Unalienable right to life is one of the most difficult rights to enforce when it comes to taking one's life.
If a person decides to kill himself, if he does not succeed, he will be punished (I guess) but probably mildly. He can attempt again.
If he succeeds, it is done, there is nothing anyone or any government can do.
In a normal trade, there is a seller and a buyer.
In suicide, there is a seller, But who is the buyer? There is no buyer. Therefore, it is not a transaction and therefore, you cannot claim it be illegitimate.
You cannot even claim it to be immoral? Who has done the immoral act? The person doesn't exist anymore. The person who killed himself is only in memory, thought.
What about war? The war scenario seems more useful to discuss it would appear. In the case of a soldier who is killed in battle, did the soldier have the right to engage in an activity where the likelihood of getting killed (thus giving up his life) is high. At least here, there is an actor who engaged the soldier in the battle (namely, the government)?
If a person decides to kill himself, if he does not succeed, he will be punished (I guess) but probably mildly. He can attempt again.
If he succeeds, it is done, there is nothing anyone or any government can do.
In a normal trade, there is a seller and a buyer.
In suicide, there is a seller, But who is the buyer? There is no buyer. Therefore, it is not a transaction and therefore, you cannot claim it be illegitimate.
You cannot even claim it to be immoral? Who has done the immoral act? The person doesn't exist anymore. The person who killed himself is only in memory, thought.
What about war? The war scenario seems more useful to discuss it would appear. In the case of a soldier who is killed in battle, did the soldier have the right to engage in an activity where the likelihood of getting killed (thus giving up his life) is high. At least here, there is an actor who engaged the soldier in the battle (namely, the government)?
Comments