I was watching a Joe Scott video about the Somerton Man, and at one point he mentions it’s believed he just wanted to be forgotten.
I’ve met a lot of people who are like this. They feel too dysphoric about their life and are eager to see the day when their families all pass away or have memory loss so that the worst parts of their life aren’t in other peoples’ heads anymore. It’s sad.
There are a lot of things we consider rights by default. There’s a right to a burial. There’s a right to a last meal. There’s a right to a will. Some of these have people who philosophize about them but most are taken for granted.
Do you think there’s a right to be forgotten? How much do you validate it? What’s your reasoning?
I may be misunderstanding what you’re saying, but it absolutely is not an obligation to remember one’s family (unless we’re specifically talking about chosen family and not bio family). I have many friends who have been disowned, kicked out, physically/emotionally/verbally abused or even raped by their biological families as a result of being gay, trans, bi, pan or something else. It would be abusive and highly immoral to force them to keep their biological family in mind when making decisions.
They have no obligation to remember the trauma inflicted on them by their family members, except, perhaps, in a legal context against said family members; but once said legal context is fulfilled, they have no obligation to continue to remember. To state otherwise is to demand that they relive their past trauma, and for what? So their tormenter(s) can continue to torment them?
No. They have no obligation to continue to allow themselves to be tormented. Nor do they have any obligation to remember their biological families.
Now, if you’re talking about chosen family, then you might be onto something, but as long as their chosen family is taken care of and does not need assistance from them, should they not honor their loved one’s desire to one day be forgotten? Should they not allow the photos, keepsakes and whatnot that document a person’s life, someone else’s life, to be destroyed once they’re no longer in use by anyone? To do otherwise would be selfish; if I am going to die and my best friend wished to not be remembered, I would allow them to go through my things and remove themselves once I had passed. After all, it is unlikely I will remember them once I’ve hit my expiration date and my things will no longer be of any use to me. If they wish to purge themselves from my mementos, then they may do so.
The only exception I can think of is if someone was exceptional in some way. The kind of person who gets a paragraph or more dedicated to their life in a history book. In that specific case I believe they should be remembered, but done so respectfully; perhaps with a pseudonym.
In a legal sense, one cannot walk away from one’s minor children.
Also, in a situation like my life, a disabled person is unable to get fully independent levels of support if the disabled person has any living immediate family members. This is a big factor in why I am stuck in a limbo with my folks and why it will result in my homelessness and likely early death within the next decade if something does not change. My sister is practically homicidal towards me, but that relationship is a factor in claiming full disability support. These types of situations are one of the leading causes of so many homeless people in the USA. It is a major amoral loophole.
Those are the two situations I am intimately aware of that prevent the “right” from being unalienable. This is a very specific type of philosophical constraint. I believe you are arguing something entirely different from an emotional perspective. I agree with you in principal and totally empathize. I want to forget a lot of people. I am specifically saying that, the right-to-be-forgotten is not like the right-to-self-determination. There are exceptions and therefore the principal must be defined with more nuance. This is ALL I am saying. It has nothing to do with your argument. I totally agree with and support your position. All I am saying is that there are some edge case exceptions that must be morally and legally defined.