NationStates Jolt Archive

What are y'alls thought on suicide? Personally I can see why people would consider suicide, and in some cases carry it out. I mean when you're in a really bad place, you sometimes don't think there's a light at the end of the tunnel, or that it's not going to get any better. Of course in some cases, the person is terminally ill and they want to end their suffering.

I guess I can see where they're coming from because I've been there, and I've actually attempted suicide twice. Hell I even wrote a song about me committing suicide (which got me a one way ticket to the shrink's office...). I know life is temporary, and we're all going to die sooner or later, but I just think that sometimes people's lives just suck so much, why bother even living?

thoughts?

I consider it selfish. There is generally more that you can do. and I've been there myself

thoughts?

Unemployment solutions abound.

I consider it selfish. There is generally more that you can do. and I've been there myself

I've been there myself, and I don't consider it selfish...I consider it cowardly. You're not the first person to have life deal you a shit hand...suck it up.

I couldn't commit suicide if my life depended on it!

From the Great Sage: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RB0QthYSJfU

It's a right. It's not selfish, It's an option that some people have to take.

I don't consider it selfish, nor cowardly. It's every being right to terminate it self. You don't have to suck it up or carry on if you don't feel like you are able to, after all.

Suicide is Painless (Theme from M*A*S*H*) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp06zg8f-Xg

Through early morning fog I see,
Visions of the things to be,
The pains that are withheld for me,
I realize and I can see...

[REFRAIN]:
That suicide is painless.

It brings on many changes.

And I can take or leave it if I please.

I try to find a way to make,
All our little joys relate,
Without that ever-present hate,
But now I know that it's too late, and...

[REFRAIN]

The game of life is hard to play,
I'm gonna lose it anyway.
The losing card I'll someday lay,
So this is all I have to say.

[REFRAIN]

The only way to win is cheat,
And lay it down before I'm beat,
And to another give my seat,
For that's the only painless feat.

[REFRAIN]

The sword of time will pierce our skins.
It doesn't hurt when it begins.
But as it works its way on in,
The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but...

[REFRAIN]

A brave man once requested me,
to answer questions that are key.
Is it to be or not to be?
And I replied 'Oh why ask me?'

[REFRAIN]
'Cause suicide is painless.

It brings on many changes.

And I can take or leave it if I please.

...And you can do the same thing if you choose.

EDIT: Having shared the important message above, let me contribute something else to the conversation. More than 90 percent of people who die by suicide have depression and other mental disorders, or a substance-abuse disorder (often in combination with other mental disorders). So there isn't really much need for moral labeling of "cowardly" or "selfish." Most suicide is irrational.

Suicide will just lead to them being reinacarnated in a life similar to the one they were just in... or worse.

Hideki Tōjō did it wrong :/

Unemployment solutions abound.



I've been there myself, and I don't consider it selfish...I consider it cowardly. You're not the first person to have life deal you a shit hand...suck it up.
That's really how I look at it. I had a bad year that pushed me to it, but then, this year has been the worst of my life....and really, I now see that the bad times are what has made me the person I am.

I don't consider it selfish, nor cowardly. It's every being right to terminate it self. You don't have to suck it up or carry on if you don't feel like you are able to, after all.

Oh, I don't say that it isn't every persons right. That doesn't make it not selfish, however.

Oh, I don't say that it isn't every persons right. That doesn't make it not selfish, however.

Same here...suicide is a right, but that's not going to change my viewpoint that it's cowardly, just as it's not changing your viewpoint that it's selfish.

well noo, its perfectly possible that ye may run into a situation where something is worth more ta yer self then yer life, an that's one thing, boot throwin it all away don't seem like much of a plan.

i suppose choosin one way of dyin over another, when it comes to that, well that's one thing too.

as for expecting anyone to be moved by the ultimate bit of drama, well, ya know, ya just can't always count on that either.

so either way, there's not anything to be gained by it, cept maybe one time in a million zillion.

now i think its crazy to tell someone they don't have a right to do it, but its not a very considerate thing to do, generally either. to just oop an dee.

not an leave a mess for someone else to have ta clean up after. that's the main thing, one of them.

you know thoughtlessness is what's got things screwed up as it is.

what creates those incentives, kind of around the corner that people don't want to realize or admit to themselves, that keeps things that way in the first place.

we all of us togather create what we each of us alone experience, which is why it might seem hopeless sometimes, but every example each of us sets means something to. not dramatically in any one other person's reaction to it, but in ways that are at once both more subtle then that, but also more all pervasive.

that might be hard to see, but that IS a statistical function, so what you can expect to see, you can't expect to see any one particular place where you might wish to.

Same here...suicide is a right, but that's not going to change my viewpoint that it's cowardly, just as it's not changing your viewpoint that it's selfish.

I've said this one before, but here goes agian. It is the right of every individual to decide what to do with their own lives, including ending it at a tine of their own chooseing.

Is it selfish? No more than decided on other aspects of which path to take your life is, and so no more selfish then the disicion to take job A over job B, you do both for your own reasosns and benifit.

Is it cowardly? Shit no. Is it cowardly to contemplate taking that one action that you know will cause great upset for your loved ones, but then decideing to still do it anyway? I would say that is brave in the extreame.

I guess I can see where they're coming from because I've been there, and I've actually attempted suicide twice. Hell I even wrote a song about me committing suicide (which got me a one way ticket to the shrink's office...). I know life is temporary, and we're all going to die sooner or later, but I just think that sometimes people's lives just suck so much, why bother even living?

Maybe you like more the idea of suicide than suicide itself, don't you?

Anyway: I think that suicide is everybody's right. Yea. One's own life if one's own to dispose, according to his ideals/values/beliefs/needs whatever. I'm not "forcing" suicide on whomever, but if someone wants to end his life, well, he should be allowed to do so.

Anyway, why bother living when life sucks? Usually, because when you've reached the bottom, you can only climb, and life can be fun and interesting.
Of course, in some situations, one knows he's just going to dig...

Btw, I considered suicide myself quite often, then I found a good psychiatrist-psychanalist AND a wonderful fiancee. I don't consider suicide anymore.

As cat tribe said, most the time it is irrational. It is dying from an illness -do you condemn people from dying of cancer? And the people who have the romanticised ideas of suicide and self harmers are all likely to attempt it but not do enough to kill themselves. Supposedly it is subconciously deliberate; an extreme cry for help.

I consider it selfish. There is generally more that you can do. and I've been there myself

So why is it selfish?

Suicide is usually because of a mental imbalance.

Suicide is usually because of a mental imbalance.

That explains the kamikazes, eh?

....hentai, bukkake, and selling used school-girl's panties in vending machines....


There is much about the Japanese people I respect, but there is much I look at and consider cultural insanity.

....hentail, bukkake, and selling used school-girl's panties in vending machines....


There is much about the Japanese people I respect, but there is much I look at and consider cultural insanity.

the tentacles...

I considered suicide long ago. I decided that I would not give up on life.

So why is it selfish?

Acting without consideration of how that will inevitably impact others is pretty much the definition of selfish, no?

And even if the impact is considered, the action is still taken solely for the benefit of self.

This isn't inherently bad, mind you. Being selfish isn't always negative. Suicide also isn't always selfish...but often, it is.

I consider it selfish. There is generally more that you can do.

This.

Isn't it a bit presumptuous to pass judgment on whether someone else's life is, or is not worth living? Charges of cowardliness and selfishness are asinine. Suicide is, and only the person concerned may judge whether or not it is an option for them.

Isn't it a bit presumptuous to pass judgment on whether someone else's life is, or is not worth living? Charges of cowardliness and selfishness are asinine. Suicide is, and only the person concerned may judge whether or not it is an option for them.

I didn't say it wasn't an option. I said it's a selfish one. Many decisions one makes are selfish...this being no different.

I didn't say it wasn't an option. I said it's a selfish one. Many decisions one makes are selfish...this being no different.

Wouldn't one be selfish to demand from someone who finds his own life unbearable/not worth living, to not end it. And since when does anyone owe anyone else to stay alive?

And since when does anyone owe anyone else to stay alive?
When one has dependents?

When one has dependents?

Arguable. Especially since this isn't the 1800s. It is fair to say that while a parent committing suicide will hurt his offspring's chances, it would not compromise them, and since he has been providing all those chances to begin with, unconditionally, I don't see how the offspring would have a recourse to criticism.

only the person concerned may judge whether or not it is an option for them.

Just to be pedantic, why?

Arguable. Especially since this isn't the 1800s. It is fair to say that while a parent committing suicide will hurt his offspring's chances, it would not compromise them, and since he has been providing all those chances to begin with, unconditionally, I don't see how the offspring would have a recourse to criticism.
Becasue a parent's suicide may affect them in more ways than in their chances in life?

Just to be pedantic, why?

Because only they are in a position to judge whether or not their life is worth living, only they understand their own misery, only they can evaluate their chances of improvement to any reasonable degree (even though not to any certain extent), and only they know whether they can morally justify that act to themselves, according to whatever notion of morality they hold?:$

Wouldn't one be selfish to demand from someone who finds his own life unbearable/not worth living, to not end it. And since when does anyone owe anyone else to stay alive?
Did I say anything about demanding that someone stay alive? Yes, that would be selfish. There's nothing that says there can't be more than one selfish act.

And yes, we do owe it to our dependents and loved ones.

Becasue a parent's suicide may affect them in more ways than in their chances in life?

So? Why does a parent owe the continuing providing of emotional services for the rest of his life, just because he has already done all that unconditionally so far? By that reasoning parents also owe their children to never die, just to make sure they don't get a bit sad.

only they understand their own misery

Well, perhaps they don't. Perhaps they think their misery is permanent or even deserving etc... While Jimmy the neurologist realises that his misery is a result of a chemical imbalance, which could be treated. Perhaps Jimmy understands his misery better in this case? (by his I don't mean Jimmy himself)


, only they can evaluate their chances of improvement to any reasonable degree (even though not to any certain extent)

Again, I'm skeptical about the idea that it's impossible for anyone but the suffering agent to know, like with the example above.


, and only they know whether they can morally justify that act to themselves, according to whatever notion of morality they hold?:$

Sure, but so what?

Did I say anything about demanding that someone stay alive? Yes, that would be selfish. There's nothing that says there can't be more than one selfish act.

So between two selfish acts, the one that involves a choice that concerns only oneself is the more unacceptable one?

And yes, we do owe it to our dependents and loved ones.

I beg to disagree, as per the other responses. We might choose to avoid committing suicide, so that loved ones don't suffer, but we hardly owe it to them.

So? Why does a parent owe the continuing providing of emotional services for the rest of his life, just because he has already done all that unconditionally so far?
I'm not saying "a parent owe[s] the continuing providing of emotional services for the rest of his life", just that if one has a dependent (N.B. not a child, a dependent), then an argument could be made that it would be immoral to discount that dependent's needs (physically and psychologically) when deciding whether or not to commit suicide.

So? Why does a parent owe the continuing providing of emotional services for the rest of his life, just because he has already done all that unconditionally so far? By that reasoning parents also owe their children to never die, just to make sure they don't get a bit sad.
There is a distinct difference between willingly taking ones own life by choice and dieing by causes beyond ones control. To claim otherwise is dishonest.
So between two selfish acts, the one that involves a choice that concerns only oneself is the more unacceptable one?
A) In the vast majority of cases, suicide does not only impact the person who does it.
B) I never said it was at all acceptable to demand that someone else stay alive.



I beg to disagree, as per the other responses. We might choose to avoid committing suicide, so that loved ones don't suffer, but we hardly owe it to them.On this, I doubt we'll agree.

So between two selfish acts, the one that involves a choice that concerns only oneself is the more unacceptable one?

Committing suicide affects more then just the person that kills themself.

Well, perhaps they don't. Perhaps they think their misery is permanent or even deserving etc... While Jimmy the neurologist realises that his misery is a result of a chemical imbalance, which could be treated. Perhaps Jimmy understands his misery better in this case? (by his I don't mean Jimmy himself)

Perhaps not all sadness is a chemical imbalance. Perhaps sadness is a valid a human emotion as happiness, and not taking Prozac is not a sin. And perhaps, by that same judgment, suicide is a valid manifestation of sadness, just like exuberant joy of life in, say, dance.Perhaps.

Again, I'm skeptical about the idea that it's impossible for anyone but the suffering agent to know, like with the example above.

By what logic do you extrapolate that everyone's emotions are substantively identical to your understanding of what the terms denote? (*cough* subjectivism, in short)

Sure, but so what?

Well since the action concerned is terminal, I don't see why they would be all that concerned about anyone else's morality. They only need to justify the act to themselves.

I have to go with TCT, not least because he sang the M*A*S*H song. Criticizing a depression sufferer for his actions is like criticizing a paraplegic for not running.
In the few instances where the person is not suffering from a previous condition, I lean towards it being an almost universally bad idea. There's plenty of gray area, though. (For example, when someone knowingly gives up their life to save another, or when you have a Socrates/Jesus incident.)

I'm not saying "a parent owe[s] the continuing providing of emotional services for the rest of his life", just that if one has a dependent (N.B. not a child, a dependent), then an argument could be made that it would be immoral to discount that dependent's needs (physically and psychologically) when deciding whether or not to commit suicide.

By your standard. But say the person finds that he incurs more psychological suffering by staying alive than he would incur his dependent if he committed suicide. Would it not be fair for him to want to commit suicide?

Like most conversation of any depth, this entire matter can be settled by Battle Star Galactica.

I direct you to the re-imagined series, what I call the New Testament, wherein one of the Cylons says "the parents must die in order for the children to reach their full potential".

See? Now we know.

There is a distinct difference between willingly taking ones own life by choice and dieing by causes beyond ones control. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

In intention there is a difference, in consequence there isn't. And since you were arguing from consequence, the analogy stands.

A) In the vast majority of cases, suicide does not only impact the person who does it.

Of course. And your point? Why does the person have an obligation to incur psychological suffering, to protect others from it?

I have to go with TCT, not least because he sang the M*A*S*H song. Criticizing a depression sufferer for his actions is like criticizing a paraplegic for not running. Again, not quite. Paraplegics generally don't choose to become one.

Committing suicide affects more then just the person that kills themself.

So does being alive.

In intention there is a difference, in consequence there isn't. And since you were arguiOf course. And your point? Why does the person have an obligation to incur psychological suffering, to protect others from it?ng from consequence, the analogy stands.I'm arguing that the choice is selfish. Because of the fact that it is a choice, the analogy fails.



Of course. And your point? Why does the person have an obligation to incur psychological suffering, to protect others from it?

Again, didn't say that. I was commenting against the idea you mentioned:
involves a choice that concerns only oneself
By your own admission, this is false. It does not concern "only oneself".

Well suicide is generally the idea of leaving a mess for someone else to clean up, so in that sense, it's selfish.

At the very least, you're leaving a stinking corpse for someone to pick up - where's the generosity in that?

At the very least, you're leaving a stinking corpse for someone to pick up - where's the generosity in that?

Over here suicidees leave apologies to the ambulance crews at the end of the note, and leave cups of tea next to the bodies.

By your standard.
Eh... yes.

But say the person finds that he incurs more psychological suffering by staying alive than he would incur his dependent if he committed suicide. Would it not be fair for him to want to commit suicide?
I wouldn't want to go down such a consequentialist route and, let me be clear, I'm certainly not saying that suicide is always a immoral act.

All I am saying is that there are times when individuals 'owe' (for want of a better term; I would say it is virtuous behaviour) to stay alive to look after a dependent.

Perhaps not all sadness is a chemical imbalance.

But sometimes it simply is. Or sometimes it's an immediate reaction to an event, a reaction that will get less severe, but for the person will seem like it will never end, for another example. All I'm saying is, your statement (that the suicidal person is the best judge of whether he will ever get better again) cannot be universal, at least not in my opinion.


Perhaps sadness is a valid a human emotion as happiness, and not taking Prozac is not a sin. And perhaps, by that same judgment, suicide is a valid manifestation of sadness, just like exuberant joy of life in, say, dance.Perhaps.


Valid in the sense that it wouldn't be an unusual reaction to severe depression, that doesn't mean it's something we should leave up to the agent. Perhaps trying to stop suicide is an equally valid reaction to someone else's sadness.


By what logic do you extrapolate that everyone's emotions are substantively identical to your understanding of what the terms denote? (*cough* subjectivism, in short)


Emotions are a function of the brain, in some cases someone who understands the brain well may be in a better position to understand whether or not the person will ever get better again, rather than the suicidal person, regardless of whether they're the only ones who know what it feels like.


Well since the action concerned is terminal, I don't see why they would be all that concerned about anyone else's morality. They only need to justify the act to themselves.

Are you sure you want to discuss the morality of it? You know how it's going to end up. :D

Over here suicidees leave apologies to the ambulance crews at the end of the note, and leave cups of tea next to the bodies.

I'm sure that if I took a huge crap in your car, and left a written apology, that would cover it.

I'm sure that if I took a huge crap in your car, and left a written apology, that would cover it.

My sarcasm fails on your superior wit.

I'm sure that if I took a huge crap in your car, and left a written apology, that would cover it.
Your Sarcasm-o-meter is a bit off today.

Your Sarcasm-o-meter is a bit off today.

damn, I forgot to turn it on

I'm arguing that the choice is selfish. Because of the fact that it is a choice, the analogy fails.

You were arguing that we owe something to someone else. I was arguing that we don't and that the consequences don't differ, whether it is a choice or not. And since we don't owe them anything, it does not matter whether it is a choice or not. The analogy stands.

Again, didn't say that. I was commenting against the idea you mentioned:

By your own admission, this is false. It does not concern "only oneself".

The choice concerns only oneself. The consequences may affect others. But the choice concerns only that person.

Well suicide is generally the idea of leaving a mess for someone else to clean up, so in that sense, it's selfish.

At the very least, you're leaving a stinking corpse for someone to pick up - where's the generosity in that?

So let us hate life for the next 25 years, just so that we don't get someone's walls full of our brains?

Oh, and natural dying also leaves a mess.

Eh... yes.


I wouldn't want to go down such a consequentialist route and, let me be clear, I'm certainly not saying that suicide is always a immoral act.

All I am saying is that there are times when individuals 'owe' (for want of a better term; I would say it is virtuous behaviour) to stay alive to look after a dependent.

But since when are you ever so informed about the situation to be in a position to criticise someone for it, on those grounds? You almost never get to know people that well, and from that, to say that suicide is selfish is, at best, a crass generalisation. Even if, hypothetically, sometimes it may be, it would almost never be the case that you are in a position to judge.

You were arguing that we owe something to someone else. I was arguing that we don't and that the consequences don't differ, whether it is a choice or not. And since we don't owe them anything, it does not matter whether it is a choice or not. The analogy stands.
I get mad at you and key your car and bash in the headlight.
I borrow your car and someone backs into it, scratching it and breaking the headlight.

There is a distict difference, not least of all involving the concept of agency. I am arguing that the act is selfish. If one has no agency, then it cannot be selfish. My argument about owing something to others is seperate from this argument.

You cannot compare something that is a choice with something that is not. They are not equal, even if the outcome is similar.



The choice concerns only oneself. The consequences may affect others. But the choice concerns only that person.Is there any distinction that can be made between the action and the result, particularly when the results are known?

The choice must take consequences into account. Because it is known that taking ones life will impact others, the choice, too, involves others. Even if they have no agency in the decision.

Your life - your choice to end it. Would be nice if states facilitated that with some system that made sure it wasn't merely an impulse (it is rather irrevocable after all) - but in the end it all boils down to that.

But sometimes it simply is. Or sometimes it's an immediate reaction to an event, a reaction that will get less severe, but for the person will seem like it will never end, for another example. All I'm saying is, your statement (that the suicidal person is the best judge of whether he will ever get better again) cannot be universal, at least not in my opinion.

But if that person chooses a limited temporality to extrapolate conclusions about his life from, is that not his right? Maybe he doesn't care that in 20 years he might win the lottery. Maybe 20 years aren't worth living in his condition, for that event, and its consequences. It's not even that they are the best judge. They are the only judge. Who are you to tell someone to suck up to their life, if they don't want to?

Valid in the sense that it wouldn't be an unusual reaction to severe depression, that doesn't mean it's something we should leave up to the agent. Perhaps trying to stop suicide is an equally valid reaction to someone else's sadness.

Perhaps the person has more of a right over his own life, than others.

Emotions are a function of the brain, in some cases someone who understands the brain well may be in a better position to understand whether or not the person will ever get better again, rather than the suicidal person, regardless of whether they're the only ones who know what it feels like.

But since we all die, what happens in the long term is not all that relevant, and referencing to the future, when the person suffers in the present, won't impress them all that much. It's easy for a psychiatrist to tell someone to suck it up, and inject them with with anesthetics, when they don't actually comprehend what the patient is feeling.

Are you sure you want to discuss the morality of it? You know how it's going to end up. :D

It was more about internal discourse and justification, that morality in the ordinary sense. Please pay attention ;)

But since when are you ever so informed about the situation to be in a position to criticise someone for it, on those grounds?
You almost never get to know people that well, and from that, to say that suicide is selfish is, at best, a crass generalisation.[/i]
Saying 'suicide is selfish' is a crass generalisation.

Good thing I'm not saying that.

Even if, hypothetically, sometimes it may be, it would almost never be the case that you are in a position to judge.
Then how are you able to judge?

But if that person chooses a limited temporality to extrapolate conclusions about his life from, is that not his right? Maybe he doesn't care that in 20 years he might win the lottery. Maybe 20 years aren't worth living in his condition, for that event, and its consequences. It's not even that they are the best judge. They are the only judge. Who are you to tell someone to suck up to their life, if they don't want to?


Does it matter? I'm arguing pragmatically here, I think society would be better off if there was discouragement and at least some prevention of suicide (unless it's a really lost cause).

I get mad at you and key your car and bash in the headlight.
I borrow your car and someone backs into it, scratching it and breaking the headlight.

There is a distict difference, not least of all involving the concept of agency. I am arguing that the act is selfish. If one has no agency, then it cannot be selfish. My argument about owing something to others is seperate from this argument.

You cannot compare something that is a choice with something that is not. They are not equal, even if the outcome is similar.

But the causes which lead people to suicide are not by their agency. Why should one suffer as a consequence of things he has no control about, as a favour to someone else? It doesn't make any sense. It is noble if he does, but it sure is not selfish if he doesn't.

Is there any distinction that can be made between the action and the result, particularly when the results are known?

The choice must take consequences into account. Because it is known that taking ones life will impact others, the choice, too, involves others. Even if they have no agency in the decision.

But none of the others have to live with the conditions the person has to live with. The causes which lead someone to suicide are personal. If they were felt by others, then they would have a legitimate claim to be considered in the decision. Again, why should someone choose to suffer, for the comfort of someone else?

Then how are you able to judge?

You're not. Hence why you shouldn't.

Does it matter? I'm arguing pragmatically here, I think society would be better off if there was discouragement and at least some prevention of suicide (unless it's a really lost cause).

If I were suicidal, I think that what society wanted would be my last concern. Going from the torment of some of these people to what society might find convenient is a bit... off... methinks.

You're not. Hence why you shouldn't.
But you are; you're judging the suicide to be moral.

How can you do so, and claim "it would almost never be the case that you are in a position to judge"?

Going from the torment of some of these people to what society might find convenient is a bit... off... methinks.

I'm confused as to what you're saying here.

But you are; you're judging the suicide to be moral.

How can you do so, and claim "it would almost never be the case that you are in a position to judge"?

Beg pardon? I said passing judgment would be asinine, not that it is moral.

I'm confused as to what you're saying here.

Personal musing about lack of consideration. Something along the lines of "Oh Palestinians are dying again. At least, at this rate, there will be world peace in about 50 years".

Well, suicide is not always irrational. Consider the terminal illness case. In this case, the individual chooses to die with some dignity rather than waste away for several months in pain. In this case, it seems rather selfish of us to demand that such a person suffer needlessly if they do not wish to.

Does it matter? I'm arguing pragmatically here, I think society would be better off if there was discouragement and at least some prevention of suicide (unless it's a really lost cause).

Maybe. Then again, what would give society the right to decide what someone should do with their own life ?

I have to go with TCT, not least because he sang the M*A*S*H song. Criticizing a depression sufferer for his actions is like criticizing a paraplegic for not running.Again, not quite. Paraplegics generally don't choose to become one.

Those who are mentally ill choose to become so? :confused::mad:

And, note, I am saying that most suicides are influenced by mental illness, but that does not mean that suicide is never a rational choice. For those who are terminally-ill and/or in great pain, for example, suicide may be best not just for them but also for those around them.

This is why, on the one hand, I support suicide prevention and some medical intervention, but, on the other hand, fully support Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml).

Beg pardon? I said passing judgment would be asinine, not that it is moral.
Fair nuff, (I'm making the case that certain suicides would be immoral; I thought you were arguing the opposite) but my objection still stands, how are you able to pass judgement?

Fair nuff, but my objection still stands, how are you able to pass judgement?

I'm not passing judgment on people committing suicide. I'm passing judgment on the presumptuousness of some people to pass judgment about suicide.

But the causes which lead people to suicide are not by their agency. Why should one suffer as a consequence of things he has no control about, as a favour to someone else? It doesn't make any sense. It is noble if he does, but it sure is not selfish if he doesn't.
How we respond to our circumstances is our choice. I didn't say anyone should be forced to live. I didn't say suicide is bad. I actually explicitly said that being selfish isn't always bad.


But none of the others have to live with the conditions the person has to live with. The causes which lead someone to suicide are personal. If they were felt by others, then they would have a legitimate claim to be considered in the decision. Again, why should someone choose to suffer, for the comfort of someone else?
So the individual acts with either a) no consideration of the impact it may have upon others or b) disregard for these consequences, with the sole purpose of bettering their state.

How is this not selfish?

Suicide is usually because of a mental imbalance.
That explains the kamikazes, eh?

We've danced this dance before and it seems you still haven't learned that possible outliers don't rebut 90% statistics or the term "usually."

Personal musing about lack of consideration. Something along the lines of "Oh Palestinians are dying again. At least, at this rate, there will be world peace in about 50 years".

I don't see how it's inconsiderate. I'm not saying we should ban suicides outright, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to discourage it, and say, having suicidal people see help before they make their decision. Many people who were formally suicidal, are actually very grateful and regard those who helped them out of it as actually very considerate.

Maybe. Then again, what would give society the right to decide what someone should do with their own life ?

What gives society the right to do anything? Seriously, bringing up rights will only lead to one direction.

How we respond to our circumstances is our choice. I didn't say anyone should be forced to live. I didn't say suicide is bad. I actually explicitly said that being selfish isn't always bad.

We seem to disagree on the language we use. "Selfish" usually comes with the negative moral baggage. If all you mean is "self-interested" in a morally neutral way, then why are we arguing? What is your point? If there is no reproach on that ground, then what is the point of your observation?

So the individual acts with either a) no consideration of the impact it may have upon others or b) disregard for these consequences, with the sole purpose of bettering their state.

How is this not selfish?

So... are you, or are you not, adding the moral dimension to the term?

I don't see how it's inconsiderate. I'm not saying we should ban suicides outright, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to discourage it, and say, having suicidal people see help before they make their decision. Many people who were formally suicidal, are actually very grateful and regard those who helped them out of it as actually very considerate.

That's slightly different to saying, "oh society would be so much better, if only paraplegics had the decency to not come out of the house".

Those who are mentally ill choose to become so? :confused::mad:No, nor would I claim so.

People who commit suicide do, however, make that choice.

The paraplegic cannot make the choice to run...the severely depressed person can choose not to kill themselves.

And, note, I am saying that most suicides are influenced by mental illness, but that does not mean that suicide is never a rational choice. For those who are terminally-ill and/or in great pain, for example, suicide may be best not just for them but also for those around them.Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying suicide is always selfish. Nor am I saying it is wrong, bad, good, or anything else. All I'm saying is that most of the time, it is a selfish act. That also isn't inherently a bad thing.

This is why, on the one hand, I support suicide prevention and some medical intervention, but, on the other hand, fully support Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml).
Right there with you on that. And I really wish more states would pass laws permitting euthanasia.

That's slightly different to saying, "oh society would be so much better, if only paraplegics had the decency to not come out of the house".

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not advocating such to make society look more artificially pleasant for observers.

I'm not passing judgment on people committing suicide.
You certainly seem (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14345581&postcount=27) to be doing just that.

I'm passing judgment on the presumptuousness of some people to pass judgment about suicide.
Wonderful.

Colour me 'presumptious' then, for I believe there are situations involving dependents in which it is selfish in some manner to commit suicide.

I don't see how it's inconsiderate. I'm not saying we should ban suicides outright, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to discourage it, and say, having suicidal people see help before they make their decision. Many people who were formally suicidal, are actually very grateful and regard those who helped them out of it as actually very considerate.That's slightly different to saying, "oh society would be so much better, if only paraplegics had the decency to not come out of the house".

WTF? That is so far off-base that you can't even see Hydesland's point from the distortion you made.

And, BTW, as someone who has been and is frequently suicidal, I am most glad for those that have helped me control my illnesses and survive.

No, nor would I claim so.

People who commit suicide do, however, make that choice.

The paraplegic cannot make the choice to run...the severely depressed person can choose not to kill themselves.

But not in the sense of a freely-made, rational choice. No they don't make a "choice" nor can they necessarily "choose not to" do so.

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not advocating such to make society look more artificially pleasant for observers.

No... the first time, your proposition seemed to suggest that "who gives a shit about the suicidals... wouldn't the world be such a nicer place if we didn't allow people to kill themselves?". Misrendering of tone, no doubt. It's all cool.

We seem to disagree on the language we use. "Selfish" usually comes with the negative moral baggage. If all you mean is "self-interested" in a morally neutral way, then why are we arguing? What is your point? If there is no reproach on that ground, then what is the point of your observation?Because the thread asked for my opinion of suicide, and my opinion of it is that in the vast majority of cases, it is a selfish act, and that is not inherently a bad thing.

Why are we arguing? Because you took issue with that.



So... are you, or are you not, adding the moral dimension to the term?Nope. It isn't inherently bad to act in ones own interests, even if you don't consider others or ignore those considerations.

As I said, being selfish isn't always bad.

But not in the sense of a freely-made, rational choice. No they don't make a "choice" nor can they necessarily "choose not to" do so.

It's a difficult thing to understand if you haven't been in that position.

It's a difficult thing to understand if you haven't been in that position.

Yet another reason why those who don't understand shouldn't pass moral judgment on those that were in that position.

You certainly seem (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14345581&postcount=27) to be doing just that.

I fail to see how.

Wonderful.

Colour me 'presumptious' then, for I believe there are situations involving dependents in which it is selfish in some manner to commit suicide.

Hypothetically yes, but it is presumptuous to say anything about suicide on that basis.

No... the first time, your proposition seemed to suggest that "who gives a shit about the suicidals... wouldn't the world be such a nicer place if we didn't allow people to kill themselves?". Misrendering of tone, no doubt. It's all cool.

Ok :), but do you agree with what I'm saying?

Ok :), but do you agree with what I'm saying?

You mean that there are too many emos in the world? Yeah ;)

But not in the sense of a freely-made, rational choice. No they don't make a "choice" nor can they necessarily "choose not to" do so.
I'll give you that much, but they still have significantly more agency than the paraplegic in that they can get help. Now, your point that it isn't logical is a significant claim in what I am saying, and I fully acknowledge that...but they do still have more agency than the paraplegic.

I fail to see how.
Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be objecting to the notion that suicide could be a selfish act.

That is passing a judgement.

Hypothetically yes, but it is presumptuous to say anything about suicide on that basis.
Why? Because I can never know the mind-state of another individual?

If so, it would be 'presumptuous' to make any judgement about any human action whatsoever.

Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be objecting that suicide could be a selfish act.

That is passing a judgement.

Again no. I'm saying that it is selfish (on the part of those asking) to ask someone to live in suffering, for the comfort of others.

Why? Because I can never know the mind-state of another individual?

If so, it would be 'presumptuous' to make any judgement about any human action whatsoever.

No, just about their thoughts and motivations.

Again no. I'm saying that it is selfish (on the part of those asking) to ask someone to live in suffering, for the comfort of others.
You're straying from the argument here...

One can commit a selfish act without interaction from another. A dependent does not need to ask a parent/guardian not to commit suicide.

I might not ask you to share your sweeties with me, but you could still selfishly gorge on all of them in front of me, for example.

No, just about their thoughts and motivations.
Suicide is more than thought and motivation; it is an act.

I'd say that if anyone ever finds that I've killed myself, they should immediately begin investigating it as a murder. Suicide might be an option if it was either that or someone else killing me in a much slower and more unpleasant way - but I'd rather send a bullet toward whoever was threatening me than shoot myself.

I can't say I've ever seriously considered suicide as a solution to problems - I can handle misfortune and difficulty. The Winter darkness is depressing, but nowhere near suicide-level depressing. I've started making preparations in case of a total economic collapse, and my future is not at the mercy of the stock markets. I doubt that a relationship gone bad would drive me to end my life.

I don't know whether suicide is a right per se, but I am not sure that it isn't, either. It does seem like a cowardly and foolish choice, or the result of a medical/psychological disorder, but I can't speak with any authority in that arena.

You're straying from the argument here...

One can commit a selfish act without interaction from another. A dependent does not need to ask a parent/guardian not to commit suicide.

I might not ask you to share your sweeties with me, but you could still selfishly gorge on all of them in front of me, for example.

Uhm, no. It would be courteous and nice to offer, but not selfish to not offer. If you asked, it still wouldn't be selfish, because I don't owe you my sweeties.


Suicide is more than thought and motivation; it is an act.

Yet it can only be selfish if it does not have an adequate motivation. And since we cannot presume to know the motivations...

Uhm, no. It would be courteous and nice to offer, but not selfish to not offer. If you asked, it still wouldn't be selfish, because I don't owe you my sweeties.
Pehaps a poor example, but the pint remains; asking and selfishness aren't necessarily connected.

Yet it can only be selfish if it does not have an adequate motivation. And since we cannot presume to know the motivations...
The act can still be selfish.

A selfish act isn't defined as such by whether another individual can judge it to be so accurately. Moreover, I'd question whether we can always be unable to judge another's act as selfish or not. You seem to be implying that an individual's motivations are necessarily unintelligible to other people; this seems too strong.

Suicide: A permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Suicide: A permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Unless you believe in reincarnation. Then it is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. ;)

Suicide: A permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Not in the cases of, say, a terminal illness or chronic pain.

Unless you believe in reincarnation. Then it is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. ;)
Point
Not in the cases of, say, a terminal illness or chronic pain.
True

People say 'they thought about it' as if it's rare. I would bet just about everybody has "thought" about it at some point. That doesn't mean you'd actually do it. I know I wouldn't, or if I did, I'd make it count, or wish like hell I did. I wouldn't find it appealing at all if I didn't take some scumbags with me, and succeeding that would take planning. It's highly unlikely I could contain a combination of both suicidal insanity and enough of a level head to plan such a thing, so no matter how shitty things would get, I'd probably be stuck living.