1. Does a person have the right to die?
I remember that Kundera wrote in [Farewell Waltz]: Suicide is worse than murder. People may kill people out of revenge or greed for money, but even greed for money expresses an abnormal love for life. But suicide, it is abandoning life to God's feet, it is a mockery of life. Suicide is to spit on the face of the Creator.
I have no way to agree.
First of all, I do believe that not all suicides are a blasphemy of life. Not committing suicide, it means not loving life.
Just like in the movie, Al Pacino quoted his mother's words: The worst toothache in the world. Now imagine that toothache being in every bone in your body. In this day-to-day tortured death, is it not to love life? ? She can't survive.
Watching the video clips in the movie, I was particularly moved. I really love my family and friends, but I still want to die strongly. Is there anything more painful to make such a decision than the beggar himself? Why can't he have the right to die with dignity? Or have the right to end torture that has no hope of liberation in the form of rehabilitation?
Secondly, I think the Western controversy over euthanasia or suicide lies more in religion. "God gave you life, life is not your own possession, so you have no right to give up it" "Doctors cannot play God and take life away." So as an atheist, I believe that people have the right to decide on their own lives, they can decide to live or die, and they can decide how to live and die (if not by accident).
2. Which is more important than morality and law? (Perhaps it shouldn't be this formulation, I can't think of a better one for the time being)
At the end of the movie, the judge's verdict was very beautiful. No matter how biased my mind is towards Jack, I have to admit that the verdict is justified.
Our nation tolerates differences of opinions because we have a civilized and non-violent way of resolving our conflicts. We have the means and methods to protest laws with which we disagree. You can criticize the law, lecture about the law, speak to the media or petition voters, but you must always stay within the limits provided by the law. You may not break the law or take the law into your own hands. No one's unmindful of the controversy and emotion that exists over end-of-life issues and pain control. I assume the debate will continue in a calm and reasoned forum long after this trial, and your activities have faded from the public memory. But this trial was not about that controversy. This trial was about you, sir. You've ignored and challenged the legislature and the supreme court. Moreover, you've defied your own medical profession. This trial was about lawlessness, about your disregard for a society that exists and flourishes because of the strength of our legal system. No one is above the law.
The judge's conviction of Jack was not a ruling on the act of euthanasia, but a ruling on his personal contempt of the law.
Judging from the results, whether in the Fuller version or the Saber version of the [Cave Case], the defendant was eventually found guilty. No matter how uncommon the verdict is, it conforms to the facts and legal provisions.
Jack's case is obviously not as complicated as the cave case. If we have disagreements on the law, we will express it in a trial-and-error manner (no matter how reasonable the opinions are), and society will be messed up.
3. Can the government make choices for citizens?
Harvard's open class [Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do] Section 5 talks about the issue of Free to Choose.
Liberal philosopher Robert Nozick argued that enjoying freedom is a basic right of a person. As long as we respect the freedom of others while enjoying freedom, we can freely choose the life we want to live.
Under this thinking, there are three kinds of laws that are unpopular:
1. Paternalistic legislation, making laws that allow people to protect themselves, such as the seat belt law, motorcycle helmet law, and collecting pensions;
2. Moral legislation, Enact laws that try to clarify the moral values of society, such as prohibiting same-sex sexual behavior;
3. Taxation or any policy to redistribute income and property between the rich and the poor. The logic is that this type of taxation means taking away the fruits of individual labor, that is, forced labor, that is, slavery, that is, the individual is not the owner of the individual, and it does not conform to self possession.
Regarding the first two, it is true that a person does not wear a seat belt, has fun in time, does not want to save money for retirement, engages in homosexuality... It does not hurt the nature, at least basically does not directly cause any harm to other people, it is purely a personal choice.
Why, forcing a person to protect oneself, or fine if he doesn't protect? ?
However, people can't really take possession of themselves, right? The government has to consider social consequences in legislation, right? Assuming that pensions are not forcibly collected and some people do not save, they may have no money to live until retirement, and because these people live in a society, the government may still have to pay the bill with taxpayers' money. Based on this consideration, it is better to force everyone to save at the beginning. (I was
thinking about it ) So, I think, for individuals, the rights that make sense, such as the control of one’s own life, property, and freedom, are not so simple when placed at the level of legislation and the level of society as a whole. Up.
Jack was in jail for eight and a half years, and after being released in 2007, he still ran around for euthanasia legislation. Even after so many years, there are still so few countries and regions that recognize the legality of euthanasia. There are still difficulties in defining it, and so on.
Ps, after reading the mess and thinking about this, I didn't think about it systematically. It's amazing that I wrote 1,700 words. . . 囧
http://bunnyzizi.blogbus.com/logs/124874116.html
View more about You Don't Know Jack reviews
