This debate flew around in my english class the other day (Popped up out of discussing Hamlet). Self-destruction includes everything that would be physically detrimental with no or little added benifit-everything from eating junk food to reckless behaviour-ie, drunk driving, etc, to self-mutilation to suicide.

Nobody could really come up with a definititve answer-what do we define as a self-destructive activity? Technically, typing this very post could be self-destructive-stress on hands and eyes. So, fellow Sluggites, what is your opinion?

I believe that self destructive behavior is an behavior that puts the person doing tha behavior in harms way for no real reason. If it is the teenager getting high to be accepted, or the masachist who scars themself nightly it is still self destructive if they are hurting themselves for no reason aside from some emotionaly drivin desire. Now someone prove me wrong (cheesy grin).

I think self-destructive behaviour is so hard to define because it's a matter of degree, not a matter of classification. Society outlaws things perceived to be really harmful, like hard drugs, but permits things that are perceived to be only slightly harmful, like junkfood. Of course, the line isn't perfect. Nor is it always accurate.

I think slow self-destruction should be allowed. Thus, eating junk food is fine because you constantly make and remake the decision to do so. Smoking cigarettes is fine for the same reason. Anything that a person voluntarily allows to kill them over a long period of time should be allowed (not encouraged or discouraged, just allowed); and anybody that does so deserves exactly what they get. I'm definitely against saving idiots from themselves.

(Something that also falls under that category [saving idiots from themselves] is warning labels. They are doubly annoying because now, everybody expects them, and so when they aren't there (CAUTION: DO NOT POUR HOT COFFEE ON OWN GROIN OR THE GROINS OF OTHERS) the idiots get to sue, win truckloads of cash, and settle down to propagate their genes for the next forty years. I think we should remove all warning labels, refuse these kinds of suits, and thusly stop messing with evolution.)

In counterpoint to this, however, I think swift self-destruction should not be allowed. Suicide, for instance, is a big one. The problem with allowing suicide is that, most of the time, the inclination to commit suicide is generated by a depression which is temporary. I bet there's a lot of ghosts floating around the day after their suicide going, "Man, I feel better. I wish I hadn't done that."
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of their afterlife, you know?

Assisted suicide, however, I would permit in certain cases--namely those with little chance of recovery or major improvement, when the current situation causes pain. No, you can't pull the plug because the relative is a drain on your finances. But yes, if Grandma is in constant pain and will never get better, let her decide and then abide by it.

See? I'm not completely evil.

The problem with cigarettes, though, is that they're not just self-destruction. Other people have to deal with the secondhand smoke. Plus, they smell nasty.

Generally, I look at this as, what's underlying the self-destructive behavior? Is it really a choice, like taking up smoking, or is it a mental illness, like major depression? Do you urge the guy on the bridge to jump? Generally not. Eating junk food in and of itself isn't necessarily self-destructive... it depends a lot on the rest of your lifestyle. What's self-destructive for some might be not for others (the use of pain killers, for example... it could be a Vicodin addiction; it could be a treatment for serious physical pain, like from cancer). Basically, this is one of those things that's so dependent on the individual situation that it's really hard for me to come down on one side or the other.

See, i have to jump in here and point out...
The first cigarette is self destructive. each after that is not, since they're practically involentary. I do not think every smoker should be allowed to die, because i tend to think that one stupid action that just happens to affect the rest of ones life isnt something that should be held against them.

i think cigarette companies that add addictive chemicals to their product to Enhance the adictiveness, however, should be outlawed.


As for Destructive Behaviors... i'd be more specific. I'd say destructive behaviors are those that are done purely for their destructiveness. Eating junk food is done not because its not good for you, but because it is a quick and easy (and sometimes tastey) way of satisfying hunger.
regularily slitting ones wrists would be an example of destructive behavior, though.

I think self destruction should be allowed under two conditions.

1) The person is fully and objectively informed about the harm that will come. (Like, somebody shouldn't be allowed to smoke until they fully understand the health risks of smoking).

2) The person is making the decision from a sane, rational mind.
(i.e. it's okay to stop people from committing suicide when they don't have any real reason, like a horribly painful disease, to do so)

Agreed. Or at least..they should have to put on the package 'ingredients have been added to make the cigarettes more addictive.'

But..if they did that, who'd buy them?

Hey, here's an idea. Make it so food and tobacco companies have to put a full list of their ingredients, and the purpose of each ingredient, on the label or at least available on their website. Hold them accountable for their ingredients, so they can't just throw in whatever they want for any purpose.

ooooh... i especially like the Purpose bit... i can read that a product has multidextro hydronate and monosoduim glutimate and dextros acid and phenalphaline, but it doesnt help me decide weather its good... if they put in "cuz it sounds good, preservative, flavor, to tell if the product has a basidic chemical ballence" then i'd be able to make a more educated descision.

Yeah, to bad that won't happen, because an educated consumer is a consumer who doesn't buy much. They will now that the majority of food sold in stores is junk loaded up with chemicals and stuff that they don't need in their bodies. Well it still would be nice to now what all those fancy chemicals are used for.

Isn't living self destructive? Ultimately, if what you breathe or eat or drink or have sex with doesn't kill you, then the act of living itself kills you.
Y'all gonna die. I'd rather live 70 happy years than 95 miserable ones.

I think I read somewhere that the best indicator of true life is pain. The reasoning was something like pain is needed so that the peaceful times in life are more prominent. I think pain is just a way of your body saying there is a problem but that is just my opinion.

well, crake, there is somethign to say for that... In my experience, the happyest people are those who live in the worst conditions. Especially in places where they are not alone in their poverty, other countries, for example... In thiland, so my father tells me, the people there are sometimes so poor their next meal is not in sight... and yet they are the happyest and friendlyest people you'll meet, for them, this is life, and everything that is Not tragedy must be a miracle.

there are many exceptions, of course, this rule seems to only apply in the vaugest of conditions. It would state that people born ritch are unhappy, and im sure many are, but i'd bet just as many are quite happy.

Remember kiddies, everything causes cancer. Not "somethings increase the risk of cancer", everything causes cancer. This includes:

Eating
Drinking
Breathing
Exercise
Waking up in the morning

And if it doesn't cause cancer, then it probably causes heart disease. Living, in particular, is well known to be one of the biggest risk factors in both heart disease and cancer. The longer you live, the greater the chance of heart disease or cancer.



Amen to that. Quality of Life is far more important than how long I get to live.