Laws cannot punish people who commit suicide, but they punish others who help suicide. "No one is punished for trying to kill themselves or to survive, and when someone needs help to die noble, the government interferes with them and tells them that life doesn't belong to them and they can't make their own decisions about it." This is a "purely philosophical" question. The film clearly points out the paradox of this legislative logic, and tries to convince the audience that they should understand that there are legitimate reasons for ending one's own life, a life that cannot enjoy life.
Euthanasia is still not recognized by law as legal. And the incompatibility between ethics and social norms has never been reconciled in a real sense. Yes, if euthanasia is allowed, then the penalty for the crime of depriving others of life will become incomprehensible. However, euthanasia is not just a medical issue, a legal issue, it is more an ethical issue. How can individual freedoms and rights be fully understood and respected? We don't know. In the film, Raymond ultimately loses the case. He did not legally end his life by euthanasia. And he still decomposed the procedure of euthanasia, so that everyone who helped him does not have to bear legal responsibility, and also achieved the purpose of ending his life.
Raymond's values are firm and distinct. He always "believes that life is a right, not an obligation... For 28 years, I couldn't explain what happiness was, and I hated the laziness of the system." A thought: to be alive, does it mean natural happiness and joy? Similar to Raymond's situation, people who objectively cannot enjoy the joy of life, they ask for euthanasia, whether or not they have destroyed human history. Because of the difficulty of survival and the fragility of life, individuals should be encouraged to survive to the greatest extent possible, regardless of whether they have destroyed human history. Does the experience of the individual have an ethical sense of pleasure and enjoyment?
On the other hand, as the lawyer said, when a person is free to end his life without relying on external forces, there is no value judgment in the society's view of him. Law and morality are not necessarily intrinsically linked to suicidal behavior. And he needs to end his own life through the hands of others. Does he have to show his unparalleled pain to succeed? Even if it is successful, is this display process itself a lack of respect for life?
Julia (beautiful lawyer, in love with Raymond), as another clue for the audience to think about death and survival, mirrors the human element of Raymond's request for euthanasia: being a woman who is too beautiful, gradually described as withered and incapable. When she went to death with restraint, and at the same time could no longer remember the poignant love that she had encountered and just ended, maybe watching her slowly disappear, it was more tormenting herself and the people who loved her. Perhaps this view of the value of living organisms is too aesthetic and cannot explain the complexity of life itself. It is more like helping the weak-willed to establish the theoretical meaning of giving up life, which is not conducive to the survival and reproduction of species, but this is too much to say. . As for the significance of this not only a personal issue, but also a social issue discussed in the film itself, I think I will think about it because of this film.
View more about The Sea Inside reviews
