Which should a person be able to do to themselves?

[Blue3]

Which should a person be able to do to themselves, legally and morally?

[dead0man]

All of the above....depending on the definition of slavery.

[Beet]

All except 1.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not a fan of any of this.

[Blue3]

All except 1.

Why is slavery the exception?

How is it different from signing a contract that says "this person is allowed to torture me however much they want, despite my pleas, I permanently give consent with this signature"?

[Beet]

All except 1.

Why is slavery the exception?

How is it different from signing a contract that says "this person is allowed to torture me however much they want, despite my pleas, I permanently give consent with this signature"?

Not allowed.

[Blue3]

All except 1.

Why is slavery the exception?

How is it different from signing a contract that says "this person is allowed to torture me however much they want, despite my pleas, I permanently give consent with this signature"?

Not allowed.

So then you'd vote against that too?

And why the exception for slavery, but not the others?

[Beet]

All except 1.

Why is slavery the exception?

How is it different from signing a contract that says "this person is allowed to torture me however much they want, despite my pleas, I permanently give consent with this signature"?

Not allowed.

So then you'd vote against that too?

And why the exception for slavery, but not the others?

Of course I would vote against that. That is tantamount to slavery. I thought the poll meant all of the others were done of free will.

[Blue3]

The initial action is free will, but then the decision can't be unmade. That's the common theme for all of them.

What's your reasoning?

[Beet]

In the other ones, the only reason the decision can't be unmade is because it's physically impossible. In the first one, it is actually possible to unmake the decision, but you're refusing the right of the person to do it. That's a violation of fundamental human rights, of course.

[Blue3]

In the other ones, the only reason the decision can't be unmade is because it's physically impossible. In the first one, it is actually possible to unmake the decision, but you're refusing the right of the person to do it. That's a violation of fundamental human rights, of course.

It's not possible to regret those other decisions after they're made, decisions in which a person has limited their own future choices and probably happiness?

[Beet]

In the other ones, the only reason the decision can't be unmade is because it's physically impossible. In the first one, it is actually possible to unmake the decision, but you're refusing the right of the person to do it. That's a violation of fundamental human rights, of course.

It's not possible to regret those other decisions after they're made, decisions in which a person has limited their own future choices and probably happiness?

Sure, they can regret it, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

[Blue3]

In the other ones, the only reason the decision can't be unmade is because it's physically impossible. In the first one, it is actually possible to unmake the decision, but you're refusing the right of the person to do it. That's a violation of fundamental human rights, of course.

It's not possible to regret those other decisions after they're made, decisions in which a person has limited their own future choices and probably happiness?

Sure, they can regret it, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

Exactly. The same thing as selling themselves into slavery. Once they've done in, they can't undo it.

[Beet]

In the other ones, the only reason the decision can't be unmade is because it's physically impossible. In the first one, it is actually possible to unmake the decision, but you're refusing the right of the person to do it. That's a violation of fundamental human rights, of course.

It's not possible to regret those other decisions after they're made, decisions in which a person has limited their own future choices and probably happiness?

Sure, they can regret it, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

Exactly. The same thing as selling themselves into slavery. Once they've done in, they can't undo it.

No it's not. Slavery can be undone, even if not by the person.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

People should be allowed to upload their minds onto computers.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Only the last 3.

[Blue3]

In the other ones, the only reason the decision can't be unmade is because it's physically impossible. In the first one, it is actually possible to unmake the decision, but you're refusing the right of the person to do it. That's a violation of fundamental human rights, of course.

It's not possible to regret those other decisions after they're made, decisions in which a person has limited their own future choices and probably happiness?

Sure, they can regret it, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

Exactly. The same thing as selling themselves into slavery. Once they've done in, they can't undo it.

No it's not. Slavery can be undone, even if not by the person.

But it's the same idea... all are about turning over some of your freedom, limiting your future options.

[Beet]

In the other ones, the only reason the decision can't be unmade is because it's physically impossible. In the first one, it is actually possible to unmake the decision, but you're refusing the right of the person to do it. That's a violation of fundamental human rights, of course.

It's not possible to regret those other decisions after they're made, decisions in which a person has limited their own future choices and probably happiness?

Sure, they can regret it, but there's nothing that can be done about it.

Exactly. The same thing as selling themselves into slavery. Once they've done in, they can't undo it.

No it's not. Slavery can be undone, even if not by the person.

But it's the same idea... all are about turning over some of your freedom, limiting your future options.

No, someone who has been tortured and freed has not lost any freedom.

[Blue3]

"ALLOWING themselves to be tortured"

[RFayette]

Honestly, when it comes to meaning of things like mind uploading and transhumanism, it's hard to envision what those things will really even mean, so I will reserve judgment until there are more specifics about what those technologies would actually entail, though the idea of human-animal hybrids definitely makes me nervous.

As far as the others, if someone takes their own life, then a law against suicide is useless, and slapping someone already under great duress with a criminal charge for an attempt seems morally unconscionable, but penalizing those who assist in suicide seems reasonable to me.  I have similar thoughts for those who are into self-harm, torture, or want to sell themselves into slavery, but those who broker such agreements and hurt the other "willing" party absolutely should be punished. 

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

All except 1.

[Blue3]

As far as the others, if someone takes their own life, then a law against suicide is useless, and slapping someone already under great duress with a criminal charge for an attempt seems morally unconscionable,

I'm also asking morally, not just legally.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Suicide can be very noble, e.g. Marcus Antonius.

[Kingpoleon]

1. is different because what if it's done for money?

[Blue3]

Any new thoughts?