Suicide should be a crime

I thank Romanni for his timely response! Let me begin by first reiterating the context of illegalization in the debate. Illegalization implies that the ‘government’ is bound to intervene in case an individual considers suicide. It does not mean forced imprisonment. What exactly it entails is debateable, but outside the scope of the debate. In this debate, we are concerned with whether or not the government has the authority to intervene in case somebody tries to commit suicide. 1. Subjective morals: Now getting back to the debate, Romannii mentions how subjective morals negate any intervention by the government. However, that’s not my argument. What I argued was that even though I agree that people have subjective morals, people believe the good in their own specific brand of morals. Regardless of what “I” think about the morality of committing suicide, I’m more interested in the implication of suicide on the moral state of the individual himself. Suicide is disconnecting from their own brand of morals. As Rand said, our actions (driven by morals) exist because we exist. Our will to live is the driving force behind our actions. Even though these actions are varied (given subjective morals), they are still moral according to the individuals. Once this thread is severed, the entire moral structure is severed too. There’s no point in people acting according to their morals once they give up on their life. 2. Sanctity of life. Con made a seemingly valid claim here- that if a person is committing suicide, clearly the life isn’t very sacred to him. Agreed. But that is precisely the reason that the state needs to intervene, because the loss of the sanctity of life is a circumstantial thing. Its transient *and* reversible. Just because the person doesn’t believe in the sanctity now doesn’t mean he’ll hold the same view once he gets out of his suicidal phase. Given that the state has ensured that it would look after the welfare of all its citizens, it is morally obiliged to intervene if one of them shows destructive tendencies. Not only because of the negative impact of that person on himself (i.e suicide), but also on other people. The impact of a destructive person (who has given up on his life, and hence by extension, his morals- a claim Con did not contest) on the society is uncertain- something we have unfortunately seen which the large number of public shootings that have plagued our times. Government needs to ensure that it acts upon such people.3. Individual rights: Con here raises the point that since right to death is a natural right, we should all have it if it does not cause considerable pain to anyone. However, here the issue of state responsibility of maximising general welfare comes forth. Regardless of whether it is a natural right or not, nobody just decides one day to commit suicide out of nowhere. More than 90% of the people who commit suicide suffer from a psychological illness. He can get better, there is a possibility- a strong possibility of him feeling better IF that mental illness is addressed. There is a strong possibility of improving the *general welfare* of the population, if adequate care is provided. Keeping in line with the general welfare clause, the state is *obiliged* to address this. Again, for two reasons.. To ensure he is not destructive to himself and other people. Depressed people are dangerous. We should keep the main objective of granting rights, to keep a positive social structure in place. Giving rights solely for the purpose of giving rights serves no purpose. If there is a possibility that forfeiting a right would lead to a better individual and social life quality, that right has no place in the society. Summarizing, in the first round I invoked Rand's argument of how the attachment to life invokes any valid moral code of conduct, and thus a detachment from the same makes a person destructive for himself and his society. i.e, he is a danger. Keeping in line with the general welfare principle, state is justified in intervening and addressing the root cause of these suicidal tendencies, which 90% of the times are psychological problems. Con raised the issue of subjective morals, which was kind of a misunderstanding of the issue raised in the first round. The second and third point dealt with individual natural rights and the value of life, where he contended that life is a natural right, and so is the right to death. If a person wanted to die (and didn't value his life enough)- he should be allowed to without involving the state. I responded by arguing that the willingness to die and devaluing of life was a temporary thing owing to circumstances and mental diagonoses that was not permanent. An outside intervention aimed at addressing this root cause was warranted because (a) it would address the root cause of suicidal tendencies and thus would lead to revaluing of his life by him in the future, improving his overall life quality, and (b) Help cease him being a danger to the society. Which was warranted since it invoked the general welfare principal. The resolution is affirmed.