NationStates Jolt Archive

Under what circumstances do you think it is acceptable for one to take their life?

Under what circumstances do you think it is acceptable for one to take their life?

If you have children who are dependents, you need to make provisions for them before you kill yourself. You also don't get to take anyone with you. After that, I say have at it.

Under what circumstances do you think it is acceptable for one to take their life?

For me, personally, the only good reason is if my death would result in more lives being saved.

for anyone else? that's up to them.

Suicide? As in Cyianide pill, or as in charging a bunch of P.O.ed space marines with a stick suicidal?

If the death is inevitable, such as for someone who will die of illness and would prefer a quick, painless death, that would be the best way to go.

Under what circumstances do you think it is acceptable for one to take their life?

When life actually get so bad that it becomes worse then death.

:headbang: Keep trying you poor poor man

whenever someone has pissed off anyone enough that he decides a visit from a hit squad and a large sum of cash slipped to the investigators and the coroner are in order.

Ideally, if you are saving the lives of others.

Still, I have a hard time looking down on the generals of antiquity, who, when being overrun by the enemy, would fall on their own sword--or similar cases, such as Hannibal (poison) or his father (into a raging river).

I suppose an overlap of those cases would be that of Rommel, who died partially over the latter, military honor sort of concern and partially to spare his family, after the botched attempt on Hitler's life.

Why do you think you have to justify suicide?

Why do you think you have to justify suicide?

maybe an overdose of watching the 47 samurai finish the movie with their swards in their innards?

Potentially to save the life of someone else, depending on the circumstances. (For example, weather you can save more lives by living, weather the life your saving is a friend or family, etc).

sometimes there really is no other way, true it has to be one fel of a road to get there, but it is doable...to get yourself in enough that it is a legitamite route is what I would say to the general census, but I myself agree, why does anyone need to to justify suicide, If it is what one decides to do so be it. You can't stop one that is TRULY deadset on having it that way, and to do so goes against the natural order of things, people die, animals die, everything dies, but as it dies more is born, thats just the everlasting order of things, as a matter of fact In another sense of self control I salute theese people that kill themselves, because lets face it I don't have the balls to put a gun in my own face and pull the trigger, nor do many other people I think....

it is quite amazing what will can do...

To Posi: I'm not sure what you mean. Of course suicide requires a justification. Taking any life, including your own, will have massive effects on the world around you, even if you don't perceive them at first. Its about the most solum, serious, and momentous decision a person can make(partly due to its utter irreversability).

To Errikland: Why do people think so well of Rommel? He served a tyrant and murderer. In a perfect world no one would die, but he brought his end on himself in no small part.

:headbang: Keep trying you poor poor man

Was that a reference to me? Don't be silly. I don't plan on checking out anytime soon, I'm having too much fun.

To Posi: I'm not sure what you mean. Of course suicide requires a justification. Taking any life, including your own, will have massive effects on the world around you, even if you don't perceive them at first. Its about the most solum, serious, and momentous decision a person can make(partly due to its utter irreversability).

To Errikland: Why do people think so well of Rommel? He served a tyrant and murderer. In a perfect world no one would die, but he brought his end on himself in no small part.
Rommel was a military genius who wanted to overthrow Hitler.

For the most part, suicide is the ultimate cop-out. The two extreme exceptions I can think of are 1. you are terminally and painfully ill and 2. the suicide is in the form of a sacrifice for the benefit of others, as an example, a soldier throwing himself on a hand grenade to save others.

In another sense of self control I salute theese people that kill themselves, because lets face it I don't have the balls to put a gun in my own face and pull the trigger, nor do many other people I think....



It's not a matter of having the balls or not. It's a matter of being mentally ill or not. For example someone with depression while not depressed would never consider suicide(in most cases). When depressed that same person may spend a week or more coming up with what seems like perfectly reasons to put a gun to their head.

To Posi: I'm not sure what you mean. Of course suicide requires a justification. Taking any life, including your own, will have massive effects on the world around you, even if you don't perceive them at first. Its about the most solum, serious, and momentous decision a person can make(partly due to its utter irreversability).

"Massive effects?" Are you high? :p Unless your definition of "massive" is far different from mine, you're dreaming. No one's that important. And it's spelled "solemn."

As to suicide, there's no justification needed.

It's arrogance in the extreme to think that anyone can judge a person's mental state, evaluate the level of pain they are experiencing, and decide whether their suicide would be justifiable. You wouldn't tell a terminally ill person that their pain isn't great enough to warrant suicide; psychic pain is every bit as damaging for some people as physical pain. It's good to stop a suicidal person from acting on what your judgment tells you is a hasty impulse, if that's the case, but if they insist, that's their call.

It's not a matter of having the balls or not. It's a matter of being mentally ill or not. For example someone with depression while not depressed would never consider suicide(in most cases). When depressed that same person may spend a week or more coming up with what seems like perfectly reasons to put a gun to their head.

it's not just mental, but it can be physical. a person suffering from bone cancer, (Painful as far as I understand it) can choose to end his/her life to stop the pain. not a mental condition but a physical one.

the point someone determines to take their own life is at the point where they decide that they 'no longer can take it'. It has nothing to do with Balls, nor does it have anything to do with mental state.

Zombie Infection.

Zombie Infection.
*Infects with Lycanthropy* :D

*Infects with Lycanthropy* :D

Aww... and where am I gonna get silver at this time of night?

Suicide does not need justification.
Nobody is owed any explanations.
Though they can be nice.

Umm anytime.

"Massive effects?" Are you high? :p Unless your definition of "massive" is far different from mine, you're dreaming. No one's that important. And it's spelled "solemn."

As to suicide, there's no justification needed.

It's arrogance in the extreme to think that anyone can judge a person's mental state, evaluate the level of pain they are experiencing, and decide whether their suicide would be justifiable. You wouldn't tell a terminally ill person that their pain isn't great enough to warrant suicide; psychic pain is every bit as damaging for some people as physical pain. It's good to stop a suicidal person from acting on what your judgment tells you is a hasty impulse, if that's the case, but if they insist, that's their call.

Thank you. You saved me the trouble of posting a lengthy rant.

To the OP: Suicide needs no justification. Our lives belong to us, we can dispose of them as we please or as we judge best. I agree with the previously stated points that a suicide should make sure to put all their affairs in order, make sure dependents are seen to, and make sure that their means of death will not injure any bystanders, and also that a suicide's friends would do right to intervene if they feel the suicidal person is not making a sound judgment -- but then they should do that for any irrational harmful action, not just suicide.

To Posi: I'm not sure what you mean. Of course suicide requires a justification. Taking any life, including your own, will have massive effects on the world around you, even if you don't perceive them at first. Its about the most solum, serious, and momentous decision a person can make(partly due to its utter irreversability).
Um, sorry, no. No individual person is that important. All of us actually touch the lives of only a few other people who will feel a lasting difference to their lives when we are gone. Even world leaders whose deaths might cause dramatic shifts in major current events that affect many people, have that effect only for a short time -- then their government adjusts and business carries on as usual.

To Errikland: Why do people think so well of Rommel? He served a tyrant and murderer. In a perfect world no one would die, but he brought his end on himself in no small part.
What kind of crazy talk is that? How could it possibly be a perfect world if no one died?

How could it possibly be a perfect world if no one died?

Exactly - think how many damn relatives we would have to put up with.

I would say honor.
When a man is at risk of being captured by an enemy so loathsome and subhuman that it would lower him to associate with them as prisoner, then he must die to keep his dignity and help cause. No other reason.
A man who kills himself because of sadness or illness is weak. Life is to be lived, to be fought through, not to be thrown away like an old glove. I have seen children torn to pieces. That a man would kill himself over a tumor or a woman disgusts me.

Exactly - think how many damn relatives we would have to put up with.
Ugh, can you imagine? *shudders* There are a few people in this world that it would make me depressed to think they would never die and I would never be able to wear a red dress to their funeral.

If you have children who are dependents, you need to make provisions for them before you kill yourself. You also don't get to take anyone with you. After that, I say have at it.

I'm guessing you forgot pets, such as cats and dogs, with that. Or is it that you don't think that their lives mean something as well?

True story: Once while I was out, I ran into this lady who had a pet carrier with her. You see, someone she knew commited suicide but left behind a female cat with kittens. But (as I recall) the guy who owns the place now hates cats and is (maybe) planning on killing them.

So to correct that it should be "If you have 'any' form of dependents, you need to make provisions for them...", the rest is just fine. Still, in this day and age where there's way too many humans on this planet, it might be that suicide has become a nessisary evil. (T.T)

I would say honor.
When a man is at risk of being captured by an enemy so loathsome and subhuman that it would lower him to associate with them as prisoner, then he must die to keep his dignity and help cause. No other reason.
A man who kills himself because of sadness or illness is weak. Life is to be lived, to be fought through, not to be thrown away like an old glove. I have seen children torn to pieces. That a man would kill himself over a tumor or a woman disgusts me.
Well, that's very noble and strong. On the other hand, since death is inevitable for all living beings, I see no reason why people should not feel free to take control over their own deaths and choose their time and manner of going, if they want to.

Also, I see no reason why we should look down on people for choosing to leave this life just because they are not enjoying it. It may not be the decisions we'd make, but who cares what we think? Certainly not the dead. We may say life is to be lived, but how, why, or for how long are separate issues. And if death is a part of life (and I'd be interested if anyone could persuade me that the end of a story isn't part of the story), then surely dying one's death is part of living one's life.

Also, I can't help but note that, to my mind, choosing suicide because you can't stand the thought of being under the control of low, vile scum -- i.e. killing yourself out of pride -- is really not much different from killing yourself out of sadness or illness. In both cases, you are choosing to die rather than do something you consider unpleasant. If people suffering intense sorrow or severe illness are expected to just soldier through it and take whatever life hands them, why shouldn't you be expected to just suck it up and deal with whatever horrors your enemies might inflict on you? After all, life is to be lived, right?

Well, that's very noble and strong. On the other hand, since death is inevitable for all living beings, I see no reason why people should not feel free to take control over their own deaths and choose their time and manner of going, if they want to.

Also, I see no reason why we should look down on people for choosing to leave this life just because they are not enjoying it. It may not be the decisions we'd make, but who cares what we think? Certainly not the dead. We may say life is to be lived, but how, why, or for how long are separate issues. And if death is a part of life (and I'd be interested if anyone could persuade me that the end of a story isn't part of the story), then surely dying one's death is part of living one's life.

Also, I can't help but note that, to my mind, choosing suicide because you can't stand the thought of being under the control of low, vile scum -- i.e. killing yourself out of pride -- is really not much different from killing yourself out of sadness or illness. In both cases, you are choosing to die rather than do something you consider unpleasant. If people suffering intense sorrow or severe illness are expected to just soldier through it and take whatever life hands them, why shouldn't you be expected to just suck it up and deal with whatever horrors your enemies might inflict on you? After all, life is to be lived, right?

Yes, you are right, I was not thinking. My answer should have been: to save others. Only then. If I am captured by enemy, then if there is no risk I should talk and compromise life of others, I should live. Perhaps this is true. My comrades say, capture is worse than death, but maybe it is wrong. Hero's capture is better than coward's death. I shall talk to them about this.
But your argument it accepts that refusal to live through pain is cowardly, and insulting when so many die so young. Therefore: sometimes suicide is wrong.

Also, I can't help but note that, to my mind, choosing suicide because you can't stand the thought of being under the control of low, vile scum -- i.e. killing yourself out of pride -- is really not much different from killing yourself out of sadness or illness. In both cases, you are choosing to die rather than do something you consider unpleasant. If people suffering intense sorrow or severe illness are expected to just soldier through it and take whatever life hands them, why shouldn't you be expected to just suck it up and deal with whatever horrors your enemies might inflict on you? After all, life is to be lived, right?

Yes, you are right, I was not thinking. My answer should have been: to save others. Only then. If I am captured by enemy, then if there is no risk I should talk and compromise life of others, I should live. Perhaps this is true. My comrades say, capture is worse than death, but maybe it is wrong. Hero's capture is better than coward's death. I shall talk to them about this.
But your argument it accepts that refusal to live through pain is cowardly, and insulting when so many die so young. Therefore: sometimes suicide is wrong.

Well, that's very noble and strong. On the other hand, since death is inevitable for all living beings, I see no reason why people should not feel free to take control over their own deaths and choose their time and manner of going, if they want to.


Because almost 99% of the time, the decision is not an informed one but merely an emotive response to (almost always) temporary emotional stress. Everyone I have met who has considered attempting suicide has completely regretted that decision later in life. I don't think it's realistic to actually expect anyone to make a good decision regarding their own life most of the time, otherwise every time some young kid kills himself over being bullied (which can obviously be solved some other way) it would be seen as a legitimate decision.


Also, I see no reason why we should look down on people for choosing to leave this life just because they are not enjoying it. It may not be the decisions we'd make, but who cares what we think?

Certainly the friends and loved ones care very, very much about it. It is selfish to cause massive hardship and distress amongst people by taking the easy way out just because life has at the moment got you in the crapper.

Yes, you are right, I was not thinking. My answer should have been: to save others. Only then. If I am captured by enemy, then if there is no risk I should talk and compromise life of others, I should live. Perhaps this is true. My comrades say, capture is worse than death, but maybe it is wrong. Hero's capture is better than coward's death. I shall talk to them about this.
But your argument it accepts that refusal to live through pain is cowardly, and insulting when so many die so young. Therefore: sometimes suicide is wrong.
My argument accepts no such thing. It was YOUR argument that refusal to live through pain is cowardly, and I was pointing out that refusing to fall into the hands of your brutal enemies is the same thing -- it's just another way to refuse to live through pain. So IF refusal to live through pain is cowardly, according to you, then refusal to live through captivity is also cowardly.

Now, MY argument is that suicide is not a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of self-determination. We are the masters of our own lives and have the right to choose the course we take. If someone wants to choose death over pain and suffering, they have every right to do so. I will not judge them for it.

Personally, speaking only for myself, I enjoy living very much and would like to keep doing it for many more decades. However, when it's time to go, it's time to go. No point whining about it. I don't fear or dread my own death at all, and I hope it will be just as interesting an experience as all my other ones so far have been. However, I do reserve the right to commit suicide if I feel I need to in order to avoid certain kinds of suffering. There are a few deaths I would prefer to avoid the worst parts of -- top of that list is Alzheimer's disease, followed by certain very painful, very slow, incurable cancers, and some other (fortunately unlikely) conditions that could have me suffering significantly and being a burden on others for an extended time before I finally get let off the hook. In such cases, I consider it my right to end my own life while I am still in control of it. If I'm going to die, I may as well die the way I want to, right?

Now, MY argument is that suicide is not a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of self-determination. We are the masters of our own lives and have the right to choose the course we take. If someone wants to choose death over pain and suffering, they have every right to do so. I will not judge them for it.


I think you should reply to Hydesland, who have excellent point.

Because almost 99% of the time, the decision is not an informed one but merely an emotive response to (almost always) temporary emotional stress. Everyone I have met who has considered attempting suicide has completely regretted that decision later in life. I don't think it's realistic to actually expect anyone to make a good decision regarding their own life most of the time, otherwise every time some young kid kills himself over being bullied (which can obviously be solved some other way) it would be seen as a legitimate decision.
I already mentioned that, if friends think a person is irrationally or impulsively suicidal, then they are right to intervene. But I would hope they'd intervene if they thought a person was irrationally or impulsively doing anything that could be harmful to them -- like considering robbing a bank or betting on a horse race because they desperately need money right now, or running out and getting married just because they can't stand living with their parents anymore, or what have you.

But just because many people consider or attempt suicide for bad reasons, that does not mean that suicide itself is necessarily a bad thing or that it is only chosen for bad reasons. I stand on my opinion that there are good reasons to choose to end one's own life, alongside all the bad reasons.

Certainly the friends and loved ones care very, very much about it. It is selfish to cause massive hardship and distress amongst people by taking the easy way out just because life has at the moment got you in the crapper.
Everybody dies, and the impact on the loved ones will be devastating no matter whether the death is suicide, disease, old age, accident or murder. If there is a legitimate argument that it hurts our loved ones if we stay in a bad marriage "for the children," then how much worse will it be if we stay in a life in which we experience only misery and suffering and say we did it "for them"? Nice guilt trip there.

I think you should reply to Hydesland, who have excellent point.

Patience. I'm not a speed typist.

What I think is spectacularly unimportant. It's none of my business.

I think there are two kinds of suicide decision, the cold and the hot. The difference between me and Muravyets, I think the cold is not always right.
The hot is when person is overwhelmed by emotion. Obviously this bad, because when emotion passes person want to live.
I think a life is worth something beyond the value its bearer places upon it. Objectively, I think life is worth something. So if person comes up with bad reason to take life, in cold blood, in reason, then it is bad.
Suicide also hurts family more than a natural death. People blame himself for the suicide of another. No matter what person who kills self says, mother will blame herself, for instance. I know mothers like this, their child goes to fight and even though this is not suicide, they blame themselves, so when it is suicide, how bad must that be?

I already mentioned that, if friends think a person is irrationally or impulsively suicidal, then they are right to intervene. But I would hope they'd intervene if they thought a person was irrationally or impulsively doing anything that could be harmful to them -- like considering robbing a bank or betting on a horse race because they desperately need money right now, or running out and getting married just because they can't stand living with their parents anymore, or what have you.

But just because many people consider or attempt suicide for bad reasons, that does not mean that suicide itself is necessarily a bad thing or that it is only chosen for bad reasons. I stand on my opinion that there are good reasons to choose to end one's own life, alongside all the bad reasons.


Agreed, but then surely this would contradict your earlier assertion that 'people should be free to take their own life when they wish' because you clearly think that in some cases it would be a bad thing.


Everybody dies, and the impact on the loved ones will be devastating no matter whether the death is suicide, disease, old age, accident or murder.

We've had this conversation before I think, and again this is not actually the case. When someone dies of natural causes and especially if they die of old age, then it is not nearly as devastating. When my grandma died at around 89, my mother barely shed a tear, despite the two being quite close, if I were to commit suicide however, the distress caused would be a much higher order of magnitude.


If there is a legitimate argument that it hurts our loved ones if we stay in a bad marriage "for the children," then how much worse will it be if we stay in a life in which we experience only misery and suffering and say we did it "for them"? Nice guilt trip there.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, could you rephrase?

I think there are two kinds of suicide decision, the cold and the hot. The difference between me and Muravyets, I think the cold is not always right.
The hot is when person is overwhelmed by emotion. Obviously this bad, because when emotion passes person want to live.
I'm getting confused over the words "hot" and "cold," so bear with me, please.

If I understand you right, "cold" is when a person considers their options and then chooses to end their own life, and "hot" is when a person ends their own life in immediate response to an immediate problem. So "cold" would be a person is dying of cancer and they decide to end their life rather than go through the pain, and they pick their time and manner of death and set everything up in advance. And "hot" would be when a person is emotionally distraught and they just decide they can't stand it anymore and shoot themselves. Is that correct?

And you say that, in your opinion, the "cold" is not always right. Does that mean that sometimes you think it is right? After all, you said that, in a war, you might commit suicide rather than be captured in order to prevent your enemies from getting something from you that could put your comrades in danger, right? So that's a decision made "cold" (in advance of the fact). In what situations do you think such a "cold" decision would necessarily be wrong?

And you say that, in your opinion, the "hot" is always wrong because when they calm down they'll want to keep living. Of course, you don't actually know that. It might be true, or it might not. No one can know the mind of another.

Now, in my opinion, a person's life is theirs to do with as they please, even if they want to waste it. Seeing them do that would make me sad, but my feelings do not matter as much as theirs when it comes to their life.

So I think a "hot" (emotional, impulsive) decision to commit suicide is a bad decision, but I still refuse to judge the person as doing something wrong. It is a sad decision, and I may think it was a mistake, but I just do not believe that there is a moral right/wrong element in making mistakes. I would try to stop such a person, but I would not judge them, and if they later made the same decision in a "cold" state of mind, then I would not stand in their way.

I think a life is worth something beyond the value its bearer places upon it. Objectively, I think life is worth something. So if person comes up with bad reason to take life, in cold blood, in reason, then it is bad.
I don't think life has any intrinsic value of its own, beyond what the bearer places on it. Maybe it's because of my spiritual beliefs. I should say that any life we happen to be living at any given time has no more value than what we choose to give it. Our life is our own to do with as we will. The same goes for our death.

Suicide also hurts family more than a natural death. People blame himself for the suicide of another. No matter what person who kills self says, mother will blame herself, for instance. I know mothers like this, their child goes to fight and even though this is not suicide, they blame themselves, so when it is suicide, how bad must that be?
True, but people also blame themselves for their loved ones dying in accidents or of diseases. People often blame themselves for anything bad happening to those they love. Yes, sometimes, being aware of how it will affect the people they love if they die can stop someone from deciding "hot" to kill themselves. But if the decisions is being made "cold," then it is just one of many considerations.

Whenever the subject is not mentally ill. In no case, though, is it 'unacceptable' in the sense of morally wrong.

Rommel was a military genius who wanted to overthrow Hitler.

Eh, not really.

...Is that correct?

Yes.

And you say that, in your opinion, the "cold" is not always right. Does that mean that sometimes you think it is right? After all, you said that, in a war, you might commit suicide rather than be captured in order to prevent your enemies from getting something from you that could put your comrades in danger, right? So that's a decision made "cold" (in advance of the fact). In what situations do you think such a "cold" decision would necessarily be wrong?

In any place where person is suicide to help self rather than others. Such a decision is an insult to the living. I am not Muslim or Christian, but I believe in cowardice. A suicide for own sake is act of cowardice regardless of circumstances, and cowardice is bad in own right, not good. You have more points I know, I'm not speed typist either!

And you say that, in your opinion, the "hot" is always wrong because when they calm down they'll want to keep living. Of course, you don't actually know that. It might be true, or it not. No one can know the mind of another.

In this case when right when person calms down, choice is the same as would be made cold.

I don't think life has any intrinsic value of its own, beyond what the bearer places on it. Maybe it's because of my spiritual beliefs. I should say that any life we happen to be living at any given time has no more value than what we choose to give it. Our life is our own to do with as we will. The same goes for our death.

What DO you think is valuable, if not life?

True, but people also blame themselves for their loved ones dying in accidents or of diseases. People often blame themselves for anything bad happening to those they love. Yes, sometimes, being aware of how it will affect the people they love if they die can stop someone from deciding "hot" to kill themselves. But if the decisions is being made "cold," then it is just one of many considerations.

If so then other considerations must be strong, like in case where captured and so I may agree, but only if decision is selfless, not selfish.

Agreed, but then surely this would contradict your earlier assertion that 'people should be free to take their own life when they wish' because you clearly think that in some cases it would be a bad thing.
How does it contradict anything? It's merely a matter of seeing someone about to do something extreme and permanent and stopping to make sure they really, really want to do it, that they've thought it all out, considered all their options, etc., before committing to something they can't get a do-over for. And if someone is not in their right mind -- i.e. mentally ill, in the grip of extreme emotional distress, or too young to understand the consequences of actions -- then obviously, an intervention is appropriate in the case of suicide, just as it is in any other situation in which a person is deemed not competent to make a decision.

As TPC said earlier, and as I just said to Hutu Supremacy, if after intervention, cooling down, careful consideration, and determining that they are rational and understand the situation, they still want to die, then so be it, in my opinion. It's very sad, but it's their decision to make.

We've had this conversation before I think, and again this is not actually the case. When someone dies of natural causes and especially if they die of old age, then it is not nearly as devastating. When my grandma died at around 89, my mother barely shed a tear, despite the two being quite close, if I were to commit suicide however, the distress caused would be a much higher order of magnitude.
If you were to die in a car accident, or drop dead of a heart attack before you're 60 (like Tim Russert just did), or die painfully of a sudden and agressive cancer at age 32 (as a friend of one my friends did last week), then the stress suffered by your family would also be greater than if you passed away quietly in your 80s. Any sudden and unexpected loss, regardless of the cause, is going to be more shocking and stressful than one you were prepared for.

But in the case of suicide, what really is the cause of suffering for the survivors, that makes it more shocking than a death by natural causes? It seems to me it is not so much the manner of death, but the idea of how unhappy the person probably was before they died. If the suicide is sudden and unexpected, then the survivors might blame themselves for not noticing that unhappiness before the person got to the point of not wanting to live anymore. So it's not really the fact of death that is so upsetting about suicide, but rather the fear of the living that we let someone down, that we were blind to a problem in our midst, that the only reason the person chose death was because we failed to step up and offer any options.

Now compare that to a suicide of someone who made their decision rationally, in response to an unavoidable situation, such as someone who chooses suicide over the slow death of Alzheimer's disease. Surely such a suicide would not be more shocking than a natural death, if the family could bring themselves to accept the person's decision at all.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, could you rephrase?
I hope I can express this clearly.

Let's say someone I love is miserably unhappy in life. Say they are suffering an incurable illness or condition that is a constant burden to them and makes it impossible for them to enjoy anything. That they are merely suffering through what the poet Pope described as "this long disease, my life" (he had very bad health). And let's say they really, really did not want to continue with it, but they did because they didn't want to hurt me by killing themselves.

That would make me feel just horrible. I don't know if I could stand the guilt I would feel if I was the reason someone I cared about kept themselves trapped in suffering and misery. I would feel like the cause of their suffering. I would not want that. The idea of it would poison my life as well. No, if they really, truly cannot stand to continue living, then I would rather lose them and know they are no longer suffering, and deal with my own grief, than keep them by me and watch them be unhappy.

Yes.



In any place where person is suicide to help self rather than others. Such a decision is an insult to the living. I am not Muslim or Christian, but I believe in cowardice. A suicide for own sake is act of cowardice regardless of circumstances, and cowardice is bad in own right, not good.
I guess that's just the fundamental point at which our worldviews are different. I think people have a right to serve themselves. I don't consider a decision to die an insult to the living. And I don't think suicide for one's own sake is cowardly.

You have more points I know, I'm not speed typist either!
No problem. :) I'm enjoying this discussion very much. I'll try to address your next post now as well, but I will have to take a break to do some work today. I will come back later, though.

In this case when right when person calms down, choice is the same as would be made cold.
True.


What DO you think is valuable, if not life?
This is the toughest question so far. Maybe it's because I feel that I am being asked to assign value to things that I normally do not put on such a scale. What is life worth? What is death worth? What is truth worth? What is freedom worth? What is love worth? What is worth living for? What is worth dying for? Hell, while we're at it, what is the planet worth, what are the moon and sun worth, what is a quiet afternoon worth? Which of these things is worth more than any of the others?

What is valuable? Nothing. Everything. How can I choose?

How do we determine a thing is valuable? Do you mean valuable enough to live for? But I'm already living. If I do not die, I will go on living whether I have anything of value in my life or not. Since I was born, being alive has been my default state, so how does simply continuing to live express that I think something is valuable? Or do you mean valuable enough to die for, something I would put my life on the line to get or protect? But if you meant that, wouldn't it reduce the presumed value of life itself?

Could you rephrase the question, perhaps?

I could make an answer for this, but as you can see it will be difficult. I have to go do some work now. Hopefully, several hours spent thinking about something else will let my thoughts on this sort themselves out in my brain.

If so then other considerations must be strong, like in case where captured and so I may agree, but only if decision is selfless, not selfish.
Well, as I said in my previous post, I think people have a right to be selfish, in moderation. Selflessness is admirable, yes, but personally, I do not believe that other people exist to serve or support me, and that is why I will not presume to blame someone for doing something to serve themselves rather than me. Again, in moderation. In lots of things, like raising children, or organizing a society, we do need to think of others before ourselves, if only for purely practical reasons (if we choose to ignore issues of ethics). But when it comes to a person's own life -- well, I just can't bring myself to say that another person has to choose to continue living for my sake -- just like I can't bring myself to say that another person should choose to die for my sake.

There are lots of ways of being selfish. Expecting others to live for me is one kind of selfishness that I just don't have. However, I do have the selfishness that says I will decide to live or die for my sake, not for yours, and I respect you having the same power over your life, too.

I do not expect other to live for me, I expect other to live for themself. I expect them to realise value of their life. It is not really question of "I expect", question of what one should do.
I believe that life has an objective value of its own. It is the foundation of all morality.
That is why the Tutsis are so bad. Do you know what they did in the 80s?

I do not expect other to live for me, I expect other to live for themself. I expect them to realise value of their life. It is not really question of "I expect", question of what one should do.
But that is actually a question of what you expect others to do. It is an expectation that I personally don't think you have right to impose on others.

I believe that life has an objective value of its own. It is the foundation of all morality.
I'm sure it is the foundation of your morality. It is not the foundation of all morality, meaning everyone's morality, though. Some very moral belief systems do not value the continuation of life as an end in itself, but rather value the quality of a person's life more. Those are moral systems which believe that a person has a right to end their own lives.

That is why the Tutsis are so bad. Do you know what they did in the 80s?
Sadly, I have only a superficial knowledge of that war, just enough to know of the atrocities that were committed. Not enough to automatically know how it ties in with what you are saying on this topic.

I will come back to this thread later. Have a good day until then. :)

Suicide? As in Cyianide pill, or as in charging a bunch of P.O.ed space marines with a stick suicidal?

I charged my friend's 10 Chaos marines with two squads of Cadians.

They died heros.

there are three good answers, terminally ill, to save others, and the generic "other", three wrong ones, and one maybe (honor).

=^^=
.../\...

How does it contradict anything? It's merely a matter of seeing someone about to do something extreme and permanent and stopping to make sure they really, really want to do it, that they've thought it all out, considered all their options, etc., before committing to something they can't get a do-over for. And if someone is not in their right mind -- i.e. mentally ill, in the grip of extreme emotional distress, or too young to understand the consequences of actions -- then obviously, an intervention is appropriate in the case of suicide, just as it is in any other situation in which a person is deemed not competent to make a decision.


I think it should be more then a matter of competence, you can still be competent whilst making a bad decision.


As TPC said earlier, and as I just said to Hutu Supremacy, if after intervention, cooling down, careful consideration, and determining that they are rational and understand the situation, they still want to die, then so be it, in my opinion. It's very sad, but it's their decision to make.


I think there are very, very few circumstances barring terminal illnesses where committing suicide can ever be a rational decision.


If you were to die in a car accident, or drop dead of a heart attack before you're 60 (like Tim Russert just did), or die painfully of a sudden and agressive cancer at age 32 (as a friend of one my friends did last week), then the stress suffered by your family would also be greater than if you passed away quietly in your 80s. Any sudden and unexpected loss, regardless of the cause, is going to be more shocking and stressful than one you were prepared for.


And its GOOD to try and prevent these. You don't say, ahh forget about seatbelts, these things happen so there's no point in trying to stop it.


But in the case of suicide, what really is the cause of suffering for the survivors, that makes it more shocking than a death by natural causes? It seems to me it is not so much the manner of death, but the idea of how unhappy the person probably was before they died. If the suicide is sudden and unexpected, then the survivors might blame themselves for not noticing that unhappiness before the person got to the point of not wanting to live anymore. So it's not really the fact of death that is so upsetting about suicide, but rather the fear of the living that we let someone down, that we were blind to a problem in our midst, that the only reason the person chose death was because we failed to step up and offer any options.


So you're saying the fact that you will not ever see this person again does not come into this?


Now compare that to a suicide of someone who made their decision rationally, in response to an unavoidable situation, such as someone who chooses suicide over the slow death of Alzheimer's disease. Surely such a suicide would not be more shocking than a natural death, if the family could bring themselves to accept the person's decision at all.


Well obviously not all suicides are going to cause so much distress, I'm not trying to say that they all are.


Let's say someone I love is miserably unhappy in life. Say they are suffering an incurable illness or condition that is a constant burden to them and makes it impossible for them to enjoy anything. That they are merely suffering through what the poet Pope described as "this long disease, my life" (he had very bad health). And let's say they really, really did not want to continue with it, but they did because they didn't want to hurt me by killing themselves.

That would make me feel just horrible. I don't know if I could stand the guilt I would feel if I was the reason someone I cared about kept themselves trapped in suffering and misery. I would feel like the cause of their suffering. I would not want that. The idea of it would poison my life as well. No, if they really, truly cannot stand to continue living, then I would rather lose them and know they are no longer suffering, and deal with my own grief, than keep them by me and watch them be unhappy.

Again in this specific circumstance suicide may be a better option, however I'm not trying to generalise about every circumstance, I'm only explaining why suicide can be looked down upon, in the sense that in many circumstances the 'horrible' life they are living is hardly horrible at all compared to the ones in your example.

I would say honor.
When a man is at risk of being captured by an enemy so loathsome and subhuman that it would lower him to associate with them as prisoner, then he must die to keep his dignity and help cause. No other reason.
A man who kills himself because of sadness or illness is weak. Life is to be lived, to be fought through, not to be thrown away like an old glove. I have seen children torn to pieces. That a man would kill himself over a tumor or a woman disgusts me.

Then that's who it applies to because that's who it disgusts: YOU. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. When you start thinking that everyone else should agree with you, that's where I'll draw the line.

Yes.

In any place where person is suicide to help self rather than others. Such a decision is an insult to the living. I am not Muslim or Christian, but I believe in cowardice. A suicide for own sake is act of cowardice regardless of circumstances, and cowardice is bad in own right, not good. You have more points I know, I'm not speed typist either!

Again, that's your opinion. Personally, I can't see how someone in dire pain or waning mental faculties deciding to end their own life is an insult to ANYone, but you are, as I've already said, welcome to your opinion. I don't agree. The difference occurs when you or someone like you gather other who think the same way and try to impose your opinion on the rest of society.

I don't see you posting anything like that, so I maintain my respect for, if not agreement with, your opinion.

True.



This is the toughest question so far. Maybe it's because I feel that I am being asked to assign value to things that I normally do not put on such a scale. What is life worth? What is death worth? What is truth worth? What is freedom worth? What is love worth? What is worth living for? What is worth dying for? Hell, while we're at it, what is the planet worth, what are the moon and sun worth, what is a quiet afternoon worth? Which of these things is worth more than any of the others?

What is valuable? Nothing. Everything. How can I choose?

How do we determine a thing is valuable? Do you mean valuable enough to live for? But I'm already living. If I do not die, I will go on living whether I have anything of value in my life or not. Since I was born, being alive has been my default state, so how does simply continuing to live express that I think something is valuable? Or do you mean valuable enough to die for, something I would put my life on the line to get or protect? But if you meant that, wouldn't it reduce the presumed value of life itself?

Could you rephrase the question, perhaps?

I could make an answer for this, but as you can see it will be difficult. I have to go do some work now. Hopefully, several hours spent thinking about something else will let my thoughts on this sort themselves out in my brain.


Well, as I said in my previous post, I think people have a right to be selfish, in moderation. Selflessness is admirable, yes, but personally, I do not believe that other people exist to serve or support me, and that is why I will not presume to blame someone for doing something to serve themselves rather than me. Again, in moderation. In lots of things, like raising children, or organizing a society, we do need to think of others before ourselves, if only for purely practical reasons (if we choose to ignore issues of ethics). But when it comes to a person's own life -- well, I just can't bring myself to say that another person has to choose to continue living for my sake -- just like I can't bring myself to say that another person should choose to die for my sake.

There are lots of ways of being selfish. Expecting others to live for me is one kind of selfishness that I just don't have. However, I do have the selfishness that says I will decide to live or die for my sake, not for yours, and I respect you having the same power over your life, too.

Muravyets, you are an unintentional poet and speaker of beautifully crafted and experience tested truths, as I read them. Thank you.

I think it should be more then a matter of competence, you can still be competent whilst making a bad decision.
People are allowed to make bad decisions. If a person is competent to run their own lives, then it is not up to you or me to judge the quality of their decisions, no matter how much we might disagree with them. If they are hurting only themselves, and doing it knowingly and voluntarily, then no one else has anything to say about it.

I think there are very, very few circumstances barring terminal illnesses where committing suicide can ever be a rational decision.
That's your opinion. I think there can be other rational reasons too, even ones that I might completely disagree with.

And its GOOD to try and prevent these. You don't say, ahh forget about seatbelts, these things happen so there's no point in trying to stop it.
And? What does that have to do with my point, which was about the relative shock of a sudden, unexpected loss?

So you're saying the fact that you will not ever see this person again does not come into this?
Yes, essentially. The fact that I will miss them is a problem for me to deal with, not them.

I have known some teens who considered suicide due to emotional problems a few times in their lives, and they told me that what stopped them was thinking about how it would affect their families, who they loved. Eventually, with therapy, they got past those feelings. So in such cases, the potential suicide found a reason to live in the people around them and was able to get back on a path towards happiness.

But in other cases, there have been people who have had one family intervention after another, been in and out of therapy and hospitals, but who still eventually killed themselves. Clearly, the thought of the impact on their families was outweighed by whatever inner hell they were trapped in that drove them to want to escape life. Likewise, those who commit suicide because of extreme physical suffering may also find that their concern for their loved ones just isn't enough to keep them going in this life.

So, obviously, the fact that I will never see them again is not necessarily going to make a difference to the suicide. Therefore, my grief is something I will have to deal with, not something they will have to deal with.

Well obviously not all suicides are going to cause so much distress, I'm not trying to say that they all are.



Again in this specific circumstance suicide may be a better option, however I'm not trying to generalise about every circumstance, I'm only explaining why suicide can be looked down upon, in the sense that in many circumstances the 'horrible' life they are living is hardly horrible at all compared to the ones in your example.
It's legitimate to try to make a despondent person see that they don't have it as bad as some other people do, but just like the issue of my grief at their death, it may not mean much to them. We can't really judge the relative level of another person's suffering, and what may not seem so bad to some people may be intolerable to others.