A Right Of Self Discrimination David Velleman Summary
In his article, “A Right of Self-Termination?” J. David Velleman asserts that one should not end their life to make it better, since value should be placed in life itself and not how well it is actually going. The act of suicide involves the intentional termination of ones’ life, for the sole purpose of making life better on the whole.
Vellemans’ argument in denying the right to end one’s life includes that:
1. One should value their life over how well their life is actually going.
2. Ending one’s life to make it better values how well it’s going, over the life itself.
3. Therefore, one should not end their life to make it better.
To understand the concept of what is good for a person, Velleman uses another philosopher as an illustration. Stephen Darwalls argues that what is good for a person is what is rational to want for his sake. “To want something for the sake of a person is thus to want it out of concern for the person himself” (611). This argument continues to separate how one feels about their good, and how one feels about themself as a person. For example, when one does something mean or …show more content…
shameful, they begin to feel worthless a person. A person cannot judge his or her own value, as life is a fundamental value, independent of personal reflection on its’ value. Concern for one’s self would not matter if one’s life did not matter. So, one’s life is therefore still valuable independent of how well their life is actually going.
Velleman examines what constitutes a value in something.
Within its definition, value regards something to a certain level of importance or worth. “That is, for something to be valuable just is for it to be such as ought to be valued in some way” (609). For example, say someone bought a house with no intention of anyone living in it. Since a house is meant to be valued in that people reside within it, the actual purpose of the house is then misplaced. However, the value of the house is thus not gone, as it is still a house worth living in. “What’s good for a person is not a categorical value, any more than what’s good for a purpose” (611). Similarly, if an individual considered himself or herself worthless, it does not mean their life is not worth living. That is to say, life in itself is meant to valued, instead of placing value in the extent of how well it is
going.
According to Velleman, the choice between life and death is not left up to self-determination. Regardless of how satisfactory one believes their life is going, the life itself is still valuable. And without this autonomous right, people should not have the right to kill themselves.
Vellemans’ argument in denying the right to end one’s life includes that:
1. One should value their life over how well their life is actually going.
2. Ending one’s life to make it better values how well it’s going, over the life itself.
3. Therefore, one should not end their life to make it better.
To understand the concept of what is good for a person, Velleman uses another philosopher as an illustration. Stephen Darwalls argues that what is good for a person is what is rational to want for his sake. “To want something for the sake of a person is thus to want it out of concern for the person himself” (611). This argument continues to separate how one feels about their good, and how one feels about themself as a person. For example, when one does something mean or …show more content…
shameful, they begin to feel worthless a person. A person cannot judge his or her own value, as life is a fundamental value, independent of personal reflection on its’ value. Concern for one’s self would not matter if one’s life did not matter. So, one’s life is therefore still valuable independent of how well their life is actually going.
Velleman examines what constitutes a value in something.
Within its definition, value regards something to a certain level of importance or worth. “That is, for something to be valuable just is for it to be such as ought to be valued in some way” (609). For example, say someone bought a house with no intention of anyone living in it. Since a house is meant to be valued in that people reside within it, the actual purpose of the house is then misplaced. However, the value of the house is thus not gone, as it is still a house worth living in. “What’s good for a person is not a categorical value, any more than what’s good for a purpose” (611). Similarly, if an individual considered himself or herself worthless, it does not mean their life is not worth living. That is to say, life in itself is meant to valued, instead of placing value in the extent of how well it is
going.
According to Velleman, the choice between life and death is not left up to self-determination. Regardless of how satisfactory one believes their life is going, the life itself is still valuable. And without this autonomous right, people should not have the right to kill themselves.