Should people give in to hunger strike?

[Lupu]

Hunger strike is basically harming yourself, hoping that people will feel so bad about you that they listen to you. From an objective point of view, should people listen to it. What about your own morals and empathy?
Objectively, the only thing hunger strike has going for it is that it proves some people are really committed to their cause. Objectively, it is also the same as people threatening to blow themselves up or jump off a bridge if you don't listen. Now that's ridiculous, right? But most people can't watch others suffer, that's the main strong point.
The problem I have with it is that it seems like people who hunger strike try to make others feel guilty as if it's the other people's fault that they hurt themselves. Why should people listen to that? Aren't those people just crazy like those who blow themselves up or jump off bridges, too? Nobody can do something to themselves and assume it will be taken as someone else's guilt.

[Elfdude]

The way I see it, the purpose of a hunger strike is to A. Show conviction or B. Elicit pity. With the Indians they won their independence through the use of the liberal media of the British. By gaining the support of the British civilians the British military was paralyzed to restore control, many soldiers had no desire to help restore control. As with the American Revolution the British didn't lose the war to superior numbers, equipment or technology, but simply to public relations. Commanders during the American revolution found it appalling what they were doing to people in the name of the motherland. Many commanders purposely avoided conflict with the revolutionary armies despite both having the opportunity and power to squelch it. The Americans won their argument not through force, although demonstrating they were willing to do so helped drive home the point, but through an appeal to morality.

So is it wrong to manipulate someone into feeling guilt, empathy or compassion for you or your cause? Perhaps, but it's not necessarily the action itself that is right or wrong but rather the motivation and the resulting action. By appealing to morality Ghandi saved a lot of lives on both sides. I would say it's not inherently wrong to draw attention to yourself or your cause through spectacle, however what you do with that attention is a far more important moral question.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I think using it as a tool to evoke guilt/sympathy is wrong, but as a sign of conviction to the cause it's more acceptable. More acceptable, not acceptable.

[Habelo]

Well, if u give in. It stops being funny...

[Squiggle]

Do people actually feel guilty when they cause others to hunger strike? I know I've never been concerned for their welfare, but then again I was never an involved party. It hardly seems like it would be useful tactic from the outside observer, though.

[Col. Tartleton]

Let them eat cake!

Its basically a strawman.

A: You're wrong!
B: No I'm not.
A: I won't eat until you admit you're wrong.
B: I'm not wrong.
A: I'm dying because of you.
B: You're dying because you're an idiot.

[Dr. Oza]

its used to attract attention

oh hey .. look at this... something must be going on so bad that this dude is prepared to starve himself in protest

[Ciabhán]

Yes and no.

The point isn't to elicit sympathy so much as it to draw attention to a particular cause or wrong. If the cause is just or the wrong is truly wrong then those who care about such things should move to right the issue. On a personal level no.

[Boer]

In part it depends on who's doing the hunger strike, who he's targeting, why and his other alternatives.
Take Gandhi, not only did he use it against the British, but he also used it to try and stop violence among Indians. The latter had more impact because it was his people he was targeting, people who cared and respected him.
Hunger strikes tend to be used as an escalation of non-violent protest when the protesters feel that they have the moral high ground and/or lack other options. I guess the thinking by the hunger striker is that, deep down, the other side knows they (other side) are in the wrong and will not allow someone to die over it and/or it will motivate the strikers followers and/or motivate the neutral observers to take action, hopefully (in the striker's thinking) to pressure the other side.

[Mr. Crow]

let them die, on their own free will.

[Monarchist]

If someone is hunger-striking outside my headquarters for a wonderfully successful company that manufactures life-saving drugs by killing some rats, I would never give in to the activist's cruel emotional manipulation of the public. The same would apply to a hunger-striker who was protesting our production of D.D.T., or some other noble thing which improves the conditions of human life on Earth. Very often, these protesters have a terrible misconception about the thing they're dying for. I'd rather go out and talk with them than let them starve to death or give in. Perhaps that way I'd convince them that they're wrong.

Hunger strikers who are doing it for publicity and stupid nationalist ends (such as Indian "freedom"; hah) are to be given a staunch warning that you will not give in. If they ignore you and continue, the guilt is on their heads. Be kind, quiet, and charitable to the strikers, though, for they are not of sound mind and deserve soft treatment.

[Viking Prince]

If someone is hunger-striking outside my headquarters for a wonderfully successful company that manufactures life-saving drugs by killing some rats, I would never give in to the activist's cruel emotional manipulation of the public. The same would apply to a hunger-striker who was protesting our production of D.D.T., or some other noble thing which improves the conditions of human life on Earth. Very often, these protesters have a terrible misconception about the thing they're dying for. I'd rather go out and talk with them than let them starve to death or give in. Perhaps that way I'd convince them that they're wrong.

Hunger strikers who are doing it for publicity and stupid nationalist ends (such as Indian "freedom"; hah) are to be given a staunch warning that you will not give in. If they ignore you and continue, the guilt is on their heads. Be kind, quiet, and charitable to the strikers, though, for they are not of sound mind and deserve soft treatment.

There is a difference between a hunger strike and a fast. The idiots on the sidewalk not eating to protest whatever while a camera rolls are fasting. You cannot hunger strike for a predetermined period of time (such as one week) or with some provision to slip in some nourishment (such as not eating meat). These are fasts.

A true hunger strike is an individual showing conviction to change a process at the risk of death. Ghandi has already been mentioned. I would like to add the Vietnamese Buddhist monks self immolation in protest of the war are another form of this style of protest (though much quicker and more certain of death).

Yes, the purpose is publicity. That does not detract from the seriousness of the issues. It also does not prejudge the merits of the issues. It hopefully gets attention. Serious thoughtful attention is often needed to change many ills of the this world. A hungary strike is a very slow process. Sometimes it takes time to persuade. Sometimes it takes a dramtic act to achieve change.

Personally, I know that the Buddhist monks changed some of my attitudes about the civil war in Vietnam. As for the ALF member on a fast against animal testing -- meh! Offer them some gasolene and a Bic lighter. Now that would be protesting with sincere conviction to change the world.