Does anyone have a right to save you from yourself?
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
Well, if you consider that if you flip it to the negative, it becomes: When someone is making a serious mistake in their lives, something that could seriously hurt them emotionally or socially, or even physically, do they have the right to not having anyone being able to step in to save them from themselves?
... it sounds a little funny to consider it to be a "right" to be able to do, or to be able to not have it done.
Basically the issue is of whether or not it is ethical to go against what may be someone's wishes or choices (which could range from spur-of-the-moment wishes, to sustained lifelong wishes), when you subjectively believe they could be harming themselves and therefore it is more "helpful" to them to prevent them from carrying out these wishes/choices of theirs, yes?
I don't know. In my opinion it's an inherent part of human nature, for people to want to do certain things, and for others to force their own will on them for sympathetic reasons or not, and it's something that's always happened. Mothers constantly try to "correct" their children's behaviour, and people always try to guide one another to make "better" choices. I don't really understand what the purpose of labelling something as a "right" or not, would be.
... it sounds a little funny to consider it to be a "right" to be able to do, or to be able to not have it done.
Basically the issue is of whether or not it is ethical to go against what may be someone's wishes or choices (which could range from spur-of-the-moment wishes, to sustained lifelong wishes), when you subjectively believe they could be harming themselves and therefore it is more "helpful" to them to prevent them from carrying out these wishes/choices of theirs, yes?
I don't know. In my opinion it's an inherent part of human nature, for people to want to do certain things, and for others to force their own will on them for sympathetic reasons or not, and it's something that's always happened. Mothers constantly try to "correct" their children's behaviour, and people always try to guide one another to make "better" choices. I don't really understand what the purpose of labelling something as a "right" or not, would be.
That's hard to say. On the one hand if people were to be left alone entirely, they could very well make irreparable mistakes and lose something important, like their health or their opportunities. It is likely that others can sometimes see aspects of a situation that we cannot, and therefore are in a good position to act on our behalf. If they are people we trust, then there should be no internal conflict, for example if the "rescuer" in question is your spouse, your sibling or your parent.
On the other hand, you should in theory be able to oppose any outside interference by virtue of you being an individual, with free will. (This is assuming free will exists of course - if not, that's an entirely different philosophical debate, Lol). As an individual with free will, and assuming all perspectives are equal, your vision of how things should be is equally as valid as anyone else's, and how you want to live your life should be your choice, whether or not it is sanctioned by other people.
In practice, your choice may not be a choice at all, it could be tainted by influences you haven't personally chosen or even considered. Additionally, life inherently carries with it an element of inflexibility; it isn't your choice to be born, to be a certain age, etc. This isn't to condone the acts of a potential "rescuer", but merely to highlight that sometimes "non choice" can come in the form of other people. It is also undeniable that certain acts of others that we don't chose sometimes benefit us, the most obvious being those of our parents during our formative years. Then again, what others perceive to be of benefit to us may in fact be the opposite, given that we all see the world in slightly different ways, and opinions are not formed in a vacuum but through social collaboration.
In my opinion, others don't legitimately have a right to save you from yourself or prevent your "mistakes". Sometimes mistakes can be beautiful, you know? Even blessings in disguise. In life, outcomes are often unknown, and happiness can be found in unlikely places.
On the other hand, you should in theory be able to oppose any outside interference by virtue of you being an individual, with free will. (This is assuming free will exists of course - if not, that's an entirely different philosophical debate, Lol). As an individual with free will, and assuming all perspectives are equal, your vision of how things should be is equally as valid as anyone else's, and how you want to live your life should be your choice, whether or not it is sanctioned by other people.
In practice, your choice may not be a choice at all, it could be tainted by influences you haven't personally chosen or even considered. Additionally, life inherently carries with it an element of inflexibility; it isn't your choice to be born, to be a certain age, etc. This isn't to condone the acts of a potential "rescuer", but merely to highlight that sometimes "non choice" can come in the form of other people. It is also undeniable that certain acts of others that we don't chose sometimes benefit us, the most obvious being those of our parents during our formative years. Then again, what others perceive to be of benefit to us may in fact be the opposite, given that we all see the world in slightly different ways, and opinions are not formed in a vacuum but through social collaboration.
In my opinion, others don't legitimately have a right to save you from yourself or prevent your "mistakes". Sometimes mistakes can be beautiful, you know? Even blessings in disguise. In life, outcomes are often unknown, and happiness can be found in unlikely places.
How can you possible say if something will be a mistake, when it has not yet happened?
Say you do know for certain that what is about to happen will turn out in a bad way, then it should be everybody's (who can say for certain that what is happening is harmful) responsibility to stop that individual from hurting them self. But how you get to be certain, I don't know!
If you pick the question a part like this, you would also get the question "does someone have the right to overrule another individual?"
Say you do know for certain that what is about to happen will turn out in a bad way, then it should be everybody's (who can say for certain that what is happening is harmful) responsibility to stop that individual from hurting them self. But how you get to be certain, I don't know!
If you pick the question a part like this, you would also get the question "does someone have the right to overrule another individual?"
Saving someone from themselves isn't something that I think is possible without the persons cooperation (other than maybe physically...like if I were to be on a ledge about to jump and you pulled me back or made me land on an airbag or something...)
Attempting to save people from themselves, or showing them paths they could take, I think is a part of human nature in caring for others. Showing concern, giving options, conversing in such a way as to have the person really consider what they are doing, are things I'd feel negligent if I didn't do.
Only you can save yourself. Looking at the question very generally...I refer back to my first comment. That's what friends are for. If you see your friend doing something worrying or something that's potentially going to hurt them, it's only right a close friend should maybe question them. Isn't this one of the reasons we have support networks?
You can't really save someone that doesn't want to be saved most of the time, that much I have learned in the past two years of trying with a few people.
As for the moral specifics of trying to do so, if you have ongoing relationships with people that love and care for you, if is my view that you have a responsibility not to do things that would hurt them unnecessarily, including particularly self-destructive behavior. If that person were to do something terrible to themselves, it would adversely effect those they have emotional bonds with. So in my view of things, if you're truly alone in the world, your freedoms are yours entirely to be as bad to yourself as you please, but if you choose to have personal relationships with those around you, you have a responsibility to them to be good to them and yourself, for their sake if not for yours.
As for the moral specifics of trying to do so, if you have ongoing relationships with people that love and care for you, if is my view that you have a responsibility not to do things that would hurt them unnecessarily, including particularly self-destructive behavior. If that person were to do something terrible to themselves, it would adversely effect those they have emotional bonds with. So in my view of things, if you're truly alone in the world, your freedoms are yours entirely to be as bad to yourself as you please, but if you choose to have personal relationships with those around you, you have a responsibility to them to be good to them and yourself, for their sake if not for yours.
I agree with the people who said "that's what friends are for"
And I agree that it is something a person must do for themselves, if they are engaging in destructive behavior and must stop
I think in some cases a reasoable person could argue that they must step in because it is their responsibility, or because the self-destruction is becoming destructive to innocent bystanders.
I also think it is dangerous to try to do too much saving of other people because 1. sometimes it pisses them off and 2. sometimes people take it way too far, for example the father trying to "save" his gay son by "beating the gay out of him" or some similarly extreme and harsh examples. Ther's a line there that is hard to see sometimes where "saving" someone turns into "being a cruelly controlling despot with no regard for individual choice or constitution"
Last edited:
In the same way that an individual has obligations towards their community, I think the community has obligations towards the individual. When an individual is putting themselves in peril either by mistake or on purpose I do think the community is in the responsibility to help the individual, or as you said "save" them from themselves. I think human life and the condition and dignity of that life should be preserved and protected, even if its from the individual who owns that life.
I am thinking of extreme conditions here; suicide, gambling, drug abuse, disease, etc.
That being said, I am of the opinion that just because someone wants to help and save someone that doesn't make them the right person to help. There has to be proper knowledge, skill and training involved. The intention is commendable, but the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
I am thinking of extreme conditions here; suicide, gambling, drug abuse, disease, etc.
That being said, I am of the opinion that just because someone wants to help and save someone that doesn't make them the right person to help. There has to be proper knowledge, skill and training involved. The intention is commendable, but the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
I think this is about more than rights. But in a nutshell, I don't think someone can be saved without being open to it on some level. In that sense, it seems more like an instance of trying to help the individual think about the situation in a broader way than they may have done so thus far. The rest, if they are a capable adult, is up to them. Short of restraining someone (locking them up, drugging them, etc., and I'm not suggesting this is necessarily an appropriate course of action) there really is nothing we can do to stop someone from exercising whatever is going on in their mind. So, guide? Yes. Save? Not really. But sometimes guidance seems like saving, and perhaps some might say it is.
I assume anyone who is considered to be saved is someone cared for, and someone who has put some effort into making others care for him/her.
With this comes a responsibility to maintain this bond since breaking it will cause pain for others.
At this point you've essentially signed a mutually beneficial contract. Breaking it would only be selfish.
With this comes a responsibility to maintain this bond since breaking it will cause pain for others.
At this point you've essentially signed a mutually beneficial contract. Breaking it would only be selfish.
it was meant to be an open question so that many perspectives could be explored. It wasn't meant to have a black and white answer. It was more of a discussion question.
Yes, because of the law of free will. The person hearing them doesnt have to listen. The person hearing also has a right to make the person stop, or stop interaction. The person suggesting may or may not be doing the right thing, but who's the judge?
That could very well be the person suggesting.
Last edited: