Jesus and free will

Free will is fundamentally the ability to have done otherwise at a specific juncture, and it's impossible to imagine how that would be possible. Nobody disputes the idea that our brains make choices, but if that was all you were referring to, then you'd have no qualms with the "brain research" cited by Dogbert in one of the cartoons above, and previously cited by myself. Even if the studies were flawed in their methodology, the conclusions would still seem obvious if all you really meant was choosing according to our desires, preferences, etc. And no lesser form of free will than this is required for forms of theology which are subscribed to by the majority of the population.



Not necessarily, because it would draw in those who may otherwise have rashly committed suicide but could have benefitted from psychiatric help. Once you know that you're not going to be confined to a psychiatric ward indefinitely and forfeit your freedom, and that ultimately the people who help you are bound to respect your final choice; you are no longer afraid to seek out help. Even if my assertion would not turn out to be true, at least it can be known that the people who are assisted to die are people who have given it very serious and deliberate thought, and have reached a firm conclusion.

Of course, everyone should ultimately have the right to suicide, whether they have severely treatment resistant depression, or they're just bored with life. But my proposal helps to catch the ones who can be helped and support them back to a lifestyle that they find worthwhile, whilst refusing to place limitations on the autonomy of those who don't think that life is worth living at any cost.

And again, to assist someone in peaceful death is not to commit harm, it is to enable that person to avoid harm. A dead person cannot be harmed any more than a stone can be harmed.





Nobody should be forced to contend with the risk of non-trivial suffering just because other people think that the world is "good enough" or can be made "good enough". "First, do no harm" is not the psychopath's creed. Deciding to risk the wellbeing of those who cannot consent with the mindset that some kind of good may eventually result is reckless, myopic and selfish.





One cannot be resigned to a certain outcome if one has no way of knowing what that outcome is. Therefore whatever I do is part of the chain of causality which helps to determine the final outcome. Fatalism is not consistent with determinism, or with reasoned thought. And determinism doesn't mean that nothing can ever change, it means that things are always changing. Therefore just as dropping a plate onto a hard surface will cause that plate to shatter into many fragments, having a discussion can be and is productive in helping to change ideas. When I drop the plate, I don't know how many fragments are going to be produced by the drop of the plate, and I don't know what the outcome of having a discussion is going to be. But cause and effect prevails in both cases. I'm not doing anything to try to prevent a cause from effecting, or frantically swimming upstream against the inexorable tide of causality; I am part of that causal chain. And yes, this discussion has been at times like talking to a toaster; given that scared little men who are terrified of confronting the absurdity and meaninglessness of their existence are wont to stand fast by their beliefs.