me, not so much.
Social mores change with time and circumstance; suicide has, in various times and cultures been seen as either a legitimate (if extreme) expression of protest, an accepted (if unremarked) alternative to prolonged discomfort or a spiritual and temporal sin to be punished in this earthly plane by posthumous humiliation and confiscation of assets and more. It was illegal in the UK until around 50 years ago, but "the Gentleman's way out" was still widely regarded as a more acceptable option than accepting dishonour or financial ruin. Frankly, it's hard to see how trusting other people to identify universal truths isn't - well, irrational.
I accept your point about not wanting to include assisted dying in this debate, but the reason that we increasingly treat it differently is precisely because of the recognition that sometimes, taking one's own life is a reasonable and rational thing to do. There is an often told (if apocryphal) tale of a conversation between George Bernard Shaw and a young actress, where the playwright asked if she would go to bed with a young man who offered her a million pounds; she is supposed to have smiled and said that she might, if he was handsome enough. "How about for a tenner then?", asked Shaw, eliciting the outraged response, "What sort of girl do you think I am"? "Oh, we've established that", chuckled Shaw, "Now all we're discussing is the price". We're in a similar position once we concede that sometimes, suicide is rational. The value of one's own life is a matter of personal perception and is on a continuum; we can legislate to lend authority to the actions of some people over others but we cannot pretend a qualitative difference automatically exists between those who meet our arbitrary criteria, who we would commend for their honesty and realism and those who fall outside and we would reproach for the act.
The vast majority of suicides can probably be said to result from impaired judgement and be deemed objectively irrational. But, I would respectfully submit, not all.