The case against suicide
I guess this is a good a place as any.
I’ve struggled to find a good argument against suicide that doesn’t involve either nonsense or special pleading to life or hindsight bias.
The way I see it if there is no greater reason to meaning to life then there isn’t really a reason to keep going. Not reason to really struggle and fight for a place in the world. No reason to really pursue anything. One can just end their life and be done with the pursuit and struggle.
To me arguments for staying alive or for meaning only work if you HAVE to live. Filling life with good things, doing what you love, all that junk only has logical weight if one is unable to die until a set time. Baring that I see no reason for living. Desire for pleasures only applies if you are alive, if you die there is no need for any of that. Same with love, friendship, food, money, etc.
I’ve struggled to find a good argument against suicide that doesn’t involve either nonsense or special pleading to life or hindsight bias.
The way I see it if there is no greater reason to meaning to life then there isn’t really a reason to keep going. Not reason to really struggle and fight for a place in the world. No reason to really pursue anything. One can just end their life and be done with the pursuit and struggle.
To me arguments for staying alive or for meaning only work if you HAVE to live. Filling life with good things, doing what you love, all that junk only has logical weight if one is unable to die until a set time. Baring that I see no reason for living. Desire for pleasures only applies if you are alive, if you die there is no need for any of that. Same with love, friendship, food, money, etc.
Comments (437)
You want companionship. Affirmation. Guess what. Those who truly have things worth affirming need no such thing. So what is it you're truly after?
Sure, it's a good question. The average person, no matter if they "came" from wealth or poverty, sometimes wonders, if they died right now, who would miss them? Why and for what? At the end of the day every person that lives and walks was brought into their circumstance outside of their will and simply tumbled out of a womb. Why do we value one over another? Because of the perceived power they have. That's all. Your depression is an absolute lie. And I could prove it, easily. If I haven't had my eye set on much higher sights. Perhaps you should just refocus your own. Given the fact you've been given everything.
This is a really inappropriate post.
We either live in truth or lies. Such is the stated goal of philosophy. Name one lie that would reasonably be found in said post. Go on, I dare you.
To won't let your rival win the race.
The beings that value the suicidal may include friends, relatives, loved ones, and they may also include the future selves of the suicidal. Perspectives change, even if the present suicidal doesn't value their life, their future selves might. If you ever enjoyed your life, you owe that enjoyment to the fact that all of your past selves chose not to kill themselves. Had just one of them done so, they would have stolen that enjoyment from you.
Future selves are just as worthy of protection as present selves. Giving someone poison that kills them in a month is just as wrong as poison that kills immediately, even though the time delayed poison only kills a future self.
Quoting Darkneos
But you are alive, not dead, so you desire at least one of these. Killing yourself permanently frustrates all of the desires you had at the moment you died, and all the desires you would have had in the future.
Will you please put an end to this discussion.
The Spiritualists may disagree regards the one visible sided barrier.
With overpopulation and the other rafts of issues that have and still do face us, suicide may get more popular, but its proponents will still only have life based arguments to use.
Maybe what answers you seek can only be found eventually by living, questioning and moving through life. However you find them, you'll have to stay alive to explain them and appreciated the answers.
And agree with T Clark... "You won't find appropriate answers here".
Well I have never found a "good argument" for suicide either. Afaik, empirically, suicide does not solve any unsolvable problems or change anything that cannot be changed (e.g. past events, past actions, persisting consequences) and often only deeply harms the suicide's own family, (former) lovers and/or close friends.
If you are struggling, sir, seek professional clinical help ASAP.
:up:
Since this discussion hasn’t been so far closed …
I’ve never much understood why permanent solutions to temporary problems ought to be shunned. It’s only temporary problems that have solutions, not the permanent ones. And does one not want one’s solutions to problems to last and thereby be permanent? How then is this supposed to assuage those who are suicidal and have no doubts regarding there not being an afterlife?
But since no one can infallibly prove any metaphysical system of beliefs, physicalism/materialism very much included, there is then a quite viable existential possibility that mortal death is in no way the known of a permanent solution. Namely, that known solution which takes the form of an everlasting non-being. But is instead an open-ended unknown in which awareness persists.
One then not only has to deal with the inadvertent suffering self-murder causes in others within this world, impressionable strangers potentially included, but with the possibility of experiencing things such as regret for the deed well after the act of self-murder is committed. Thereby compounding an already bad case of one’s own experienced suffering in some form of hereafter.
In which case, self-murder then becomes only a temporary solution to a permanent problem of suffering - permanent in that this problem of suffering could survive one’s death to this world, one’s death in the next world, and so forth.
This being one possibility of a Sisyphean reality in its broadest sense.
That said, I endorse this in relation to the OP:
Quoting T Clark
:100:
This is the first and last question that philosophy must answer - 'What's the point?' The answer is "love". If you wonder what love is, I can only tell you that it is what you lack, whenever you ask this question. Suicide makes sense if there is no love, but only self. We are not here to be satisfied, but to become satisfactory.
:fire:
And I agree with @T Clark, this doesn't seem as philosophical discussion about the subject. But simply immediately removing the post won't be helpful either. At least I would be sad and pissed if my thread would be simply moved away.
___
I didn't appreciate the last thread being closed as I asked a serious question about the worth of life and was proven right about what I said about the value of said life and the bias that we have towards it. Society won't ever really advice if people are too scared to talk about why one should persist instead of end it when there isn't any compulsion to keep going.
People there said this isn't the place for it or to seek professional help, which just highlights the problem. That this can't be talked about without suggesting something is wrong with the person, so long as people have that "sweeping it under the rug" mentality we aren't ever going to get an answer to the question. The fear of talking about life being worth living implies a fear of the answers.
It's easier to label such people sick or mentally unwell because that way we don't have to deal with the discussion. I mean...they have to be sick or something to not want to live anymore right? There can't be good reasons for it right? To me that just sounds like people are afraid of the answers and how someone can be lucid and still want it.
The answers in the last thread that I got like love don't really answer the question and I explained why with my first post. Such things only carry weight if one must live or is not able to die.
Stuff like this:
This is the first and last question that philosophy must answer - 'What's the point?' The answer is "love". If you wonder what love is, I can only tell you that it is what you lack, whenever you ask this question. Suicide makes sense if there is no love, but only self. We are not here to be satisfied, but to become satisfactory.
Just dodges the question. Therapists can't help with the question because their assumption is that something is wrong with the person for questioning the notion of going further, which assumes the conclusion. They are biased like everyone else and don't have answers to the question. People just assume it's self evident because of survival drive but if that was the case a lot of people likely wouldn't consider it an option.
And this:
Sure, it's a good question. The average person, no matter if they "came" from wealth or poverty, sometimes wonders, if they died right now, who would miss them? Why and for what? At the end of the day every person that lives and walks was brought into their circumstance outside of their will and simply tumbled out of a womb. Why do we value one over another? Because of the perceived power they have. That's all. Your depression is an absolute lie. And I could prove it, easily. If I haven't had my eye set on much higher sights. Perhaps you should just refocus your own. Given the fact you've been given everything.
Is an utter non answer. Never mind that depression isn't a lie, but that's not what's happening here and I think that also just sweeps it under the rug to avoid a serious talk on the question. Though it does beg the question that if someone is "Given everything" and still wants to opt out then why?
I also find hind sight bias plays a big role in people saying life is worth it. Just because your life worked out doesn't mean others would and wanting them to stick around for your sake and sanity in the rightness of your choice is selfish. People have to stop being so scared to talk about death and the value of life.
So yeah, I'll restate my last argument in the previous thread I made, please don't close this one. I feel like it does a disservice to philosophy to dodge difficult questions.
__
If you feel like rewriting it as a response in this thread, do so.
A therapist, who just might suggest "euthanasia as a treatment option", as is slowly becoming the new normal in "civilized" societies?
Unlikely
Pretty sure they don't do that.
They aren't answers thought. Love isn't a reason it's just platitudinous nonsense, same with making meaning. I gave the case at the start why such reasons don't hold water.
I don't understand this view of compulsion. Whatever this life thing is, it has its own life. I have survived a number of crises because something took over while I was being stupid. We are more than we can talk about. Your premise assumes the contrary.
Quoting Darkneos
Let me see if I can use other words that you can accept more. If one considers only oneself, and only from one's own point of view, then it is clear that satisfaction is only ever transitory, suffering and death are inevitable and the sooner life is over the better.
Therefore, if there is any reason to live, it is not to be found in oneself in any pleasure or satisfaction one might obtain from living.
Therefore, I posit (but offer no proof) a reason for living that is self-overcoming, or self- transcending. This is illustrated in the film Groundhog Day, in which suicide fails utterly to end life but results in a repeating life that goes nowhere. This repetition only ends when everything is put into the day to make it better for everyone.
As long as you think only of yourself, you will keep coming back to the same miserable thoughts again and again. I wish I could be more clear about this for you, but I cannot disprove the platitudinous nonsense of your "platitudinous nonsense". If you want to understand, you will begin to understand, but if you don't want to, then you will have make do with the thin satisfaction of winning the argument, and you will miss all the richness of life.
I've never been looking for a "reason to live," though. What I was looking for was... determination. Either way: determination to get myself in order, or determination to end it. I think if I'd found determination, I wouldn't be here today. Being a wimp saved my life, for whatever that's worth. I grew out out the suicidal mindset, but the language stayed with me. I still think every now and then, I should just end it. But I've lived through wanting to be dead, so when it comes up now (I don't say this out loud to any one), I'm quite confident that I don't mean it. Wanting to die just feels different.
Something I've often wondered, though, is this: what if I'd really found "determination"? What would I have done? Would I have killed myself, or would have gotten my act together? It's possible, for example, that if I had been the person who could reach the determination to kill myself, might I have been a person who didn't want to kill himself? I'm quite content to never find out, because quite frankly I don't want to go through something like that ever again.
I don't have a "reason to live", though. And I don't feel like I need one. I find that life is... naturally persistent. I've been living all my life, and I'll be living until one day I won't be living anymore, which is a stretch of time only available as abstract protection - I may call it death, but since it's not part of my life it's not a state I'll ever have to contend with. Dying though... Dying is part of life, and a lot of the ways to go are unpleasant. Unless you die really quickly, or just drift off while asleep you'll have to contend with dying. Dying is far more frightening than being dead, to be honest.
So I just muddle through from day to day, enjoy what I can, and take on the rest as it comes. Life is value neutral, though it acquires secondary value - as a perceived binary switch - through the balance of things enjoyable and not. You can switch it all off, but if you do you're dead, and the question of whether it was worth it or not won't apply anymore. While I'm here, I might as well make the best of it, no? Won't always succeed, but, well... that's life. Because I used to be sucidal, and because the language never really left me, though, I have to stay vigilant. You see, a good internal "life sucks" can be quite cathartic, but say it just once too often, and it becomes this... habit, and it takes over the way you think. That's quite frightening. From someone who's been through it: life spent brooding about wanting to die is far more scary than death can ever be. It's a state of mind I don't ever want back.
But at the same time, all this talk about "love", or "life is good"... it all feels hollow and unreal to this day. It's ineffective. At the same time, though, some of it is demonstrably true.
Quoting unenlightened
Oh, yes, have I ever been through this. Around ten(?) years ago, I remember saying that not much worked when I was in deep, but what ultimately helped me was "doing things and watching people". That's how I phrased it, and it got a laugh out of who I think might have been a suicidal teen. It's really simple. In theory that is. Your wordview's quite a prison; tailored to keep you in.
So if people ask for a reason to live, what is it they ask for? A surefire plan to go through life without suffering? A teleological end so that your live will have had meaning once it's gone? A pot of gold at the end of a rainbow you can chase even if you know it's not there?
To me, looking for a reason to live sounds like trap to keep brooding. Life is value-neutral. Without it, you have nothing - which is sometimes good and sometimes bad, and when it's gone, it's neither good nor bad, because value has gone out with it. (Er... yes, we have social effects that outlast us and cast tendrils back in time to influence what we do while we can still do things, but my post's too long as it is.)
So, yeah, what helped to get back into the groove was "doing things and watching people", as a younger, wiser me has put it. Life won't necessarily get better, but the bad things get easier to bear, and the good things get easier to enjoy. The latter I found especially valuable.
Not easy, though. Not easy at all. A song that gets it, but promises too much:
Quoting Darkneos
Any discussion of suicide and the meaning of life has to take into consideration the legal status of euthanasia and assisted suicide in a particular country/jurisdiction. Individual countries differ greatly from one another in this regard, from those strictly opposed to them to those where they are legal.
Then there are other considerations to take into account, like insurance companies refusing to pay for the medical treatment of the terminally ill, but willing to cover the cost of euthanasia.
It is implausible to think that death only harms a person when someone else kills them, but not if they kill themselves. If I accidentally step off a cliff to my death, my death is just as harmful to me if someone had pushed me off the cliff instead.
Therefore, whether self-inflicted or other-inflicted, death is harmful to the one who dies. (None of this is seriously in dispute; 'why' it is harmful - yes, that's in dispute...but 'that' it is harmful is not)
There is clearly a moral difference between inflicting death on another and inflicting it on oneself. That seems obvious too. But there is no difference in the amount of harm it does to the one who dies.
From this it follows that a person has powerful reason not to kill themselves under most circumstances - circumstances in which their continued living would not harm them more, anyway.
That's a case against suicide. It's not a moral case - the conclusion is not that it is immoral to kill oneself (though it may be), but that it is imprudent to do so. The reason it is imprudent to kil oneself under most circumstances is that doing so will harm the one who does it more than continued living would .
It seems like a very strong case too, as if you argue that death is not harmful to the one who suffers it, then you're going to struggle to explain why it is so wrong to kill someone else.
No.
William Styron wrote "Darkness Visible", a short memoir of his depression. It struck me as conspicuously superficial, but with one point sticking out. Namely, he says words to the effect that the only thing that was worse than his depression was the medical treatment he received for it (he freely went to a mental institution). He writes how he then complied, superficially, with the treatment, just so as to get out of the institution.
It's important to understand that especially in modern Western society, existential topics 1. are tabooed, and 2. what the consequences of breaking this taboo are. Talk about these things at the wrong place, and you could get the police at your door, and then some.
There is a whole art to not talking about existential topics, and it's important to master it. Already simply because of the sheer amount of time and energy that can be wasted in the process if done wrongly.
Quoting unenlightened
The same applies to your so called love. At the end it’s still about you and feeling better for yourself it just happens to help others. Though that said that doesn’t mean there is value in it. Like I already explained and why your logic still falls short.
Quoting unenlightened
That movie is a terrible example because the loop really only breaks when he wins the girl over, didn’t really have much to do with helping others. But again, it’s a movie it’s not reality and obviously the lesson of most films is to reinforce positive social norms. Try again. Quoting unenlightened
Oh I know this doesn’t work because I’ve done this most of my life and it’s just as hollow and empty as the pleasure of the self you seem to place less importance on.
You didn't even read the original post I made which addresses why your argument fails.
Never mind that I've done that before and it doesn't lead to meaning or value or anything you mention.
Is there a way you'd prefer people to respond to you in the thread?
I guess some indication that my replies and posts are being read and engaged with.
The whole "love" thing I covered at the start and yet it just feels like people are simply saying shit without reading how I covered that part.
Love only matters if one has to live and in death there is no concern over any of that stuff, even the pain that would follow from your death. To make a case against it you'd have to engage with why living would be preferable when it's not a requirement to be alive.
I suppose if you contrast a life which stops now, and a life which stops in the future, if you believed the life which stops now accumulates less net suffering (what's good - what's bad) than the life which stops later, that would be a "good reason" to end it.
Where other people come in is that there's a presumption in your posts so far that the person considering suicide's suffering is more important than the suffering of those they leave behind. It's a big gamble there, as a sudden death is the kind of thing that can ruin loved ones' lives. NB it does not matter if the person who wants to commit suicide loves them back, those who loves' wounds matter equally. Well not necessarily, but it's a good principle to believe that every person's suffering is of equal note all else held equal. Though perhaps that is obviated if our hypothetical person who wishes to die has people who love them.
Yes, I am saying it can be more moral to trap yourself in a cage of others' love than to end it. Even if your life is so worthless that it might as well not have been, for you, that does not mean others share that valuation. A person ending themselves in that instance deprives others of something they cherish: them.
Quoting Darkneos
“I’m a staunch nihilist, because my impeccable reasoning /slash/ faith makes me so. Prove to me that there is any worthwhile meaning which can occur in a meaningless world! Agape as meaningful, btw, can only be irrational and thereby idiotic in the world I live in.” To which, anyone who opens their mouth can only be an idiot for not agreeing with nihilism. Come to think of it, this line of reasoning sort of has the same vibe that arguments for solipsism does - which in a way is the ultimate valuing of the existence of self.
So, being just such an idiot myself though maybe with a different flavor, anyone ever seen the movie Wristcutters: A Love Story?
Yes, yes, as a movie it’s about upholding societal norms via the partial plot of romantic love – only that it ain’t. No absolute wrong to killing oneself in the movie’s story. Besides, it nicely touches upon the “taboo existential topic” of suicide in sometimes poignant manners with a good deal of humor. Here’s a trailer to it:
But again, it hinges on death not being the end, which is contrary to nihilism, which, as all nihilists will attest to, is idiotic. Funny in a way how certain nihilists can entertain possibilities from solipsism to an infinite number of universes but not in any way the possibility of an existence after death.
You're sort of hardwired to try to preserve your own life. Adrenaline is your body's argument.
What a number of philosophical people have done in the face of the challenge is to seek authenticity. Discover who you really are and live life like a sacred dance. Of some kind.
So it takes some courage to direct a firearm into your mouth. It also takes courage to find the way to live life on your terms: to learn to say yes to life as Nietzsche very well might have said. It starts by learning to listen.
What kind of “greater reason” do you mean? Whats wrong with meaning people create for themselves?
Quoting Darkneos
Huh? Nothing in life matters because you will die and when youre dead nothing in life matters? Is that what you are saying? If so, why wouldn't the life stuff matter while youre alive?
As far as I know the cosmos does not supply ready-made meaning for us. You are certainly NOT the first person to discover that life may be, can be, may seem to be... meaningless. Get used to it and move on. That's what people do.
Struggling? Fighting, Pursuing? Suicide is a possible solution but the most obvious alternative to the unsatisfactory rat race of striving, struggling, and all that is to stop striving, stop struggling. Try to be more in the present moment rather than being busy trying to accomplish something in the future, or fretting over something not done in the past, because "now" is where you live.
William Wordsworth (1770-1850) said,
We are way too busy striving which leaves us depleted, deflated, depressed. Step one: stop it.
Avoid perseveration. What's that? spending a lot of time chewing over the same idea (like, [i]life has no meaning, nothing matters, I might as well be dead[/I]).
What should you do if you are perseverating? In a nutshell, stop it, at once! Stop it because it's a giant waste of time going in mental circles and wearing a rut in your mind.
At the very least, hold off planning your suicide until you have a really good reason to do it, like developing Huntington's disease, terribly painful terminal cancer, or some other mortal threat. As for discovering that life is meaningless, well...pfffft.
That's an awfully idealistic scenario. Not rarely, it's precisely those other people who want someone to die, and they even say so.
Spoken like a retired baby boomer.
For an increasing number of people, the struggling and the striving isn't a matter of too much ambition, but a matter of bare survival.
The sheer physical and mental exhaustion from work eventually makes one wonder why go on with it.
People of your age could at least hope to retire someday, they had something to look forward to. This is the case for fewer and fewer people nowadays.
Official psychology tends to be quite out of touch with the realities of life.
I'm gonna chime in and say, it seems like a lot of more people nowadays are simply dissatisfied with work itself. Just the idea of 'work' makes them lose the motivation. If that's the case, there's no solution. We all need to work to live.
Agreed, though; as a group, the post WWII birth cohort were lucky--what with a 25 year growth period, generous government programs, full employment, and so on. If subsequent generations find it difficult to retire (a pattern that prevailed before the 20th century), there are several guilty parties to blame: The administration of the government has not been as good a steward of Social Security and Medicare funds as they could have been. Wealthy people have worked hard to avoid being taxed at a level where entitlement programs could be properly and fully financed. Antigovernment politicians have worked to hobble agencies, like the IRS which gathers in what the government needs; they'd like to do away with social security / medicare / medicaid altogether. Fucking bastards!
Fortunately or unfortunately, people tend to live longer now than when Social Security was set up. Longevity uses up more reserved funds.
I have a great deal of empathy for younger people who are starting out or are at mid career, or heading toward retirement age. Short of major reform (nothing revolutionary is required), millions of old workers are going to have a tough time. 20% of younger people -- those professionally employed at good salaries -- will do fine. The rest, no so much.
BTW, it isn't just Social Security. Many state managed retirement funds are in very bad shape. Generous promises were made to the state employees, but not nearly enough cash was collected to actually fund the promises.
So, spoken like a retired baby boomer or not, I'll stick to my advice to Darkneos.
Interesting fact: prior to the social security expansion act and other social program actions in the mid 1960s, poverty among the elderly was around 35%.
:up:
Quoting L'éléphant
:up:
Now back to suicide.
Irrelevant, for reasons I already mentioned. There is no real need to be concerned over what happens to others if one is dead. All that stuff vanishes so why should it matter if other people hurt?
Quoting javra
Saying not to do it because there might be an afterlife is, IMO, a stupid argument. Considering there is no reason to think there is one it's about as effective as wet sand.
Quoting frank
I already explained why that argument doesn't work.
Quoting DingoJones
There is no reason to do it. Filling life with stuff to do only counts if you have to live and you don't.
Quoting BC
The present moment is where one feels pain and wishes to end it, so that's a pretty terrible point to make. The arguments against suicide often appeal to a future that doesn't exist and can't be guaranteed, hence the hindsight bias.
So be a bum. Many people give up, get off the hamster wheel and drop out of "the struggle" e.g. monastics, hermits, homeless, (RV) nomads, off-the-grid preppers, et al. Ancient traditions of (e.g.) Epicureans & Kynics celebrated this marginal way of life as attaining "ataraxia". For some, dumb animal "happiness" suffices. :strong:
You (all of us) are going to die soon enough anyway so why the rush to end yourself? :eyes:
As pointed out already, suicide is a permanent (non)solution to a temporary (non)problem – thus, irrational (or pathological). That there is no inherent reason to live demonstrates that there is no inherent reason to kill yourself. You were Born. You Learn. You Love-Lose. (You unLearn.) You will Die. No "argument" for or against "life" – or the lack of an "argument" – changes these facts of life, so stop whining and get over yourself, dude. :death: :flower:
I mean, I know such arguments are unfavored here, but you don't actually know anything about what does or does not happen after death minus what a 2 year old can observe and comment on.
So, you know. The idea that there is a multitude of reasons to favor what we consider mortal life versus death is wholly valid. I mean, you just woke up one day and came to the conclusion every thing that can be possibly known or experienced in such a vast world and universe happens to be in your head? Pretty flimsy argument, all things considered. Just saying.
Beyond that, there are tangible things, which I presume is what you are demanding. The unyielding sacrifice and strides man has made to provide such a quality life that any thinking person would undoubtedly be overjoyed at and desire to experience. From caves and clubs to interplanetary travel and technologies that those, not that long ago, before us could barely fathom in their wildest dreams. I mean, the logic is there. And boy is it sound. Deafening, really. It's simply up for you to see it when you're ready.
Does man become content when his pleasures and necessities are met? Absolutely. Is this contentedness perhaps not always ideal for his condition and positive opinion on life versus his idea of non-life? Maybe so. Maybe so. Read into the idea of the hedonic treadmill some. This may help you better understand what others are suggesting and following along with to a tee.
Yes, we do not know that at all, despite the fact that seculars today pretend to.
Harming oneself is bad. ...That's a sound principle that does not require pretending to know that there is nothing after death. Things are not at bleak as they seem. Reality has a way of surprising our simplistic and short-sighted fears and expectations.
Is it? What is it good for? What other places have you visited?
Quoting Darkneos
You want an 'argument against suicide' - why? Are you considering suicide and want to be argued out of it? Or is it simply intellectual - you present a case 'for' with reasons, others either agree or disagree, and you either accept or refuse any 'conclusions' because...
Either way, it's good to talk about it, listen carefully to other perspectives, even if you judge them not relevant to your case. This is a public forum, not everyone participates but people read and can gain from an exchange of views.
Quoting Darkneos
What do you consider 'nonsense'? What is 'special pleading to life'.
Is it something along the lines of wiki's:
Quoting Special Pleading - Wiki
'Hindsight bias' - do you have any examples used in previous 'arguments'? Is it related to:
Quoting Wiki - Hindsight Bias
Edit: you mentioned this:
Another perspective: People can look back and wonder if it was all worthwhile. The struggle and its overcoming doesn't mean that life is great or has 'worked out' well. You are right, not everyone wants the same. So what? See bolds, not sure what you're driving at. I think the topics of life and death are being more openly discussed. For example: The right to die.
MPs have voted in favour of proposals to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l7m6r55do
What I've read of the discussion so far, you seem to have been there, tried it all and either ignore or are pretty dismissive of suggestions. It seems that you have closed your ears and eyes and are focusing more on 'winning an argument'. Why does this matter to you?
Quoting Darkneos
What do you mean by 'no greater reason to meaning to life'?
This post by @180 Proof pretty much gets straight to the point:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/953804
Ending:
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Darkneos
I don't know that we HAVE to live, but for the most part people want to live or are not ready to die.
Life goes on, no matter what physical or mental state we are in.
Why do you use the derogatory 'all that junk' towards the idea that people can find life rewarding in caring about self, others and the world? What does logic have to do with it? It's about being or becoming the best that you can be in sometimes difficult circumstances. Overcoming the overwhelming negatives that can surround us, externally and internally. Making the most of it. Just getting on with it, because there is nothing else for it. Unless you end it all. That is not always an option, or the best one.
If you live, there are needs and wants. It seems you don't care much for 'so-called love'.
If you die, there is no need for anything. That's logical. Why don't you want to need anything?
I don't know the answers but I've enjoyed listening to others. Good to know that your discussion continues...and people are engaging. Take care :sparkle:
Thanks for pointing out perceptions and realities of the term 'baby boomer'.
I dislike the term and how it is used to create divisions and rancour between the generations.
I dislike generalisations in particular/general...
It seems that an 'existential crisis' can happen to anyone at any point in their thinking lives. When people despair and have no hope...they can't see a way forward.
This article and the BTL comments are fascinating. Some philosophy also included:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/dec/15/im-nearly-80-and-theres-a-void-in-my-life-that-hobbies-cant-fill
It's trivial compared to the subject of Suicide. However, it is real and illuminates 'existential boredom'.
Edit to add someone's BTL comment:
Important to recognise the reasons/causes underlying a mental state. If you think it's all in the mind, then you'd be wrong. The body and the brain are interlinked. Disconnection, mental confusion or depression has a host of physical causes. Correct diagnosis is essential if any disorder is to be fixed.
You might think you know the answers to the 'problems'. Been there, tried that. But perhaps you need to dig deeper to see what the problems or difficulties really are.
Another BTL comment:
One is not dead when one is deciding whether one should be dead. What you just wrote frames the debate as if someone who is already dead is trying to decide if they should kill themselves. Usually someone is in the former case and not the latter.
Yes. There seems to be a lack of imagination or empathy as to the effect on others. Perhaps they have nobody who cares for/about them. Or it seems that way. And so, the feeling is reciprocated. Perhaps they want to ruin any happiness others might appear to be enjoying. Appearances can be deceptive. Others might be just as pissed-off about life but dealing with it in their own way.
Quoting Darkneos
'Life stuff' might not matter to you - in life or death. But it does to others. If you don't see a need to be concerned or care about people and their emotions, then so be it. I doubt you will be persuaded otherwise. Have you been hurt? Is it worse or better than not being recognised or cared for? Or is being ignored a fate worse than death?
Perhaps people have to stop being scared to open themselves up. Perhaps there should be improved access to 'talking therapy'. To talk about life difficulties, relationships and how best to cope. Keeping it all in can be toxic. But, then again, why open a can of worms, especially when there's nobody around to catch the blighters.
This supposedly adverse effect on others is so often grossly overstated.
Sure, if those others have depended on the person financially or in some practical way (such as for cleaning and cooking), then, sure, if that person dies, for whatever reason, those dependents will suffer a loss.
But so often, it's precisely those "loving loved ones" who push someone into taking their own life. Not rarely, they even wish for it.
A lack of imagination or empathy means that the person can't envisage being in someone else's shoes. There is a lack of understanding and low consideration of how their actions can affect others; their emotions or wellbeing.
This can adversely affect relationships. Because if so self-centered, they don't want to listen or know. There is little point in continuing a discussion, about suicide, with someone who sees it only as an argument to win, logically.
Some people don't even realise their lack of awareness. And the role empathy plays in building trust and maintaining good relationships. Communication.
If they show a lack of compassion, care or love, it might not be that they don't care but that they don't know how to, or haven't experienced any.
Or, in the case of certain politicians who have reached high positions of power (without much responsibility), it can be part of a narcissistic personality disorder. This type is not likely to be considering suicide. Even if they are unhappy, they have too much to live for...
There are other areas or spectrums of mental health issues but I've said enough.
Leaving it here, thanks.
The irony, oh the irony.
Sounds more like you don’t have an actual case to make.
I already addressed this with my “so what” at the beginning. Quoting Amity
Not an argument. Like I’ve mentioned before people who argue against it don’t have a real cases to make against it. You say “you won’t be persuaded” but that’s more signaling that you have nothing to offer and rely on people just assuming life is worthwhile and to think otherwise makes you sick, thus proving my point.
Par for the course
Not really. I think I've played my part in listening and responding.
I will continue to read with interest.
As are your repetitions.
I'm cluttering up the thread with meaningless stuff, because everything is meaningless, and i am an idiot. Or as I would rather put it, making a performative affirmation.
I like that. Great term--existential vacuum.
I've experienced that a few times -- major goals which took years to reach, then achieved, then "now what?" Or, foundational beliefs play out and new foundational beliefs have to be found and set in place. James Russel Lowell (New England poet, Romantic era) said in a poem that "Time makes ancient good uncouth". But one doesn't want an existential vacuum of values--too much of that going around.
I stumbled when I encountered my first vacuum. I had finished a degree, worked in a peace-corps type program a couple of years, did some more school, then got a job at a college. After 3 or 4 years, the 10 year plan was over. Now what? It took me years to fill the vacuum but I did, several times over.
I've lived with chronic depression for decades (under control, thanks to medicine) but have never felt more than a twinge of suicidal thinking. We must be careful how we talk to ourselves: if a lot of our internal dialogue is about the pointless, meaninglessness of life, suicide as a solution, and so on -- we are -- at the very least -- sowing the seeds of more unhappiness, if not our death.
:lol:
Stay cool and in the groove, man :cool:
You have yet yo explain why, make an argument instead of an assertion. Also, no reason for you doesnt mean no reason for anyone. Obviously plenty of people have found their own reasons reasons.
You didnt answer my other comment:
Quoting DingoJones
You need to expand on these points youre trying to make if you're actually interested in discussion.
Yes. From the Guardian article linked earlier, glad you enjoyed it.
The sharing of life experiences - such as you have done here - is so valuable. To hear the stories. Life wisdom passed on. Sometimes too late. If I knew then, what I know now. Yup.
Quoting BC
You've had your share of challenges, and finding your way through them.
Great to have you here to tell the tale.
I never had a 10yr plan. It took me a bit of trial and error to eventually find something I had thought not for me. But hey...
I find it strange that I'm still in the process of discovering mysel. I've never contemplated suicide but have felt like I didn't want to go on. I imagine most people go through similar.
Chronic, clinical depression is a whole other ballgame. Glad to know yours is well controlled with medication.
I saved some of the comments from the article, including this. Note, it isn't about a vacuum but a change.
To see the potential in an apparent problem. Not always easy.
To become who we really are. To find a hidden talent.
For some, it can take a lifetime...
Enjoy the ride! :flower:
And yes. This:
Quoting BC
The idea of committing suicide is not simple. That is because some self-harm and survive, whereas others may make acts of self-harm and survive. It is about the juggling of risk in the tension between life and death existentially.
A good reason to stay alive while we can!
Yes?
The way the suicide discussion is so often carried out in Western culture (what little there is of such discussion, that is) is that all the blame is conveniently placed on the person who killed themselves or seems to want to, along with calling them mentally ill, selfish, etc. While it is somehow considered bad taste to point out how others may have contributed to the suicide, or even caused it.
All that talk of love, empathy, compassion. And yet, it is somehow always other people who should be the first to practice love, empathy, compassion, and never those who preach them.
How vulgar.
This is another vulgar attitude. No, it has not been my experience that people generally accept that life is meaningless. This is a perverse, vulgar sentiment that can be found primarily among the educated poor.
You yourself have noted more than once how your degree in the humanities and your socioeconomic background were in conflict, and how you could never really be part of the academia or the intellectual class, given your socioeconomic background. It's this conflict that is the breeding ground of existential anguish.
It is my hypothesis that people who are poor but whose ambitions in life are realistic aren't likely to get depressed. In contrast, policies like the "no child left behind", all that striving for equity, equal opportunity, this is what is creating depressed people.
It's when one is trying to be something one is not that one gets sucked into an abyss of existential problems.
Thank you for sharing your experience of 'the suicide discussion'.
I don't see any blame or name-calling being attached to anyone here. It's been instructive, even if responses have been repeatedly dismissed.
Most have been patient but there is a limit.
Quoting baker
'All that talk' - 'those who preach them'.
I talked about a lot more than that. There was no preaching. It concerned the lack of empathy and its effects on a person and their relationships.
Like others, I took time, listened, asked questions, provided other perspectives which were ignored.
I will leave this thread for the time being. Another TPF Activity beckons. :sparkle:
Unfortunately for your theories, the reality is the majority of unsuccessful suiciders regret their decision to attempt suicide. In fact among unsuccessful suiciders, greater than 90% will never die of suicide (23% will have another unsuccessful attempt, but a whopping 70% will never attempt it again).
I'm no stranger to being wrong, but I so far don't find a connection between what I've said and what you've said. Can you embellish?
I honestly don't understand what you're after, though. "Preferable"? So I consider suicide: (a) Do I prefer to continue living, or (b) do I prefer to die? That's a choice. "Requirement"? Someone or something requires me to live. Who? What? How does that impact the choice I'm about to make (as soon as I stop dithering)? Or would you like some convincing philosophical position that makes the choice moot?
The two poles aren't equal, here. It's not a choice between to equally attainable options, where you can also just walk away. Vanilla or chocolate ice cream? Meh, I want strawberry. Maybe next time. If one wonders whether one wants to die or not, one is necessarily alive. You don't need to make a decision to go on living: that's the default state. When I was suicidal, I was constantly dithering until I was no longer suicidal. I never made a choice, so I still live. If I'd made the choice to go on living, that would, presumably, have changed the way I went on with my life.
In real life situations, rather than being between life and death, the choice is usually between taking different sorts of action: there are quite a few ways to go out, and there are quite a few ways to go on. A lot of the time, people may have decided to kill themselves, but they don't go through with it because they can't find a good method (success-rate too low, too painful, leaves too much of a mess for others to clean up...). Some people might kill themselves because there's an easy method available (e.g. the gun in Daddy's locker), and because the way forward has no visible path. People don't pick between life and death in a cosmological slot machine. They decide act: one way or another. (Or, as in my case, make no choice at all.) It's a rare philosophical suicide who chooses between life and death on some underlying requirement.
That doesn't mean that there's no discussion here; it just means that, because over the course of my life, I've read a lot about suicide for personal reasons, I tend to have my head filled with the practicals. So what could a requirement for life even be in principle? The way I see it living things live and eventually die. Any choice occurs during that stretch of time. "To live" is thus not a choice. The child that wasn't born doesn't get to choose life. The child that does get born, doesn't get a say either. So the requirement must somehow be ex post facto: it's a requirement for the living to continue living. And they do anyway: until they die. So it's not so much a requirement to continue living (which is automatic), but a proscription: don't take actions that shorten your life. But then we're not quite with suicide yet. See, that can apply to any risk taking behaviour, too: don't smoke, don't be a fire fighter etc. So maybe it's "Don't set death as your goal?"
But if it's about goal setting, what do I make of this line from your OP:
Quoting Darkneos
Pleasure and Death are alternative goals you can set. As you say, they're mutually exclusive. What you're saying sounds to me like "Given that I'm dead, why should I set as a goal any of those things that can no longer matter to me?" But this makes no sort of sense to me: first, you can't set any goals once you're dead. Second, once you're dead that-which-matters-to-you is n/a. You're gone. It's a category error. It's not that things no longer matter to you; it's that mattering has ceased.
This is a long and maybe pointless post, but I'm having trouble pinning down a perspective from which it makes sense to tackle your question. I hope you understand my troubles otherwise we're bound to talk past each other.
(Besides this, there's a secondary question I have: what if there's a requirement for life, but I don't like that requirement and kill myself anyway? But that's a different post.)
Why would ice cream be preferable if youre not required to eat it? Why is it preferable to drive your car when you don’t have to drive your car?
These questions don’t need to be engaged with because they are incoherent, and so is your comment above. Once you bring requirement into it you are no longer talking about preferences at all. Incoherent.
I made that point already, such things matter only if you have to live and there is no have to when it comes to living.
They’re not, you’re just not able to engage with them. It’s easier to just dismiss such things rather than wonder why we even bother with them.
It’s true, why eat ice cream if you don’t have to. Why do things that make life enjoyable when you can just die and not need to do such things anymore? Filling life with good things only makes sense when one is prevented from dying and thus must make life enjoyable. But since there is no such restriction then we don’t have to do all that.
Quoting Dawnstorm
It’s more like why prefer life to death, which is the end of the pursuit.
Every day you don’t off yourself is a choice to live. It’s not really the default.
But that ignores your life. Whatever is keeping you alive does not care a whit about your logic.
I didnt ask you to make the point, I asked you to expand on the points and specifically:
“What kind of “greater reason” do you mean? Whats wrong with meaning people create for themselves?”
Quoting Darkneos
You cannot engage with something incoherent, correct. However it is not true that I am being dismissive, I do wonder why people bother. Observe I have not made flowery appeals to lifes beauty etc.
That is because I don’t think those things are inherently good and people are free to place no value on any of that stuff (inner peace, self love, loving others, being part of a community…any of that pro life jibber jab)
Just answer my two questions above if nothing else.
You are keeping you alive when you eat and all that stuff.
Quoting DingoJones
I already covered that at the start, you’re just not paying attention.
Quoting DingoJones
No it’s not incoherent you just aren’t able to engage with it. If you read the posts you’d see why your questions aren’t relevant.
I think we’re lucky to exist. Sure life is unfair and a struggle at times but we’re lucky enough to experience the good that comes from it. You don’t have to be rich to enjoy it, it’s just a ride and getting off it before it finishes hurts (suicide) so just let life play itself out, don’t put too much pressure on yourself, we’re blessed that we get to exist because when we cease to exist that will be forever and it’s a once only event.
And I suppose that applies to all the other desires I have.
There are different kinds of desires and pursuing their consummation is an engagement with one's life. That is why apathy and depression factor into some considerations of suicide. On the other hand, the rush of risk taking also leads to a lot of death. I find both extremes unnecessary for myself.
What I had in mind about one preserving life is the way one jumps out of the way of the truck or jumps to save a colleague. These actions are not on a drop-down menu. The person who does them is just as alive as the other agents of choice.
I have worked in a dangerous industry for most of my life. The epistemology of learning what is stupid has joined forces with this person who is always alert for the bad things. It is a beautiful partnership that I am grateful for.
(PM me personally if you feel such matters need to be discussed further)
Not even a reply because it's speaking massively of privilege and doesn't grasp the whole scope of life. Outside of modern society life is pretty brutal, and even in society you have to be born lucky to experience the good stuff. Honestly man...have some perspective.
Quoting Tom Storm
I think the least helpful answers are the ones that insist life has good points or that one is lucky to be alive. That smacks of hindsight bias. I'm not an anti-natalist myself but I find it hard to argue against their claims and reasoning. People who think life is worth living are lucky and shouldn't speak on it's value.
Huh? Only a small minority of the population attempt suicide. And even among those who attempt it and fail, only about 7% will reattempt and succeed, that is 93% won't die by suicide.
@Tom Storm - that was a good question to ask, after all the different responses are gathered in.
And found wanting.
Most interesting to read @Darkneos reply.
Quoting Tom Storm
And now what?
I agree it makes sense but not sure it is hindsight bias. I think some work hard, every day, to counter life's negativities and real life problems. We don't know what posters have been through, might still be going through. Some have worked out their own best coping mechanisms, others might have had professional help.
I seem to remember you have expertise in this area, or similar.
Do you agree with Darkneos that people who think life is worth living shouldn't speak to its value? Or try to persuade someone. It could be counter-productive, no?
Perhaps, if they are rubbing their good fortune in, like salt to an open wound, I can see it's not helpful.
I can't remember all the responses but I can't recall anyone doing that. Perhaps, its all in the perception.
And not everyone is 'lucky'. Life is what we make it. It's hard work. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Someone once said. But what if there is no will? What then?
You said you were interested to read people's responses. And waited until now to ask a most pertinent question. So, what now? What advice would you give people who only want to help?
Is it even possible to make a satisfactory logical argument in this kind of situation?
What are the main causes of suicide in young people?
And how can they be addressed?
What does it mean to say, "Life is worth living"? or "Lucky to be alive"?
It doesn't always seem like it is, or we are, does it? Even for those perceived as 'lucky'.
It depends on so many circumstances that we have no control over.
Which philosophy or psychology coping strategy is the most helpful, in your opinion?
In the Northern hemisphere this is the shortest day, longest night. The hours of daylight will start to increase. Some celebrate this: "Happy Winter Solstice!".
But the days are still dark and dreich. Lack of sunlight can bring mood right down.
People making merry, when you are feeling low, can make you feel worse.
Loneliness is felt. Not only by the young.
Is this when most suicides are committed?
What changes would make someone's life more bearable?
So the question for this thread topic isn't something like "Is life worth living?"
But rather, "Is life worth living for underprivileged, unlucky people?"
And if we look at the modern socioeconomic trends, the answer to the latter is clearly, No.
Modern cultures that view euthanasia and assisted suicide positively and have legalized them are clearly saying that if one cannot live up to a certain socioeconomic standard, then it's better to die.
And whence is one supposed to get the optimism to believe this argument or see it as relevant?
Presumably every person has a breaking point, some just reach theirs temporally sooner than others. Once a person has reached that point, based on what can they still see their particular predicament not only as temporary, but, more importantly, that many better things are yet to happen for them and that their life will be nice and easy from that point on until the end?
Not always. Don't forget people who have degenerative illnesses who would prefer to die than continue to experience suffering. Also people who have experienced traumatic events (prolonged sexual abuse, etc). The memories and pain - the PTSD may never go away either. Suicide may feel like the only method to gain permanent relief.
Several things.
First, the source of the "optimism" is the Actual Data that proves that among those in your exact situation (contemplating suicide), the vast majority (70 - 93%) will change their mind and decide that life is, in fact worth living after all. Though your implication is correct that many can not or will not understand or accept that data. But that is an error.
Additionally, we all continuously make a calculation that weighs the positives and negatives associated with continued existence. And you are correct some reach the point whereby the calculation tips to favor suicide. Say someone comes to that point at age 24. Statistically such a change is commonly brought about by a sudden, unanticipated negative (divorce, death of a loved one, financial or professional loss). That is: an acute event, as opposed to the effect of accumulated chronic issues. Think about it, if everything was going great for me then in a week my dad dies, my wife sleeps with my best friend and divorces me and my business is sued and goes under, my calculation will switch from "worth living" perhaps to "not worth living". However, fast forward 2 years, the death of a parent is something essentially everyone comes to grips with, as is divorce and bankruptcy. You'd be in a totally different mindset than the previous time point. OTOH, if I was born into abject poverty, with no family support, no economic resources and clinical depression, and I have reached the age of 24, by definition my calculation at age 23 was "worth living", so maybe at 24 it has tipped to "not worth living". Well considering what I have (successfully) dealt with all my life probably what has changed is my clinical depression (since everything else is rock bottom). Clinical depression is notorious for it's roller-coaster trajectory of ups and downs, that is how you're feeling is likely temporary.
Lastly your goal of life being "nice and easy" is a false one. Loads of people with not nice and not easy lives believe their life is worth living, which is the decider in this context.
Well, you've pointed out a permanent problem (the degenerative illness), and I fully agree with Physician Assisted Suicide in such cases (as do many if not most).
As to grinding, chronic issues, those become the "norm" over time and don't independently tip the scales to "not worth living". True, the pain they cause provides plenty of examples in the "negative" category, but if despite their presence, the calculation is "worth living" something else, or a drastic worsening, needs to cause the balance to shift.
I have spent 35 years working with people who have experiences of complex trauma and abuse, some were tortured in prisons overseas, some were, as children, sexually abused by care givers in horrific ways. Many people who undergo such things never recover, their brains seem to be rewired by the trauma. The high levels of substance misuse and suicide for this cohort are indicative. The assumption to date is that in some cases counselling or medication can assist recovery. But recovery eludes many people who wrestle with trauma for years and some, understandably, give up.
Quoting LuckyR
I have read two suicide notes in the past ten years from people who used precisely your term, e.g., 'I can't cope with the roller coaster ride any more.' It's hardly temporary if it's a continuous cycle. The experience of this is exhausting and every time you seem to be feeling better, you are conscious that just around the corner is another crash.
I was not aware that you are a professional in this very area. Then you're obviously conversant with the data, which (as far as my contribution to this thread is concerned) can be summed up thusly:
"The Houston study interviewed 153 survivors of nearly-lethal suicide attempts, ages 13-34. Survivors of these attempts were thought to be more like suicide completers due to the medical severity of their injuries or the lethality of the methods used. They were asked: “How much time passed between the time you decided to complete suicide and when you actually attempted suicide?” One in four deliberated for less than 5 minutes! (Simon 2005).
Duration of Suicidal Deliberation:
24% said less than 5 minutes
24% said 5-19 minutes
23% said 20 minutes to 1 hour
16% said 2-8 hours
13% said 1 or more days"
In an Australian study of survivors of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, 21 of 33 subjects (64%) stated that their attempt was due to an interpersonal conflict with a partner or family member (deMoore 1994). Most survivors were young men who did not suffer from major depression or psychosis, and the act was almost always described as impulsive. A similar study in Texas with 30 firearm attempters found 60% had experienced an interpersonal conflict during the 24 hours preceding their attempt.
Hence my reference to suicide trying to solve (most commonly) a "temporary problem".
That age range is kinda problematic and the size is too small.
Quoting LuckyR
It's only temporary in hindsight, so that statement is false.
Uummm... no. 1) the reasons for most suicides are temporary. 2) many lay persons don't realize that.
It behooves all of us to make fact #1 more widely appreciated.
Ummm...yes. The reasons for suicide aren't temporary, we just say that because of hindsight. At that moment you don't know what's gonna happen.
Think of Stephen King's Mist where the dad offs everyone in the car at the end because there is no guarantee the horrors will be gone and they can't live like that. Later the mists lifts but regret remains. But again it's hindsight.
You can call research and experience "hindsight", if you want to. And "knowing what's gonna happen" isn't the requirement to make life decisions, otherwise no one would decide anything.
But seriously, we're in agreement that being in the state of mind to seriously contemplate suicide pretty much guarantees the individual is unlikely to be able to process counterintuitive data. Hence the need to broadcast what is known in general from past experience.
Knowing what's going to happen is a requirement, that's how we make decisions. We do what we think is best based on reasons.
Quoting LuckyR
No we're not, because the alternative data is just hindsight and is invalid.
No, the data is not generally relevant to the practice of suicide intervention. It's also understood that the data on suicide isn't accurate. Deaths by suicide are often misclassified and underreported.
It's true that for many people suicidal ideation appears to be situational and may be crudely described as temporary. But most people I've seen in this space seem to have persistent triggers over a given year for many years. In other words, the temporary is recurrent. Birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas, etc are regular triggers for some.
But even where suicidality is temporary, this doesn't generally assist the person experiencing the emotional pain. The reality is that at the time people feel a chronic emptiness and/or hopelessness. To tell someone that this is temporary and they will feel better later may be experienced as unhelpful or irrelevant. People sometimes try to use this approach in counselling and the results are somewhat haphazard.
I never said nor implied that the REASON an individual contemplates suicide is always temporary (though you agreed that sometimes it is, say when it's situational). No, I meant that the conclusion after weighing of reasons to continue living vs dying concluding that suicide is the overall best course of action, is temporary. Sure, the REASON, let's say PTSD from a terrible upbringing, continues. But the day before the equation shifted towards "life's not worth living overall", the individual had the same terrible childhood and the same PTSD as a result and the decision was: "life IS worth living". The following day, for some reason the conclusion is the opposite, BUT some time after that, it shifts back the majority of the time (70 - 93%). All the while you're correct, for many, the stressor itself is not temporary. And I never said nor implied that the fact of the temporary nature of this conclusion should be the basis of therapy, as I have no experience in that aspect of the subject.
Okay dude, you be you.
The suicide prevention hotline has a success rate of barely 50% so their assessment on a problem isn’t exactly valid.
And yeah the advice they give you is hindsight, they can’t see the future. Some people never get over something and they just suffer in torment at feeling like they should be when they don’t.
You just don’t have a counterargument to what is obvious hindsight. You don’t know the future so you can’t say it’s a temporary problem.
You don’t need to know the future to rationally conclude something is a temporary problem. You can assess outcomes based on previous cases, scientific knowledge, experiences, case studies etc etc.
if a doctor tells you your cold is a temporary problem are you going to say the same thing? “You can’t tell the future doc so Im going to just assume this will be a forever thing.”
Of course there are cases in which what you're saying is true, that sometimes a persons suffering will be chronic or not temporary and suicide is a valid option but not in every case. Many times the suicidal thoughts do go away, or the problem is temporary.
Quoting Darkneos
Doctors have a much less than 50% rate of curing certain cancers, should we ignore their assessments on cancer as not valid either?
Several things.
First, I said it's usually temporary, not always temporary.
Second, while "some people" never get over their girlfriend's breaking up with them, wouldn't a normal person be interested in knowing that historically that number of "some people" is way less than 5%?
Lastly you can magically say it's NOT temporary (or permanent) as if you know the future. Not logical.
Hello! This is my first post, and of course I'm diving right into a heavy one! This is something I have considered a lot, actually, though obviously it's a tricky subject to talk about sometimes. I think the crux of the issue can be boiled down to a few things.
Q0) Does life have inherent value?
A0) Depends on the scale you're talking. Cosmically? Not really. Personally? Very much so. Spiritually? Obviously very debatable. I find there are a lot of different contradictory ways to answer this question, and how someone chooses to answer it tells you a bit about them.
Q1) Does life have value even when it isn't pleasant or is there a degree of unpleasantness to which death would be preferable?
A1) I feel like this is ultimately subjective, as the nature of suffering is personal and individual for the most part. From my perspective there are fates much worse than death, but I imagine everyone would have slightly different ideas on what that would be and some would disagree entirely.
Q2) If life does not have value when it is unpleasant, can value be generated or life be made less unpleasant?
A2) Again, ultimately subjective and/or due to circumstance. Fate is fickle though, so it's difficult to say with certainty if anything is truly unchangeable, so it's also difficult to advocate for walking away from the table when the game isn't over yet. Granted, I do also believe that sometimes a person can know when the only remaining move it to longer play. I just think that's a very personal decision.
Q3) If life does not have value, what is "the point" of anything?
A3) This is one I've personally struggled with, but I think it can rephrased and answered with another philosophical question I've chewed on over the years. "Why is there something instead of nothing?" can also be put "Why am I alive instead of dead?" And I think the answer then is simply "because you still are."
Ultimately, we are all surrounded at all times with a variety of ways to end our lives if we really really wanted to, and yet most people don't. Many don't ever even consider it. I believe to some degree life has a kind of momentum to it. So instead of "What is the point?", perhaps it's more like "What *is* the point." Being alive is to some degree, inherently self-affirming, or at least that's how I've tried to square that circle.
I think everyone comes up with reasons *why* they stay alive, be it religion, love, family, duty, honor, etc., Along the way, sometimes we lose those reasons, temporarily or permanently. Sometimes we find new reasons, sometimes we don't. However, I wonder if a lot of it really just boils down to "The argument against suicide is that you are alive to ask the question."
Thank you for your service.
Quoting LuckyR
You can't even say that, again it's hindsight.
Quoting LuckyR
We don't know that.
Sorry, it's the only answer I've got. Whether or not a person's life is "worth living" is one of the most personal questions I can imagine. I admit I also find it somewhat unsatisfactory, but it's the conclusion I've come to. I'm not convinced this can be objectively measured since so much of life is ultimately subjective.
You seem to be wedded intellectually to the concept of prospective knowledge (knowing what's going to happen, before it does). Since that's your thing, can you please give some examples of knowing what's going to happen before it does?
Not the same thing.
You’re making a claim that something doesn’t last forever which can only be known in hindsight. Telling someone with suicide that is lying because you can’t predict the future.
Not really, this is more like predicting future events. The store still standing is pretty much likely apart from a bomb going off or something.
But you prove my point, you don't know your grief is temporary so telling someone it is when you don't know isn't an answer just because other's was. It's like for those whom it wasn't they took their lives.
And I'm saying you don't know that.
A source of optimism for whom? The general public?
What are you talking about??
So if a person is contemplating suicide, they should reflect that there is a 70 - 93% chance that they will not pull the trigger/jump off a cliff/etc.??
You keep bringing in this sociological/statistical approach to a discussion that was from the onset intended to be philosophical. You keep avoiding the OP.
While it's understandable that the discussion of existential topics has to be opaque to some extent, at some point, all this opaqueness is just a waste of time.
One thing that is systematically being avoided in this discussion is the topic of shame and disgrace.
There are things that a person can do or which can happen to a person that render the person's life worthless, from then on forever.
On the one hand, there are criminal acts a person might do that the state deems so evil that the person's life must be taken via the death penalty. What the person has done might in fact be "termporary", but the state thinks the person doesn't deserve to live anymore. Treason is a prime example.
On the other hand, traditionally, some dishonoring events in a person's life, such as a woman being raped or a military general losing an important battle, for example, were considered so shameful that the person was expected to kill themselves (or be killed). It had nothing to do with PTSD or "not being able to bear the pain".
Do people even want everyone to survive?
If yes, then why the military industry (guns are for killing people, yes), why the approval of euthanasia and assisted suicide, why the approval of capital punishment?
Are suicidal people not correctly reflecting society's actual values? Namely, that some lives are not worth living?
Perhaps the most important thing to learn in such discussions is that existential topics (including the question of suicide) are mostly pointless to try to discuss with others, and that this is due to the nature of those topics.
The reality is we're all going to spend the vast majority of eternity as not alive, the only difference is the length of the tiny fraction of eternity being alive.
As to my statistical analysis, as it happens this topic of suicide is unusual in that there is a ton of experience of prior suicidal individuals who fail at their attempt and whether their personal viewpoint at the darkest moment of their life (by definition), ended up being an accurate analysis and prediction of their personal future. This analysis is an opportunity to glimpse into the future. Ignore this opportunity at your own risk.
Maybe, but they are also extremely important. To be honest such questions are more important than ontological or metaphysical stuff.
Quoting LuckyR
Well you can, it's just that death wins in the end.
My older brother killed himself last March, and in a pretty ugly way. This event devastated our large family. We are all traumatized, his siblings, his grown kids, his grandkids, some nieces and nephews, his friends. His grown son didn't speak for a couple of weeks after the death. My mom cries every day still. And prior to that, I saw her cry, just barely, maybe only five times. Was a tough lady!
My view of the world and life darkened considerably. I decided not to have kids with my wife partly because of it. And we just today decided on divorce over my reluctance to have kids.
And my brother was partly driven to that by the suicide of our nephew a long time ago, one he had taken under his wing and who spent his late teens with him. My nephew had two boys of his own when he committed suicide. That suicide sent my brother's life spiralling. He never got over it. Drove him to heavy drinking and painkillers. Destroyed his marriage. This nephew's suicide also wrecked the lives of his mom and three sisters.
Might sound like a BS story to you, but it's true.
I also have a friend whose stepdad committed suicide when my friend was a teen. Wrecked him. He was the darkest person I've ever known. So depressed. Suicidal himself. I was his lifeline, his only friend. Then, years later, his biological father did it too. And then, his counselor, also an older man, killed himself too. My friend was quite a mess for a long time. Luckily, he found God (I haven't), got married, and now has kids and is mostly okay, if a bit crazy.
Again, you probably think that's BS. It's not, unfortunately.
Suicide is horrific for the people who loved the person. It isn't at all like a normal death. I've thought about it myself a lot, but would never even consider going through with it unless I had no connections. I wouldn't do that to the people who love me. I've seen what it does to people.
I don't think it's on there.
I feel some obligation to talk to people who might become another of those people who might become another that one can no longer talk to, but there is- as others have pointed out, no argument to be made. Might as well sing a song.
There was a person who used to post on these forums some years ago, or at least before they moved to this new location. His handle was Miss Lonelyhearts. He was on the forums talking a lot about how meaningless his life felt, asking others to convince him that life is worth living. (These forums are a really bad place to come for that!) I really tried to help. I looked him up some months ago to see if I could learn anything and found an article about how there had been a search for him and they eventually found him in the forest deceased, apparently a suicide. I wonder if I could have done something differently to better help him.
I think I remember the handle, it was a long time back - on the old site? There are plenty of worse places to go, but if you can't find meaning in life, then words are not going to help, any more than a sign post can help when you don't know where you want to go.
(sorry for popping in mid conversation out of context) Without going into too much detail, I've had extremely similar events in my life and feelings. Hope you're doing okay.
There are indeed circumstances where suicide is a perfectly reasonable action and other circumstances where it is incredibly harmful to those left behind. How that determination is made is up to the individual involved but since this is one decision that cannot be undone it should be made with the most complete understanding possible and that means the dreaded counseling as well as one's own research and conscience as a guide to arrive at the best choice. Suicide may be an incredibly noble and righteous choice or it may be an unbelievably cowardly and selfish choice.
I would stipulate one case and one only, if one is likely to cause significant pain to a loved one by destroying themselves, and their reason is a matter of convenience (selfishness) to themselves to avoid the drudgery of life, they should stay alive for the sake of the loved one who would be hurt. I admit this is special pleading but it's the only case I can make against suicide. Any other case that involves only the circumstances and emotions of the one who's making the choice is strictly up to them without any further qualification.
(IMO) The reason is simple enough, human emotion and feeling count for something and you will die soon enough so wait it out, life is short anyway, the wait will be relatively quick. It seems "un-natural" to cut a life short when other lives may suffer for it, other than that consideration, all bets are off and one's life is one's own to do with what they see fit. I hope you find peace in whatever decisions you ultimately make.
A thoughtful and reasonable take on a difficult topic. I agree that folks are free to make the best decision for their particular circumstances. I also agree that such an important and especially permanent decision should be made with the utmost care and consideration. The fact that most make the decision relatively spontaneously is a tragedy.
I advised folks professionally who sought to make permanent decisions in situations where experience has shown that those in their demographic who chose to proceed later expressed regret at their decision in high numbers. Obviously I had a professional obligation to point out and underscore this statistic, but ultimately as these were adults, I assisted them should they choose, in spite of this knowledge, to go ahead. I did so with a clear conscience. Though most in my profession refused.
You can’t really remove emotion and man made ethics or morality from it since wanting to off yourself is rooted in such things
Quoting Nietzsche
So with that we come to what Nietzsche details in Beyond Good and Evil
So find something that transfigures your outlook...
It's subjective to you. But Nietzsche says most people don't even know their way into or out of that labyrinth in his day, I'd assume that holds true today also.
Nietzsche isn’t the best example given how his life turned out. He was wrong.
He overcame and became a world influencing philosopher who is still highly relevant to this day...
You just sound like the Narrator of the Aleph... a nihilist.
I wouldn’t say he overcome anything since he didn’t really embody the philosophy he preached.
What precisely didn't he live out?
I'm absolutely certain you've a lack luster knowledge of Nietzsche's philosophy to suggest that he himself would know it less than you.
Fine if you chose not too, but really all you've declared here is that you're too lazy to attempt to tackle Nietzsche. That your transfiguring mirror is sour.
"Everything is shit beneath me."
Certainly is with that reifying entry wedge into everything.
The man himself had a life that was effectively a downward spiral that ended with him having to be taken care of by others. He transfigured nothing.
In a sense all of it. He also happened to benefit from people not following his philosophy, especially morality.
He doesn’t really understand how human society works or what made humans successful.
In short he’s lucky people didn’t obey his words.
Thanks and I also think your conscience should be clear, you were providing the right kind of support against conventional thinking but right nonetheless (although I do think people are coming around to the right way of dealing with this very important issue)
I disagree. Suicide may be rooted in those things or maybe not. Could be as simple as wanting to end the intractable pain from terminal bone cancer. I say the main argument against suicide is rooted in those things, not the wish to remove oneself from the suffering and loss and pain that it's possible to feel as a human being. Instead the religious view greatly effects whether we consider suicide a sin or a great act of heroism. Remove the religious, moral and ethical filters and focus on the 3 P's. The philosophical, psychological and physiological condition of the person who wishes to speed up their inevitable destiny.
:100: :up:
You can disagree but you’d be wrong. Suicide is rooted in emotion same as philosophy. Wanting to end pain is emotional.
I mean you never really had an argument other than indignation so it wasn’t hard.
LOL as I said I disagree. Well not entirely. I do think you can make a rational case for suicide but that requires more thinking and writing then I want to put in. For maybe most of the cases it's emotionally driven. So my disagreement is with the notion it's always and entirely guided by emotion unless you are claiming that emotion cannot be separated from our any of our conscious actions including rationality and that I would have to think about as that maybe true?? Hmmm
It’s still not the case. Any sorta value system you would use to come to that determination is based on emotion. It’s like Hume mentioned reason being a slave to the passions. There is no pure rational case for suicide or against it.
As you have stated it and quote Hume, that would suggest what I supposed. That rationality cannot be divorced from human emotion and so the statement that there is no "purely" rational case for suicide is trivial as there would be no "purely" rational case for anything else, by Hume's own quote.(reason is a slave to the passions) And as I stated last post, I'm amending my statement with regards to emotion anyhow.
Do you want to live? That's a perfectly fine reason not to commit suicide. Argument over. Now the greater question: Do you want to live, but currently you're not really feeling it right now? Go talk to a psychologist or friend. Try to get to the root of why you're not feeling that way when you once did. You cannot take personal emotional issues and turn them into philosophical issues. Good luck.
"Look at all the things you have to live for" is crap when you're on fire. So is "That's the coward's way out" and "You're going to hurt a lot of people if you kill yourself." It is all meaningless compared to the burning.
Obviously, burning is not a perfect analogy for mental illness. But it gets the point across of how constant mental illness is. And between physical and mental pain, mental is worse. How many of us have had something like a broken bone, bad burn, horribly painful illness, or serious cut that took weeks or months to heal? How much do we suffer from it now? How many of us were emotionally abused, even as adults; excluded by classmates when we were children; made to live in fear? Does all that go away as soon as the emotional abuser is gone? Or does it live with people for the rest of their lives?
Let's say, as a child, a parent caused you great physical pain at times, but always made it seem like an accident, always told you they loved you, and that they were so happy you were their child. Or, let's say they never caused you any physical pain whatsoever, but made it clear that they wish you had never been born, and wish you were not their child. In which scenario will you turn out happier, with better mental health?
Our minds are where it all happens. Some people's minds hurt, constantly, unbearably. Telling them to suck it up, or look at the goods things, or think of others, is not going to help them. Ever. When someone commits suicide, think of how long they were in excruciating pain before they finally stopped enduring it for others, or in the hope that it would end.
I’ve read enough of him to know his philosophy doesn’t work in practice and he never lived up to it. Not to mention his care depended on people not following it
What is a single basic point of Nietzsche's philosophy?
You are aware that Nietzsche details the only time the Superman becomes a reality is when he points to Zarathustra suffering with others from themselves...?
No cause you're obviously too heavy handed to know the difference between pity and compassion.
You're a low disciplined nihilist with a youtube reference of Nietzsche's philosophy. Lame, and thus... not even worth "arguing" with.
Quoting Nietzsche
No I just see through his philosophy an know it doesn't address the existential questions of meaning.
Quoting Darkneos
So his care depends on resentful people? :roll:
Nietzsche's Amor Fati is based off of the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ...
Kinda shows he didn't understand the teachings or Christianity, like I said, easy to see through. You seem to be bothered by this though.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
No, people abiding by the "slave morality" he talked about. Like I said, his philosophy doesn't work in practice, not that he lived it.
He literally defines you with its definition:
On the other hand...
Where as we can see the slave compulsively attempts to deny the fundamental condition of life: perspective...
Who would know? What do they say about him -easiest to read, hardest to understand? I certainly can’t make any sense out of him - even the Kaufmann translations of Zarathustra, On the Genealogy of Morality, Beyond Good and Evil and others. Like any writer, his charms don’t work on everyone. How does one gain a useful reading? Perhaps if you have an aptitude for his work and study him at college? I’ve read enough to know that if I were contemplating suicide and all I had was Freddy, I’d probably go finish the job.
People often imagine they have a way out of the darkness. What they imagine would work for them doesn’t necessarily work for others. I’m not sure that pissing about with slave morality and other rococo notions are of any practical use. But I could be wrong.
The heaviest burdern: Suppose you had to live your life exactly as it were innumerable countless times... would that proposition be a teeth gnashing nightmare? Or would the proposition suddenly take hold of you, sure that you begin considering: "What in this moment, must I begin doing, how should I begin living, such that the proposition to live this life countlessly more times over and over again, infinitly exactly as it were, becomes such that it is greatest blessing you've ever heard?
That is Nietzsche's heaviest burden...
If you would commit suicide under such a contemplation, then ... one prejudges in the atomic fact of their life that suicide is the key... the only prejudice they're pursuing...which is nihilism. The prejudice that life isnt worth living is nihilism.
2.012 Tractatus...
Also cause you suck at understanding Nietzsche doesn't mean everyone does... and Kaufmann's understanding of Nietzsche is actually altered through the incipient reification of his project to move Nietzsche away from association with the Nazi. Kaufmann did a stellar job, but it also blinded some of his analysis. Like in his discussion on Borgia... Kaufmann is confused about Nietzsche's formulation for Highermen.
And Kaufmann's Translation of TSZ is so sterile it kills the dithyramb all together... a note I found recently from the Nietzsche Sub Reddit: Hitler on Nietzsche:
Kaufmann sterilizes the beauty of the tyranny demanded by the dithyrambs flow in rhythm and rhyme cause he didn't like the singsong musical feeling of TSZ. An absolutely appalling grotesquerie of a translation ... because that's exactly what a dithyramb is, music in literary form that dissolves the mind of the reader into the self abnegated state of Dionsysian Oneness...
So when you come up in here being all "who know what N be talking bout..." well guess what, I possess a deep understanding of Nietzsche. And I can thread the production of his thoughts across the corpus of his work, fragments, and personal letters.
Yes. Even sooner. Given the shorter I live, the less I have to relive.
But frankly, I have no good reasons to accept this frame as anything more than amusing waffle.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I have no idea what a sentence like this means. Sorry.
But if I suck at understanding Nietzsche, I have that in common with multitudes. There's also a good chance it won't help others navigate suicide.
Which might also be a polite way of saying that only certain sensitive or bright people understand FN - a common tactic used to dismiss criticism.
But moving away from this -
Why should someone who is suicidal care for Nietzsche - can you make that case? I am interested. And the trick here, I think, is to explain what Nietzsche does in his work that makes it useful for this application. No quotes required.
But, I'm more of the mind of dedication to intellectual integrity, and by that, I clear my mind and go in to see what Nietzsche says, I consider his words with extreme care to come from the angles he sets out in his philosophy and psychology. Bright has little to do with my ability, I had always prejudged in my self the dogged determination to break down, how ever slowly, through repetition through constantly discussing and reading other philosophers on Nietzsche or just reading them in general and something comes to mind to brings me back to revisit Nietzsche. I easily have over 20,000 hours handling his work across two decades. The gradation of understanding grows over time for those serious enough. The trick is to not assume Nietzsche's a dumbass simply because you're uncertain wtf he's saying at first...
Quoting Tom Storm
If you go back to my initial comment here, you'll see the notion I even brought up, which is the Wisdom of Silenus, did I ever say care about Nietzsche? No, what I said, was Nietzsche's observation on history about how the Greeks overcame idolizing the notion of suicide... overcame the wisdom of Silenus.
It's a hint that hey, maybe you could do the same fucking thing if entire civilizations did it... so bitching about Nietzsche as Darkneos did, was ultimately a lazy red herring.
And you... maybe there might be room for considering your disposition towards life if the following is how you feel deep down:
Quoting Tom Storm
Telling us you hate your life without telling us ...
Amor Fati
Huh? I was putting this from the potential perspective of a person experiencing suicidality to highlight how your point seems to work in reverse. This is not my view.
So this is just a conversation, right? I'm not having a go at you.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
But none of this explains why Nietzsche? Why not Camus or Aristotle? Why philosophy? What is your frame of reference for selecting this particular perspective?
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Nietzsche's capacity to mythologise ancient Greece to serve his rhetorical purposes may not be accurate to begin with and not really have much to offer someone with real problems, right?
My question remains: so what? What does this incredibly niche and abstruse notion have to do with whether someone wants to live or not? Dealing with suicide isn’t an academic exercise in writing a paper about how art transforms nihilism. Whether the Greeks transcended despair through some balance of the Apollonian and Dionysian is unlikely to matter to someone struggling with chronic anhedonia.
The moral of the damn story is FIND SOMETHING WORTH YOUR FUCKING TIME... jesus christ...
The point from Nietzsche was a method of delivery...
That you're even focusing on Nietzsche is the mootest point ...A unicorn can say it... it doesn't matter... imagine your penis saying it:
Find a damn hobby, that makes your time on earth worth fucking while... what a mind blowing concept I know...
Learn to comprehend what the fuck is even being said, and learn to focus on the subject matter... it wasn't fucking Nietzsche...
Trigger is an accurate word here
Hey, you need to lay off the language and insults like that. We're glad to have your ideas and thoughts and its ok to slip up here and there, but make an effort to tone the insults and personal attacks down. Not everyone is going to agree with or understand your points and that's ok. Don't take it personally.
Not even sure one should waste their time on philosophy if they're that poor at comprehension...
Normally you slap someone twice to break them out of hypnosis... you know the meme of Batman slapping the F out of Robin?
How does "I hate Nietzsche so I wont overcome suicide through finding my own transfiguring meaning in life" make any sense? As pretty much all civilizations have done this, hence why all nations have their own table of values which are different than their neighbors... all because they've found some type of values that made life worth living.
Take the advice of every culture: "life is worth living under a certain value system..." So make one's own system, if one is too much of a lazy nihilist, well stfu and don't complain about it here... it's not appropriate here to begin with. Dorkneo projecting his self loathing onto the forums.
Regardless if Nietzsche discusses it or not. It makes no difference... Nietzsche is the remainder that's round down to zero on this.
Ha ha! Look, I get it. We all get supremely frustrated with other people and posters some time, it happens. We're all people here and we've likely all had a blow up at one point. Just let your points speak for themselves. If people don't agree, don't take it personally.
We're behind anonymous text and all have different backgrounds and could be in a weird mood that day. The person you're chatting to could be a minor, an elderly person, a Phd, or someone just curious about philosophy and pretty new to it all. Using harsh language or attacks often just gets the other person defensive or dismissive. You obviously have some education in philosophy and have some good things to contribute. Slap with your points, not your language is all.
His only interests in this thread is his powerlessness, he doesn't have much control outside of it. It's the only place he can say everything is shit, while forcing it upon others through his obstinance.
The case against suicide is that he's too powerless to even do that... hence why he's here projecting self loathing. Cause pain is a production of desire.
Feel free to comment on the mundane.
Our genes are the most powerful determiners of our personality, behavior and life outcomes. They typically account for 50-70% of the variation. This is true even for complex behaviors such as social status and educational outcomes.
I also believe the so-called sanctity of life (or reverence for life) is quite a charade. We may value our own lives deeply and those of others we care about, but clearly, from the way we build our society, we do not value every human life. Life-value is neither an objective fact nor a universally held value. We have no business deciding that others should value life as we happen to. Indeed, we have no business deciding for others what values they ought to hold.
Neither the permanence of death (inevitable, anyhow) nor the frequency of the qualified value of life (our own and those of people we happen to value) is a sufficient condition to justify imposing our will on others.
Quoting T Clark
What comforting and therapuetic words...
It seems that people are taking this OP very seriously, i don't know if that's warranted, it's like if anyone says the s word now adays, everyone starts freaking out and barking some therapy dogma.
The OP does seem to be legit philosophy.
My argument was that suicide harms everyone that valued the suicidal, including the suicidal's own future selves.
That suicide harms everyone who cared, sometimes devastatingly so, is obvious. What is less obvious is the future self argument, but I think a strong case can be made. In most contexts we treat future selves as moral agents, both unified with, and distinct from, present selves. If factory work causes you cancer that will kill you in 5 years, that is a terminal blow to your future self. Which is a blow your present self, as self-identity unifies past, present, and future selves. But I am quite different from my past selves, I have different beliefs, different motives, different goals, different abilities. Were I able to, I would bitterly resent a past self that killed me.
My rights as a present self are undisputable. But every present self is the future self of a past self. And so, if present selves have rights, future selves of present selves must have those same rights.
That said, I'm personally pro euthanasia, and I do believe we should have the freedom to check out if that's the decision we come to.
Quoting hypericin
:fire:
Euthanasia for the terminally Ill is one thing. For someone who is really depressed, or shaken by a loss that seems irrecoverable, that is quite another. I don't think it is ethical to make suicide a safe, available option for the depressed. If depression is a mental illness, then the person is out of their right mind, and does not have the competency to judge such a momentous decision for themselves.
Depression is a 'mental illness' but it is neurotic, rather than psychotic. I think it better to view neurotic 'mental illnesses' as skewing or limiting perspectives on reality, rather than breaking from reality, as with psychosis.
The term 'illness' is highly misleading in the context of neurotic disorders. The relationship between biology, heredity and environment is different with, say, depression than it is with a physical illness - even though depression does manifest physically.
I have long wrestled with responsibility in this context. As a person with long-term depression, I have acted poorly in some cases, and ultimately, I deem myself responsible, but with mental illness a mitigating factor.
When my brother acted violently in the throes of psychosis? This, to me, is someone 'out of their right mind' and not responsible for his actions.
I share your concerns about euthanasia for the mentally ill, but ultimately feel it arbitrary and unfair to limit this option to people who are 'in their right mind'. This would disqualify schizophrenia, which is the cruelest disease I have ever encountered.
I acknowledge in advance that there are many moral problems associated with my stance. Personally, if I had had a gun handy, or ready access to MAID, at a certain point in my life, I would not be here writing this now.
It doesn't have to be terminal illness. Chronic illness is torture for many. Complex illness is largely ignored by the medical institution.
I think I agree with everything here.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Maybe not a break with a reality. But certainly a break with objectivity is assessments of one's life circumstance. How can a depressive evaluate this with any objectivity?
Like you, I wouldn't be here suicide were an easy option.
For depression, I've wants to say, "but there is always hope". But can we say this with confidence? Despite having crawled out of our own black holes? How do we know that others aren't much, much deeper, so deep they are doomed never to emerge?
I was haunted reading case reports from NL of assisted suicide granted to the depressed. Here is one example:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/16/dutch-woman-euthanasia-approval-grounds-of-mental-suffering
"Just because" is usually the reply or some prettied up version of it.
My parents are elderly and either they or their peers are talking of an ever growing list of health issues. You can do very little of what you used to enjoy so why wait to reach that stage? "Just because".
The live fast die young adage seems better. Also from an evolutionary perspective we weren't 'meant' to live past our 30s anyway so pretty much fighting against the tide. You can say it is part of our nature to fight against our nature, but, as above, why? if the only reward is worsening health.
My mother often tells me about putting money into pensions for when I am old but it seems like retirement is a scam. Build loads of interest for the banks and you spend on stupid superficial stuff when your body is broken and not really able to enjoy it.
Quoting hypericin
Seeing a 29-year old woman in that situation is terribly sad, and yet a part of me feels happy for her, in that she sees an end to a suffering that I personally see no end to, far too often.
I am deeply conflicted by my response.
Here in Canada, Sue Rodriguez was an influential right-to-die advocate in the early 90s, who took her own life with a doctor's assistance in 94 after losing a court case in the Supreme court. For a long time, I have supported the concept of MAID as a result of her courageous fight, but that was ALS, a much less contentious condition.
I wish my mother had had access when her Parkinson's reached stage five and she lost all physical autonomy. Again, a much less contentious condition.
It does feel like 'concept creep' has affected this issue in the way it has with many progressive interventions - the safe injection site, or the 'no one is illegal' premise in immigration - leading from a small, promising intervention with a small population to a much more broadly applied intervention affecting a larger population with changing concerns, with consequences beyond those of the initial project.
As such, it was almost inevitable that we would land here, with 'progressive' societies extending MAID eligibility further to the mentally ill. 5% of all deaths in Canada last year involved MAID. I am deeply conflicted again, reading that stat.
The thing the bothers me most about blanket prohibitions on the mentally ill accessing MAID is that most of the conversation around the issue seems to omit the voices of the sufferer, even within 'progressive' media and policy circles. So It's nice to hear the voice of the young woman in your link. So much of this debate hinges on the centrality of agency - choice - for the sufferer.
In an ideal world, people rally around her and she no longer wishes for suicide, or the state has enough supports in place to limit this from happening in the first place. But should her suffering be extended as we wait for an ideal society that will never arise? She can always chose to end her own life, but the arguments against that, in favor of the agency of having a chosen date and effective (hopefully) method, have long been established for those with physical illness.
Obviously, real safeguards need to be in place, and this, too, seems an idealistic and naive expectation.
If the pain of being, say, 'a burden to others' is so great as to warrant a desire for death, is this not a 'good enough' reason for it to be an option, regardless of the risks that an individual might otherwise recover with time?
With the 'trans affirmative' model, a major modern flaw is the decline in psychological screening in the rush to 'affirm'. Earlier iterations of this model required persistent, long-term expressions of distress, in consult with psychological support, before turning to puberty blockers.
Perhaps a 'consistent and persistent' model, with the sufferer expressing their desire over a period of time, with windows of 'relative objectivity', could alleviate some of your concerns around offering MAID to the mentally ill? Along with a requirement that someone with a psychotic illness be medicated at that time of their applying for MAID?
Quoting hypericin
Those are powerful questions. Believing in hope is almost a necessary condition of returning from severe depression. But hope, itself, can become a contested concept and hope disappointed can make the situation worse.
No easy answers. I don't think absolute binaries can hold in this debate. Suicide is one of the truly taboo subjects facing modern society, at least in the 'western' world. Telling people "I don't want to hear you talk like that" feels a common response, but of course, it limits people from talking about their suicidal state. Is that a good thing? Is normalizing talk about suicide a good thing?
Regardless, I am glad that we are both still here to have this discussion!
It's a dark thought, 'life will only get worse' but perhaps an accurate prediction, in some cases.
I have read about the classic U-shaped life-long happiness line graph. There does seem to be something consistent around the elderly being happier, or more content, than those at the low point of the U in middle age.
Worryingly, the low point of the U seems to be skewing much younger in the past few years.
Quoting unimportant
Hope to be wrong that life will get worse, and plan for that possibility?
I've come to think that almost everything in life depends upon how you decide to look upon it. Old age can be a shipwreck or it can be rewarding. I've known plenty of old people (and worked with many), and how it plays out is almost entirely dependent upon attitude. It's easy to focus on losses, negatives and infirmities. My father, who lived until he was 98, considered his last 10 years amongst the best in his life. And even when his mobility was gone, he enjoyed reading and talking to people and was never bitter. He used to say that the old folk who complained most about old age were likely the same folk who began whinging in their teens and never stopped.
From the top of my head Kierkegaard’s leap of faith, Camus in his embracing absurdity and various other flavor generally espousing the same with most of the Existentialists. This is a fundamental question for philosophy to tackle and not something to brush aside. Philosophy should tackle the big questions.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Hehe concept creep is a good way to put it if I am understanding you correctly in it being a slippery slope to normalise suicide for what seems lesser and lesser maladies.
I was watching a documentary on assisted dying recently which is current in the uk due to their passing some prelims in parliament for it. It went to the States to interview people where it is legal as well as Canada.
What I thought 'silly' was how some disabled people were rallying against it, for the future creep idea you propose, envisioning a holocaust type scenario where they will be shuttled off for their lethal injections.
They are saying they want to keep it illegal because it makes them feel 'unsafe' and in so doing forcing others to suffer who will not have access to it. Pretty selfish I thought for their paranoid hypothetical. I get the sentiment but it is another case of over reaching just like black lives matter and metoo - as in there is a kernel of truth where it is justified but blown out of all proportion.
I was thinking of a more radical idea. What if it was instead taken to be super cheap and easy to do with little checks at all, if someone felt like it? Buddhism and other eastern philosophies say how all is impermanent and suffering in this world. Never mind the reincarnation fantasy mentioned above and other metaphysical nonsense it is steeped in.
From a coolly rational point of view wouldn't it be better to let it be a simple matter. If we can divorce ourselves from the idea of life being precious - which is really only Darwinian impulse, then why not?
A Buddhist practice is to imagine you could die after your next breath. Perhaps there would be a more light feeling to the world if you knew you could end it simply at any moment.
Quoting Tom Storm
Sounds like usual 'alpha male' rhetoric.
Sure it is but it is my life experience which has drawn me to this thinking.
I feel that the eras I have passed through have gotten worse with each decade, and that is not even considering the health side of things. 90s were the good old days in my mind with people just seeming to get stupider and stupider as the years have gone on.
You can call it classic cynicism of aging but most seem quite happy in middle age compared to me now. Maybe it is superficial and they are suffering too but they certainly don't seem as motivated as me to reject the status quo.
The Buddha too became 'disgusted' with the wheel of samsara which pushed him onward to find a better way.
Except that it is not uttered by so called "alpha males'. So perhaps this is a deflection? Curious.
But what has gotten better is my ability to live with depression, and that's made a huge difference in my life satisfaction.
I struggled with the 'triteness' of a lot of the advice I was given as my bereavements mounted and my mental health and illnesses worsened.
Almost always, I found this comes from a good place ... the sayer doesn't realize that the sufferer has heard it before, and in my case and yours at least, finds it frustrating / meaningless. Ironically, perhaps, the best way I found to view such statements was as a 'micro aggression'. I realized this and tried to express it to people who used the term in other contexts, but, as I am visibly 'privileged', people tend to discount my premise.
If you view mental illness as illness, or disability, clearly individuals with mental 'illness' have an 'invisible disability' and should be treated as 'marginalized'. But we never hear statements like 'believe suicidal men'. This realization was tough on me, as it made me realize how selectively applied 'woke' premises truly were.
Quoting unimportant
Suicide is a fundamental question, but didn't Camus argue that one must 'imagine that Sisyphus was happy'? I don't see that conclusion as fundamentally different from 'get help'. Different contingencies, but the premise of assuming agency is similar?
Personally, I found meaning in the existentialists when I had abandoned hope of doing so. And also the pessimists and anti-natalists I encountered in Ligotti's "The Conspiracy Against the Human Race". There I found the best expression of the premise that 'life is meaningless suffering'.
Suicide is a 'taboo' target in too many contexts. I remember replying to a friend that said I shouldn't be talking about suicide on social media, to which I replied, I assume I would not still be here had I not.
We should be talking about suicide philosophically, and we should be talking about it with the people in our lives. I was sixteen when the closest friend I'd ever had killed himself, and I don't recall ANY conversations about his death with the adults in my life. That was 35 years ago, but I don't imagine much has changed. Those who should be talking about it with loved ones don't just ignore the subject today at least, but rather refer it to the suitable experts.
Quoting unimportant
I don't know about 'lesser' but certainly fundamentally different. I worry the term 'mental illness' was adopted to give more credibility to the still-nascent discipline of psychology. I find the advice 'get help' problematic if it assumes the medical model 100% - the idea that all you need to do is stop drinking, get some exercise and take the right pill? That's technocratic arrogance.
But the idea that the right counsellor or medical practitioner, even the right diagnosis or prescription, can help you? This is true.
I say that having had two interactions with such 'experts' over the past few months in which, in both cases, I feel they knew less than I did about how to approach the mentally ill. One young doctor was on his smart phone while I explained to him my anxiety problem with screen-based interactions. I assume he was on the clinic network, and taking some notes, but still ...
And a second who flat-out disagreed with my self diagnosis of PTSD, because I had not personally found my brother's dead body - I only heard about his OD death over the phone.
These are just anecdotes, but telling ones I think. If this is the sort of 'help' available, no wonder people are skeptical.
Overall, I still credit counselling. For me, the less 'technocratic' the counsellor, the better.
Quoting unimportant
The classic argument. I have no problem with disabled people and grassroots groups making this point. I don't love it when 'experts' try to make this point on their behalf. There are legitimate questions about the potential for abuse here. Honest conversations like this one are missing in the mainstream. Surely we can recognize both risks and rewards.
Generally, I feel the cautionary voice dominates, and very rarely are we willing to consider the suffering prolonged.
Quoting unimportant
Suicidal intent is different from ideation, or a diagnosis of 'suicidal'. Ease of access to methods of suicide make it too easy for people to act in their worst moments, moments that generally do fade over time. Often this is just a few minutes.
I think of my time living in Tokyo, and the ease of people using the subway system to kill themselves. Societal norms around 'honorable' suicides likely worsened this trend.
I would be okay with experimenting with a more liberal policy around MAID as long as the applicant had 'persistent and consistent' expressions of their desire over a period of time. But I certainly do not trust our technocrats to get a process like this correct.
Quoting unimportant
It's a trend in the data, but of course, assuming that such data maps onto an individual and their choices and beliefs is to do bad social science.
Frankly, I assume you are right in your statement about things getting worse - I feel the same. But we do know that deaths of despair are particularly acute in middle aged men, for example. Lots of data on that. And lots of frightening data emerging that sees these trends appearing in younger and younger populations.
I am a lay philosopher and don't want to suggest expertise or anything, but have you read Ligotti's book or the pessimists? It's depressing stuff, but I found comfort in it.
I am that strange sort of depressed person who likes to watch a brutal horror movie when at my darkest though ... my psychologist was shocked when I told her that, but, cognitively, dark ideas in a book or movie seemed a 'safer' space for me to process dark feelings than when I was feeling them about my own existence...
This was me after many years thinking I was finally finding my stride and then I got hit with chronic illness and it just tumbled the whole house of cards.
Before it felt like life, while difficult, could be enjoyed if I, and others, worked hard enough to achieve it but being struck down just as I felt like I was about to start enjoying all the fruits of my labour has made it all seem worthless and that anyone can be smote at any time.
Most annoying to still watch others enjoy their lives in blissful ignorance.
I know lots of people deal with various chronic illnesses and still enjoy life but for me it has stripped away my ability to engage in what I devoted my life to for about the last 20 years.
If it happened when I got older and it was expected then I could have felt like it was inevitable and accepted it more but I feel I have been shot down in my prime.
Now I just feel like why bother when it could be taken away at any moment. I have tried to find new things, like picking up philosophy again in joining this forum, which I do enjoy, but I don't think anything will ever replace my first passion. It just feels like 'plugging the gap' now until my eventual demise.
It has certainly made me see the nature of impermanence which the Buddhists would say is good.
No but I did philosophy as my degree and Existentialism was my favourite, with Political Philosophy second, I would say, for very different reasons. I remember eagerly waiting the year it would be studied proper and when it came it did not disappoint.
Yes Camus said that about Sisyphus; they pretty much all were saying the same thing weren't they, from different angles, as per my comment above, to embrace the absurdity of life through living authentically.
As I wrote in my reply to @Moliere this was well and good while things were working out for me through that hard toil of 'living authentically' but when life hit reset for me does not feel fair, while others still get to carry on their own paths unfettered, and I am once again disillusioned.
I suppose that is the absurdity part, which I am not accepting.
Btw why do @ mentions of users seem to work for others but not me?
Deep dive you mean a life downswing? I usually see that term these days used just to mean heavily researching a topic.
EDIT: Yes to your question. I meant "downswing" -- I was thinking of the metaphor that depression comes in waves, so "dive" came to mind because we dive into the water.
How does one live authentically with 'injustice'? The 'injustice' of chronic illness you suffer from, the 'injustice' of multiple tragic bereavements in my case? I certainly do not think of Sisyphus as happy.
But I do feel 'condemned to be free', and find that notion empowering. Having rejected religious belief, I was left with rationality or nothing in my quest to find authenticity in the face of suffering. Hence, philosophy and other academic subjects.
But this feels incomplete to me. Do you find satisfaction in Buddhism? As a non-theistic faith, I feel less of a barrier to Buddhism than I do towards faith that requires a deity. The problem of evil is avoided, for one thing.
Quoting unimportant
This is a tough pill to swallow, and a tougher pill at a young age.
I find the invisibility of suffering difficult, so when you talk of blissful ignorance, I think of the privileged woke world in which I have spent most of my adult life. Ironically, the majority of people I encounter in this world are too privileged to have experienced the sort of random tragedies that have affected us both. These tend to be the majority of voices I hear on the subject of MAID.
I am glad you are participating here, on these subjects, which as you noted, are worthy philosophical topics. Do you find any solace in talking about these things?
I always have, personally, but feel the philosophical frame has helped me feel a different form of solace in understanding, or perhaps even wisdom.
Ah I missed this response.
Firstly I would agree that there is danger here in making suicide easy, as we all have moments of extreme grief, and, as I say, death is permanent. Many of us are often relieved that in our darkest moments we didn't have access to a gun.
But I also believe that things like "right to life" are meaningless without ultimate control over our own fate. Anyone should be able to check out. But, in terms of assisted suicide, of course we should provide all the therapy, all the options, and all the (reasonable) thinking time that we can.
I do.
Part of the reason I love Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus is because I've found it soothing to read when I'm at my darkest. It's not so much the arguments anymore even but just that there is a rational frame in which to reflect upon my horrible feelings which helps me work through them.
And I think it's an important topic to talk about philosophically, too. "Depression" has diagnostic criteria for a clinical setting but that doesn't mean it's conceptually clear -- and insofar that we're enjoying ourselves (it is therapeutic rather than harmful) then it's rare for people to even want to talk about the various moods of depression in order to make some kind of sense of it all.
Kind of. I would still much prefer my old life back, but it is like my hand has been forced to seek out something else and Buddism has a lot of explanations for the suffering.
I find lots of it ridiculous though, so have to pick what I take, as, while they claim to be non-theistic, it is still steeped in religious dogma, such as reincarnation, fantastical supernatural acts, like the Buddha could supposedly levitate and other such silliness.
This is when you look on contemporary Buddhist forums as well and if you question those things you are told 'you do not have faith'
I don't really read much into that now. Sam Harris has done a good analysis of this, taking the good rational bits and throwing out the nonsense.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Don't know what you mean here. Sounds like a misinterpretation. Nothing is avoided in Buddhism, it is all to be accepted and detached from, good and evil, until you do not care one way or the other and move past the dichotomous world.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Not much though I am indulging myself in this thread. I prefer discuss other philosophical subjects.
It is fine at the moment, or I wouldn't have posted, but not something I actively seek over other philosophical matters.
Hi Moliere, what a great ritual with Camus.
I was reading "The Outsider" for the first time in the summer when my neighbors little kids came by selling lemonade, right after the murder on the beach. Mom asked what I was reading but I abstained from telling.
The interlude made the experience even more memorable.
I find real solace in darker philosophies sometimes. It helps combat that sense of doom that comes with despair. I flipped through Ligotti again last night after mentioning him here, and when he quotes Mainlander "Life is hell, and the sweet still night of absolute death is the annihilation of hell", I find it comforting to recognize my suffering, at it's worst, so eloquently expressed, and shared by another.
Of course I know that my beliefs are symptoms, but the power of philosophy, or dark, emotional art, is one of the few strategies I have to fight the worst of depression.
Interesting, just to notice that now as I write you. This sparked me:
Quoting Moliere
Definitely how I ended up experiencing existentialism when I reconnected to philosophy a couple of years ago.
Quoting Moliere
Some of the most relatable expressions of depression I've encountered are ancient. This article by a young mental health journalist is fascinating.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-relatable-emotions-of-depressed-people-from-3000-years-ago/
We do not seem to have improved. The idea that mental illness and mental health are best addressed by professionals is part of the problem, but I have had excellent experiences with counselling as well.
Have you? Or other positive interventions / rituals?
I studied psychology in university, taught it in high school for over a decade, and have a long family history of mental illness. I have seen the objectivity of the discipline overstated my entire adult life.
I have seen the unwillingness to talk about the hard topics in psychology - suicide, depression, addiction, psychosis, etc. - just in the people around me since I was young.
And I've been exposed to the best arguments of the anti-psychiatry contingent as well. They lose me when they talk about psychosis.
Long story short, we need much better public conversations about mental health and mental illness? I think this would honestly reduce some of the problems we see with overdiagnosis.
Fair enough, and it does. I can't believe in the mystical stuff either, but I do see value in ritual for those that do, or who practice it as ritual.
Meditation has been great for me, although I have fallen out of the practice. I even had my high school students meditating. It was super popular, which surprised me, but it helped that I was actually practicing it myself at the time.
I was flipping through Ligotti again last night and he talks about Buddhism and suffering quite a bit, seeing it as in the pessimist tradition. You should check out "The Conspiracy Against the Human Race". He is a horror writer, primarily, but he wrote this on the philosophy of his writing and his life, which is unsurprisingly bleak if you have read his fiction.
It was a big inspiration on Matthew McConaughey's character in True Detective Season 1, if you've seen that.
Quoting unimportant
It's a challenge against a deity. How can a just God allow such extremes of human suffering? Buddhists don't need to answer this. It's the problem of evil that lead me to finally reject the notion of God entirely.
Quoting unimportant
Well, I certainly appreciate the conversation. I get real value out of talking about mental illness, even my own personally, with a 'rational frame' as Moliere put it.
Also ..
“Only optimists commit suicide, optimists who no longer succeed at being optimists. The others, having no reason to live, why would they have any to die?”
I agree that there's nothing out there in the world. It's all "chasing after the wind" in the grand scheme of things.
And while I can say this, I still find myself searching and grasping because it is of my nature to do so. Desire is the essence of man. And I guess this dilemma is where the pain is coming from.
And that constant thriving, that desire, is an obstacle to freedom.
Freedom from thoughts & emotions, which we all consider very very personal to us.
I think that if there was total acceptance of the fact that there's nothing out there, one would 'turn inward' so to speak, and disdain the world.
Why would there be any reason to commit suicide then? Except in the most dire circumstances possibly.
Wouldn't the smallest things become a material for inner work, for observation and understanding?
Sounds good in theory! Hence why I try to remember ..
‘But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare’ - Spinoza
Yup.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
:cool:
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I've had both bad and good experiences with counselling. I also take medication.
I also try and give comfort to people I see who have the same emotions. In fact I tend to find the more I focus on others' needs the less I notice my depression.
But I don't think that we can just think ourselves to be happy, or whatever that is. Even medicated I have depression and have to recognize it when it creeps up in order to stop myself from going into some kind of spiral.
Other rituals, though, would include writing poetry and reading.
I've noticed an unwillingness. I've been exposed to some arguments of anti-psychiatry, but I'm not invested enough in the project of psychiatry to want to really dig into them. I agree that it's not as objective as people are tempted to believe. But I think that true of medical science in general. There's an annoying habit amongst Doctors where they tend to think that because they are the guy who knows everything in a particular situation that they're the guy who knows everything all the time.
Hardly objective in the manner people tend to mean.
But I agree we need better conversations -- and would go further there and say we need better concepts.
Where I'm hesitant is in thinking there are problems with overdiagnosis. I'd reach for the opposite -- there are problems with underdiagnosis. People may want a diagnosis, but that doesn't mean it's an accurate one....
I'd rather say it's a medical field with such-and-such degree of confidence in it, which is lower than people often mean by "science" because they have the picture of Newton's physics in their mind.
There is no single project of psychiatry. It's also worth noting that the anti-psychiatry gurus are often psychiatrists themselves; people like Thomas Szasz, R.D. Laing, David Cooper, Franco Basaglia, Peter Breggin, and Giovanni Jervis. There's a lot of self-criticism built into the profession. I've worked with many psychiatrists over three decades, some brilliant, some dullards. None of them have ever held a view that what they do is objective. They would see thier profession as a mix of science, art, culture and intersubjective agreement. I think psychiatry probably arouses more hatred than almost any profession (even lawyers and politicians). How often is psychiatry the tool of oppression and anti-individualism in movies; from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest to Girl, Interrupted? And god knows, like priests, lawyers, doctors, soldiers, police and politicians, shrinks have often done questionable things over time.
I don't know about comparisons, but I agree that psychiatrists are often bad guys in movies. There's a stigma against psychiatry.
Quoting Tom Storm
Good point.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yeah I agree.
Does that defend it from the charges of anti-psychiatry?
I'm not sure either way. Really I think that insofar that we take psychiatry, psychology, and the various clinical diagnostics therein as merely kind-of-sort-of right and we're open to hearing one another -- whether they be patient or doctor -- then we're doing as good as we can do.
I'm not anti-psychiatry. Far from it -- it's the reason I'm able to live a content life now.
I agree that there's something to the notion that cultural desires for individualism run against the need for psychiatric help. It also doesn't help that in culture at large people talk about the mentally ill as if they ought have less rights than others.
People also talk about mental illness as if it is romantic and needs to be defended as merely a kind alternative lifestyle that the evil mainstream can’t handle.
Quoting Moliere
Well, it depends on the charges and claims made. I’m not interested in revisiting this fairly intractible debate, but I will say that if a particular psychiatrist takes the view that they are not infallible, that patient rights should be upheld, that medication is not compulsory, and that the patient should have a say in all treatment (which is how it works here for the most part), then I think we're mostly good. But no doubt there are people so hateful of psychiatry that nothing will ever excuse or redeem it. And there have been awful practices. Not to mention instances of people with a mental illness and absolutely no insight into their harmful behaviours towards self or others. The Foucauldian charge of social control, will always be popular. I feel this way about interior designers. :wink:
I don't like the romanticizing of mental illness.
I understand people forming groups, like goths (from back in the day?), who want to defend their identity as an alternative lifestyle choice which happens to include various diagnostic criteria.
Would you agree with:
Quoting Jeremy Murray
? As in, we need better public conversations about mental health and mental illness.
Quoting Tom Storm
I agree we're mostly good in the circumstances you listed.
And I appreciate the self-awareness of the practice -- I've benefited so I have no desire to tear it down or something like that.
Yes, but it depends upon what "much better' means. For instance, if a socialist says we need much better conversations about economics and money, then where do you think this will head? If we are not careful "much better" can mean "much closer to my biases". But I'm in favour of enhanced conversations on most subjects.
Perhaps we here can attempt to create this "much better" conversation?
Seems amongst us all, in our various experiences, we could find that ground given how much we've agreed upon while speaking all the points we've heard before.
I doubt it. I think we need face-to-face discussions in real time, not the anonymous often polemical world of forums. But who knows?
Quoting Moliere
The issue for many people is that normal behaviours have previously been described as mental illness; homosexuality, even feminism. Of course, many religious folks might still agree. And now trans identities… even many progressives view this as mental illness. But let's not go there.
I do too, tho I've also been disappointed by face-to-face interactions in real time as well.
To the point that I've come to think that the face-to-face relation is not literal, but that we can have it here even as we only type to one another.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes.
"I am homosexual/trans/etc." is classified and understood as a "sin", and people who grow up in them settings will likewise attach themselves to that idea and not want to be seen that way. Or, for the "progressives", understood as "illness", as if it needs a cure.
Also, why sign up for an identity that is likewise stigmatized unless you have to? Even with doctor's notes I've been treated by HR peeps as a liar.
I’ve often thought that sin and mental illness are connected for many people. The notion that one is going against nature/god.
Quoting Moliere
All interactions can disappoint. For me there are always distinct advantages to being face to face someone in real time. But perhaps not for everyone.
Sound to like you’ve thought a lot about these themes and have acquired wisdom.
Thank you, and I want to say the same for you: I'm doubtful of my own wisdom (as I'm sure you are of yours), but I'm asking after your thoughts in reply because I think you have it too.
Great quote. I need to read Emil Cioran, where's a good place to start?
Quoting Hurmio
A phenomenology of depression?
Interesting idea, but I don't think it inevitable, to 'turn inward'. One can admire or enjoy a world they are unable to join.
That said, 'turning in' is a project that could bring meaning to 'disdain for the world'. Sometimes, my personal writing when at my lowest points emotionally is quite powerfully descriptive, in ways I can't access most of the time.
Thought-provoking post, Hurmio.
Helping others is as good a practice as there is for people with depression. And I certainly think it is easier to support people when you, too, have suffered.
I agree that one cannot 'think themselves happy'. Is happiness the goal for you? I align more with Buddhist non-attachment, but that too is not available only through rationality.
For many, or at least, certainly for myself, mental illness begins with hypersensitivity and an excess of reflective ruminating. 'Too much thinking' has been precisely my problem.
Quoting Moliere
Better concepts such as? I agree with you here, but have not given this specific thought till now.
Perhaps I should say 'problems with overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis'?
There are definitely a lot of students who get medical accommodations in schools these days, although we also see rising rates of diagnosed disorders. There are many situations in which getting a diagnosis brings a person material benefits, in addition to, hopefully, care and support.
Some of this leads to overdiagnosis. Fears of 'safetyism' in parenting, and parents reaching for medical labels to understand their children. The 'romanticization' that Tom Storm raised. Young people who gain identity points for self-diagnosing online. Freddie DeBoer - who publicly talks about his own bipolar disorder - writes very thoughtfully on this subject. Abigail Shrier is also good.
But there are a lot of people walking around with many of the symptoms of depression who would never discuss their mental health, who represent the problem of underdiagnosis.
If you consider addiction a mental illness, how many people do not acknowledge, say, a smart-device addiction?
It's complicated. Better conversations to me means, more honest and informed conversations, not ideologically more correct ones. Too much of mental health is taboo, especially for men. Getting people talking about things they benefit from talking about. Ideally, this improves social science literacy and people can start to appreciate the complexity and nuance of mental health and illness.
For example, how many people do not even make a distinction between those concepts?
Quoting Tom Storm
Interesting point Tom. I give "Cuckoo's Nest" a pass just because of its age (and overall awesomeness) but that stereotype persists today.
I recently rewatched "12 Monkeys" on TMC, and was appalled by the stereotyping of mental illness. Brad Pitt got an Oscar nod for that I believe, all mannerisms and googly eyes, nothing at all like any of the people with bipolar disorder I have known. He's actually 'rational' because the psychiatric 'system' is oppressive.
I loved that movie as a kid. With a 'social justice' perspective, the stereotypes are glaring, and yet when I searched online for commentary, nobody has a problem with it, and Google AI assured me that it was a fair representation.
I continue to think that the reality of severe mental illness makes many people too uncomfortable to face, and instead they turn a blind eye?
Quoting Moliere
I had a great time reading your non-literal face-to-face with Tom Storm. I think it is absolutely possible to have meaningful dialogue online. It's harder, in that a screen is one more barrier to understanding, in general. But the depth of thought I see here on TPF is different than most places.
I definitely benefit from the 'slow thinking' required of me as a lay philosopher to follow and participate on TPF. Like writing pen on paper, the action of participating here requires me to shift out of fast thinking, a shift that benefits my mental health.
I can't recall back to the beginning of this thread, but participating over the past few days, I see a lot of dialogue that belongs to the 'better conversations' category.
So what would you (and other posters) nominate as starting points for 'better conversations'? Where is the need greatest? Where can philosophy best intersect with social science today?
It is, though I tend to think there are benefits to non-attachment. We can become overly attached to a point where we are no longer happy -- so here I mean happiness not in the sense of intense joy but rather calm and tranquil joy.
There seems to be some subtle differences between the way Buddhists see the world and I, but it's a close analogue.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I'm not sure exactly, though I do know one important thing. You note:
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Which I think is a danger in philosophizing about mental illness when you're wanting to know about it because it helps you express yourself -- to disappear into the navel and not even enjoy oneself but instead get caught up in a self-feeding circle that just hurts.
I.e. we ought not ruminate. And the way to tell if we're ruminating or not is whether or not we're enjoying ourselves or not -- i.e. am I just wallowing in my sadness in which case, OK, I have to wait it out and can't think myself out of it, or am I actually coming to understand it better such that I know better how to deal with my emotions?
Which leads to:
Quoting Jeremy Murray
That's sort of the philosophical question. But the guide towards whether a concept is better or worse is whether or not it helps us to talk about our feelings in the pursuit of finding more peace with them.
Sometimes I think it best to drop all talk of "mind"; not that there is no mind, but to speak about the mind to understand the mind runs the risk of rumination and question begging. Here then the medical model isn't towards this mental construct which we interact with but rather towards whether a person we are talking to is happy or not.
But the social model might run differently. A better concept there might be the elimination of the doctor-patient relationship in search of another relationship to seek peace in -- such as solace among fellows and mutual aid.
Which isn't to speak against the medical model at all, from my vantage, but to show that there's already two different ways of improving concepts. (Medical/Social distinction I'm lifting from @Banno's thread here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16296/disability/p1
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I agree. Sometimes there's not a program or a concept or anything more to it than open and honest communication.
I agree with you Moliere. Prior to a string of bereavements and tragedies, I was able to find that balance in life. A functional depressive, if you will.
But to go back to the OP, I found that I no longer had a case to make against my own suicide. My faith in self and humanity both were lost, and I feared my life a sunk cost. Turning to reason when all 'spiritual' value was gone may have saved my life.
Now that I am passed that, I think it's time to try to reconnect to 'spiritual'. My problem has simply been that the loss of the people, and the job, that I lived for opened up too much time for rumination, and closed a lot of doors in the social model.
Quoting Moliere
Better 'conversations' stemming from better 'concepts'. How about norms that encourage people to share emotionally difficult subjects? In particular, men? Caught in the vice of 'toxic masculinity' that they embody if they talk about their feelings, but also if they don't? A vice that is tightened by the males and females both in their lives?
I would also like to see meaningful conversations around moral accountability for the actions of the mentally ill. And what is the status of addiction?
I also wonder how to bridge the gap between visible disability and 'invisible' disability, such as mental illness. Since, visually, I am 'privileged', it seemed that a significant percentage of people discounted my claims of mental illness in the first place.
Frankly, I think identity politics is driving some of the increases in mental illness, and not just in the sense of overdiagnosis. That was a thesis in Haidt's "The Anxious Generation". But identity politics also gave me concepts and language (say, microaggressions) to explain some of the frustrations of living with depression.
But back to rumination, perhaps I am a Tony Soprano figure, rationalizing his own psychopathy, and in need of a shrink who will call me on it.
BTW, I hope it okay to use so much personal anecdote. I don't do so to find answers or express my own case as much as I find the anecdotal illustrative of broader trends.
Have you read "The Myth of Normal" by Gabor Mate?
For sure. I think such mores are very silly, but how to get others' to see that is sometimes hard to think through. I have no problem sharing my feelings on this subject, and tend to think that a genuinely mature man is one who is comfortable with their feelings whatever they happen to be -- the fear of emasculation is itself an extension of patriarchy, but if these social games are viewed as not just silly but counter-productive to forming good relationships then I'd rather say it's better to question these norms directly and expose them for what they are.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Not at all. They're real; that's not something you need to apologize for but something to be thankful for in a conversation partner.
Nope.
It is also an evil act in the sense that committing suicide is not just killing one's own life, but also it destroys the world the one has lived in. The moment one kills oneself, the world one belonged to also evaporates with all the people in it and all the memories, and relations one has built in it.
Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths.
Moreover, one cannot kill oneself, if one has something or someone one loves. Love is a strong foundation for life to be keep going. Loving can only continue and is possible while one is living.
Are you a pacifist? Do you think killing is wrong in all situations? War; self defence?
Yes, it is wrong in all situations. However, the situations force the wrong doings.
In those special situations, killings can and will happen, which are totally different cases from willful act of the wrong doing.
For the topic of this thread, the discussions should be limited to human life only.
Quoting Tom Storm
:up:
Quoting Moliere
Me too.
A moral duty? Why?
This is spoken like someone who has never talked to someone who has chosen doctor-assisted death. How dare you judge them. I know someone who chose MAID (medical assistance in death) and they were the most moral person I ever knew.
A few weeks before his death, he told me, "I am excited about it, the way you get excited when you are going camping. You know that excited feeling you get planning a camping trip. That is how I feel."
Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up?
I think that's a little sweeping. Most life on earth doesn't have a choice in the matter. That excludes choice, which excludes morality. (Incidentally, it also rules out the widely respected activity of defending one's family, etc.at the cost of one's own life.)
In fact, the idea that we have a moral duty to carry on until we drop acknowledges that we have a choice. The discovery of suicide by human beings is a radical difference from most other life forms in that respect. One cannot expect to simply rule out the choice if it exists, so the question "why carry on?" needs a response, not a ban.
True, in many cases, thoughts of suicide pass. They may be the product of circumstances or illnesses. But it does not follow from that that it can never be a sober, rational choice. The sceptical "Are you sure?" or "You can never tell what the future might bring" can be appropriate. But if it is not to dissolve into the arid wastes of philosophical scepticism, it needs to be backed up with solid answers - not mere gestures.
Quoting Questioner
I can't imagine that. But I've seen it. Twice.
In those cases, there was no choice available. But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness.
Now someone will ask me how I know that the choice was a real choice. The answer is, the same way that I know that the choice to stay alive until the bitter end is a real choice, when it is.
Thank you for that.
Yeah dude. I have made multiple attempts on my life - two in succession, but the first weakened me too much to complete the second in short order.
I have a pretty nuanced view on suicide due to the above, coupled with two of my closest and best friends I have ever had killing themselves some years apart.
Suicide is devastating. It is harmful. It is almost unbearable for some of those left behind. One of my friends mother has never recovered. He died in 2009 and she still spends a certain amount of her time on her computer looking at his search history, his Facebook page and old messaged on his cell phone. It is horrible. It hurts.
But being in a position that you want to kill yourself hurts plenty more than I have ever felt as a reaction to a suicide. Forcing someone to endure what they perceive to unending misery, active, painful, scalding misery is immoral.
It is a lesser of two evils.
Until you come to the conclusion I have - which is that wanting to die is a product of the mind. Unless one is happy, and wants to die, it is, in a major sense, an illegitimate conclusion to draw about life.
So, do i blame those who kill themselves as immoral? No. It's a-moral. But I do harshly judge those who think its their right to enforce someone else's misery to save them the pain of that loss.
The people who are supposed to have been suffering and decided to end their life could have been actually claims of the relatives who want to speed up their inheritance, or the media which are financed by the corrupt politicians who want to reduce the care expenditures, so that they can get bigger salaries.
Please read my post above with attention. Suffering cannot be a proper reason for ending one's life. Life itself can be viewed as suffering.
Okay, so we both seem to be coming at this from subjective angles, through the lens of our personal experiences. I wonder if we can step back and examine it from a philosophical angle.
Some questions that are raised:
Who owns a life?
Do obligations to others supersede that ownership?
Is interference in one's desire to kill themselves morally sound?
I realize a lot of answers will begin with "it depends" - so please take the conditional statements wherever they lead you.
X is suffering, doesn't logically entail X must end life.
There is no rational connection on that thought process that X is suffering, therefore X must end life. It is a propaganda spread and pushed by some dark money grabbing intention claimed by the greedy relatives of the sufferers, legal and medical professionals, and of course the medias.
Don't think anyone has said that. The point is about personal autonomy.
All i've said is that suffering is, in fact, a good reason to end one's life. We often do this in palliative care, whether legal or not. People being forced to suffer is morally wrong (on my view.. which I do not apply to others). I also think killing oneself is bad but I can't see why it would be morally wrong. Your point just seems to be "I don't think your suffering is a good enough reason to upset me".
Quoting Questioner
Haha, yes, you nailed it: It depends. I'll have a go at each, nevertheless.
1. The owner. This seems to essentially mean between ages of about 0-16, the parents of that child (or, their caretaker/s. We seem to legally agree with this position). After that, it is the person who is living the life in question. They are free to do as they please with their life (hint: Not other's lives, which will come into play for 3.);
2. Usually, not, imo. I think you would have to have made a direct promise (broadly speaking) to not kill yourself for that obligation to supersede the overwhelming desire to end one's abject misery. But this is why it depends - if you're just some dickhead teenager who thinks being grounded and having a douchebag break up with you is reason enough to end yourself, maybe your obligations to not upset others do supersede your desire. But then, if you're a teenager, i've already stipulated you can't make that call within my answer to 1.. I presume I'm going to give some contradictions here, so bear with all the answers as they are.
3. Very carefully worded (i hope?). Yes, interfering with someone's desire to kill themselves is sound, imo. If you can alter someone's perception such that they are not longer suffering in the way that caused the desire, that's going to be advantageous to probably many, many people. So, That's fine with me. Actively preventing someone who is stuck in a cycle of utter despair with no end in sight, and having tried many options to ameliorate - I think best leave them to it. We all have to deal with loss. One less person suffering seems to perhaps be a good thing - and going out on your own terms seems even better.
My question would be imagine the 86 year old pancreatic cancer patient who wants to skydive without parachute to go out with a bang (you can come up with many similar situations). Are we wary of that?
Thanks - these were great questions, Questioner :P
Post-Script: I think I am committed to the idea that "I didn't ask to be brought into this life. I shan't ask when I want to leave it"
No, I wouldn't advance this position. There is no "must" about it.
But if a person believes they have no quality of life and cannot live their life the only way that life would be acceptable to them, does it not become their decision?
Again ... it depends ...
My spouse, once very active, was made severely disabled by MS. Once they made their decision to use medically-assisted death, it took months to convince me of it. But finally, due to my deep respect for this person, I came to accept their decision.
That said, I am incredibly sorry for your loss and respect your journey there immensely. Thank you for sharing.
I tried. "We have to look for ways for you to live, not to die."
But they were quite set on it. Never a second thought. No fear of death. Once I said, "Look, we have to prepare to live for the next thirty years like this."
They got quite upset. "Don't tell me I have to live like this for thirty years!"
I want to emphasize that they were very at peace with their decision. They were filled with gratitude for the good years they had, but could no longer live in a body that had already left.
Quoting AmadeusD
You're welcome.
It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights".
Countries where medically assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal are basically telling people, "If you can't live up to our culture's standards, then it's better that you don't exist at all. And we are gracious enough to make options for this available to you." Some people internalize this and make use of those options. (And there is no shortage of those who will comment on this with, "Finally, at long last."
What discussions of this topic so often so frustratingly lack is an acknowledgment that many people often have the desire that some other people would not exist or that they would die.
Have you ever been told, as a teenager, by another teenager, "Do me a favor and die!"?
Do you think that people magically stop thinking like that once they become legal adults?
I don’t know if that’s true. I am currently well and healthy, but I want to retain the option of ending my own life if circumstances deteriorate. If I were to develop a terminal illness that involved significant suffering, I would want that option available.
If your own son or daughter was suffering of some illness, then would you let them end their lives? Is it a logically coherent thought process? I find it impossible to understand that claim.
My friend's suicide in high school most likely triggered my brother's schizophrenia, which lead to his addictions, which lead to his OD death, which may have accelerated my mother's decline and death from stage 5 Parkinsons.
Do I condemn him as evil? Hell no. But in terms of total suffering? I have three chronic mental illnesses myself, his death their origin story. It is too complicated a topic to state that suicide is the lesser of two evils. It makes 'sense' sometimes, it doesn't in others, and most fall into the mushy grey moral middle.
I won't condemn the choice and agree with you that forcing a life of suffering is immoral. I am glad you have never felt that extremity of pain following a suicide. But my friend was bipolar - his life was objectively not all 'scalding misery'.
And some suicides are an escape from consequences, or cultural - I lived in Tokyo for years where the 'honourable' suicide tradition has a long history. Jump in front of a subway and your family gets the bill - to the extent that certain 'cheaper' lines were preferred.
Quoting Corvus
I asked my mom's nursing home manager when she reached stage five if we could consider the option. The manager was appalled, despite this having been my mother's stated wish. Had I had the power, I would have made it happen in a second.
And yes, were my own hypothetical child to suffer to such an extent, if I believed this is what they wanted, as I did with my mom, I would reach the same conclusion.
Quoting Corvus
I think 'life is suffering' a human universal. But of course, some people suffer dramatically more than others. As one who, hopefully, is not in the latter category, where do you get the certainty to conclude those who are must continue?
Moliere and I were talking about 'better conversations' earlier in the thread. For me, suicide remains perhaps the most powerfully taboo topic we have in Western society, so kudos to you and all for the personal and philosophical contributions both.
Too many deaths of despair these days not to try something different.
I don't know who resurrected this thread, or perhaps its been viable this entire time, but I would say that you are viewing reasons to live divorced from goodness. What is good is ultimate what should motivate the rational agent to live or to die; and so we must ask ourselves "is it good to live or to die?".
If you think goodness is non-natural, then it makes sense that you evaluated the fundamental 'to be or not to be' in terms of some extrinsic purpose; however, I would say goodness is natural. Goodness is, classically, just the equality of a thing's essence and existence; and so the more realized a thing is at what it is---the more being it has---the better it is. Consequently, the most fundamental good is living; and this is why we see a natural affinity towards survival among everything that lives.
But, to respond: Yeah, obviously. Its not a serious claim. Its edge-lord nonsense. I can see why a particularly vulnerable person would be harmed by those words. But the idea that it would lead to actual suicide is extreme. Yep, it happens, but then the desire was not that of the actor.
Is that what you're getting at? I think that's prima facie a totally different conversation.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Difficult. The mania of bi-polar can be super distressing. The manic periods are disordered, almost inhuman. The depressive episodes are almost the worst mental prison one can be in. It's hard to say there's any objectivity to it not being that bad.
That said, it's up the actor to decide this - not others (saving for true perspectival mental illness).
Your OP lists some kinds of answers you would consider *not* acceptable, but it is not clear to me what kind of answers you *would* accept.
You received many responses, most within the framework of hedonistic materialism, and you've rejected all of those, maybe with good reason. By hedonistic materialism, I mean: pleasure is good, pain is bad, nothing else is good or bad except as leading to pleasure or pain; there is no God, no immortal soul: when we die, we cease to exist. Is that the framework you also are operating under? Would you be open to answers that question or deviate from those ethical premises---for example, Kantian or other deontologies, virtue ethics, natural law, non-hedonistic consequentialism? Or questioning the materialistic assumptions? It seems you've poo-pooed metaphysics, but it is important to realize that materialism, too, is a metaphysic.
Or maybe you are not looking for an ethical answer at all, but only considerations of "self-interest":
egoistic, what some would call "prudential" reasons? Do you think there is an objective rightness or wrongness about suicide, and if there is, do you care?
"How dare you judge them." People who judge that suicide is wrong are judging a kind of act. They are not necessarily judging any *person*. You yourself, I hope, will agree that judging an act is morally okay, because in that very sentence you were judging an act of judging.
"they were the most moral person I ever knew."
Seems to me this is begging the question. "They" may be the most moral person you ever knew *except* (possibly) in the matter of suicide. So then *if* suicide is okay, then yes, they were very good. But if suicide is horribly wrong and they did it, then they also did something horribly wrong. Same as a man who is morally upright in every way except that he rapes young girls. I won't deny that your person was very conscientious and did what they *thought* was right, but so do people who commit horrible crimes against humanity for the sake of some twisted political ideology.
"[Who owns a life?]. The owner. This seems to essentially mean between ages of about 0-16, the parents of that child (or, their caretaker/s. We seem to legally agree with this position). After that, it is the person who is living the life in question. They are free to do as they please with their life (hint: Not other's lives, which will come into play for 3.);"
Yet parents do not "own" their children in the same way they own material things. If I own a book, I may cut it up, beat it without mercy, burn it, sell it to another. I may not do that with my child.
If I may not kill the child whose life I "own", it's not clear why "owning" my "own" life as an adult would mean I may kill myself.
Perhaps it is not safe to assume that any of us owns *any* life, even the one we call our "own."
Good point - separating the person from the behavior
Quoting Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
And this begs another question - in what circumstances is suicide moral?
I few posts upthread I shared my personal experience with my spouse, and I am very satisfied with the morality of his decision to use MAID
It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering.
Agreed.
Sorry if I used the phrase incorrectly. I meant "raises another question"
Quoting Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Because one is you, and one is not. By analogy. when you hold funds in trust, you cannot bankrupt the trust. You can bankrupt yourself at leisure.
How can a person be free from "external coercion" when they are living in a culture telling them that by failing to live up to the culture's standards they have lost the right to live?
Some people (perhaps even most people) do hold those additional premises mentioned above. With those additional premises, it all makes for a coherent thought process.
It's not one I personally share, but it does help me understand others who do.
In other words, you have internalized your local cultural standard of what makes life worth living and from when on life isn't worth living anymore.
Maybe that's a projection on your part. Certainly an overly complicated frame. If I experince irreversible pain I would like to die.
On all levels, humans actually wish that certain other humans would die or not exist.
From children telling other children "Do me a favor and die!" to governments acquiring massive amounts of weapons and starting wars.
It's normal. It's normalized. Even if tacitly.
Quoting AmadeusD
Why on earth not?? Can you explain?
If other people want you dead, should you not kill yourself?
By staying alive, you are offending them!
Can we unpack this? Because other people's desires that someone should die or not exist certainly play a part in how worthy of life someone deems themselves.
It's not a projection, it's a fact. Not everyone thinks the way you do, it's not universal, it's not a given, it's not something that can or should be taken for granted about people.
How much suffering someone experiences along with the pain they're feeling is not the same for all people. This is kind of the whole point of Buddhism: to distinguish between pain and suffering. Pain is unavoidable, but suffering isn't. Suffering is that which, arguably, hurts more than the pain.
It is just emotional response rather than logical thought process. There is no logical entailment from.
X is suffering, therefore X must end life. No added premises can justify that nonsense.
Two things. 1) not everyone thinks like you do either. 2) I am not speaking for others, I am talking for myself.
Quoting baker
Of course. People ought to make their own decision on this. But the option should be available for those who, like me, would probably prefer that option even if not ultimately taken..
The secondary question of whether this idea could be twisted through "peer pressure" or by unscrupulous relatives is distinct from the question of its usefulness.
But this idea - Quoting baker
Still looks like a projection, or appears to be a patronising dismissal of someone else's' view. The implicit assumption that someone is unable to make an independent assessment of this scenario for themselves.
Rejected. Perhaps we have no more to discuss...
Quoting baker
I.,..did? If it wasn't moving for you, that's fine.
Quoting baker
As noted, and supporting my slightly quippy response above, their beliefs, utterances and desires are irrelevant. The idea this hinges on is that i want to die.
Quoting baker
Well, they can. But quite often do not.
You seem to be conflating influence with coercion, I meant the latter.
1. The question is badly formulated. If someone owns a life, that is slavery. The idea that I might or might not own my own life is meaningless. But if you are asking, who has the right to make decisions such as ending a life, it seems crystal clear to me that only I can decide to end my own life. What about capital punishment? I oppose that. What about the life of someone who is not competent? That's much more difficult. But this thread is about suicide, so those situations are off topic.
2. DIgnitas are very clear that people contemplating their euthanasia should talk to their nearest and dearest and do their very best to persuade them to accept their decision. But there's a corresponding obligation, I think, on relatives not to unreasonably oppose it.
3. It depends on the details of the case. But sometimes it is not - and sometimes it is.
Quoting Tom Storm
Me too.
I have heard that in Canada, it is not unusual for people to go through the procedure for euthansia but never use it.
Don't forget about the instruction not to prolong life unnecessarily. It has legal force in many countries, though it goes by different names.
Well, since we were talking about suicide, I thought it understood that we were talking about the life in question. Sorry for the imprecision.
Quoting Ludwig V
On principle, so do I.
Quoting Ludwig V
Just a note - if it's assisted death we are talking about, it is not referred to as euthanasia, which removes the agency of the person making the decision.
Okay, so you punned. No problem! I recently read something about people not understanding the phrase, so I wanted to be sure you understood, and now I know.
QUOTE
Run the same argument with a pet and you get my position, legally.
'If I may not kill the child whose life I "own", it's not clear why "owning" my "own" life as an adult would mean I may kill myself.'
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Because one is you, and one is not. By analogy. when you hold funds in trust, you cannot bankrupt the trust. You can bankrupt yourself at leisure.
UNQUOTE
I think both analogies fail.
1. "Run the same argument with a pet and you get my position, legally."
You mean like this? "If I own a book, I may cut it up, beat it without mercy, burn it, sell it to another. I may not do that with my child." (My words) Substitute pet for book: "If I own a pet, I may cut it up, beat it without mercy, burn it, sell it to another. I may not do that with my child."
(a) In many jurisdictions, those activities, except for selling, would get you in trouble with laws against cruelty to animals, and even where there are no such laws , those actions are immoral. True, you may euthanize a dying pet, but even with pets there are limits to what "ownership" allows us to do.
(b) More importantly, you are a human being, an animal with a rational nature. Your pet is not. That is a critical difference and makes the child far more analogous to you than the pet.
Incidentally, I'm wondering why you chose to qualify your position as something I would get "legally". I thought we were discussing a moral issue.
Or did you mean this? Substitute pet for child: "If I own a book, I may cut it up, beat it without mercy, burn it, sell it to another. I may not do that with my pet."
I don't see how that gets me to your position, legally or otherwise.
2. "Because one is you, and one is not. By analogy, when you hold funds in trust, you cannot bankrupt the trust. You can bankrupt yourself at leisure."
Agreed, you cannot, legally or morally, deliberately bankrupt the trust. But can you bankrupt yourself so freely? If you deliberately accumulate more debt than you can pay, it is the same as stealing. It is unjust to the debtors, and likely violates a duty towards yourself as well.
1. The analogy does not fail. You've simply changed the basis of the analogy. The entire point is that a child/pet/person is not a book. Ownership of a Pet does not entail you can do those things. Ownership of a book does - ownership is legal status, so we are specifically talking about that. I think that's all that needs to be said there.
2. I should have said deplete the funds, not bankrupt. That was entirely wrong and your objection works. But reduce it depleting funds and making yourself illiquid and my point goes through against that objection.
Not an unreasonable assumption. But I wanted to put owning a life into a context that made it clearer, IMO, how absurd the idea of owning one's own life is.
Quoting Questioner
You are right. I'm a bit old-fashioned and forgot about this.
Suffering is brief, but death is eternal. Suffering can be endured, while death cannot be.
That's just an ordinary folk's view on death. Death continues eternally. It is an event for transformation from a physical being to immaterial being. Does immaterial being exist or not? This is a matter for further discussion.
When I first read your reply I thought you were in a better state than before, and I was happy for you. Then it occurred to me that the missing word after "don't" would most likely be "see".
I take it you are no longer interested in answers to the OP, "to find a good argument against suicide". Some people continuing the discussion here, after its nine months lapse, are no longer trying to answer that; they are more intent on finding conditions in which they think suicide is justified.
It sounds like what you need now, more than philosophical wisdom, is prudent practical advice. May God lead you to good counsel to lift you out of your present situation.
Sorry, I don't know what analogy you want me to make. But it looks like we are agreeing that in whatever sense I "own" the life of a human being, whether my own or a child's, it does not give me the same kind of rights to do whatever I want with it, as if it were a book or another piece of material property. And that's all I was aiming for, really.
Aside from this:
Quoting Ludwig V
Quoting Ludwig V
which was a very real thing back in the day and thoroughly wicked, but of course that's not what we're talking about here. Ludwig V is right to point out that whenever we speak of "owning" somebody or somebody's life, unless we do mean slavery, there is something odd about this sort of speech. It is not univocal with "owning" a car, a house, a picture, or even a pet.
Ah I didn't know you were familiar with them too, more than a pop understanding. Yes I tried to dig deeper into it and the metaphysical became a stumbling block each time as it is pretty unavoidable.
You have to do a lot of 'bracketing off' of that stuff and there comes to be so much bracketing off you wonder 'is this still Buddhism'? I still haven't found a good teacher/writer on the subject who seemed to have a high level of attainment while also dismissing that stuff. The book Buddhism without Beliefs promises it but did not deliver imo. They just do silly renaming of everything, even things there was no need to - for example, changing 'life is suffering', to 'life is anguish' - yea so what was the point of that? and much other semantics reshuffling. There was no conflict there, I think they just wanted to 'soften' it but anguish seems just the same kind of weight to it so don't know why they would change it. Mostly other pointless changes like that which made me stop reading not for in.
Sam Harris in his book Waking Up does the best job at extricating the useful from the bloat but all too little attention is given but what he did write in there was good. His basic evaluation was that the fantastical stuff was a product of their worldview or the times or just their flawed characters, which we must accept they were still human and capable of flawed judgement, despite what the writings would say that they are perfect beings who always made perfect decisions (that might be another debate if they always acts perfectly or not having attained 'enlightenment'), but we can still take a lot from their skills at insight and should not let the former color the latter.
Oh actually, now I think of it, Ajahn Chah and the Thai Forest traditional has been the closest. Although on deep inspection, from my reading, he did still believe in all the 'woo woo', but from some snippets I got he deliberately downplayed them in his teachings as he thought them distractions to learning the path as should be learning the nuts and bolts of practice.
Whatever his personal reason that did make his teachings very palatable from my perspective.
I believe this is where you exited the thread of mine on communism/anarchism when I implied that western medicine is mostly in place to pacify the worker and keep them productive in the Protestant work ethic tradition.
I am not saying some great things are not achieved with modern medicine, like how they can put a wire up through the groin with a camera and pull out a blood clot from the brain for example. There is lots of value, but there is also lots of not wanting to find a cause and just pacification because it is easier/cheaper to do that.
I am saying that medicine, like pretty much anything in society is steeped in politics as to what decisions are made on where to pour money to treat what. Sometimes that happily aligns with what is best for the patient/their ailment and often times it is not.
To bring it back round to counselling I would say that is subject to the same things as mentioned above. What counsellors encourage as healthy vs maladaptive will be in line with what the status quo is of society at large.
There is indeed something odd. I think there are two aspects to it. The first is fairly straightforward "A owns B" asserts that A has the means to control B and is not inhibited from exercising it. The second plays of the implicit reference to slavery and suggests that B is a lesser person as a result. It is like calling a human being an animal. In one way, it is a fact, but in another, it is an insult.
Quoting Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
I agree. And it is even less univocal with "I own my own life". But perhaps the point here is to assert one's right to decide whether and when I have the right to end my own life. The bad news is that it is not an argument.
Perhaps, in some contexts, the relevant part of the metaphor is the assertion that I do not own my own life. The implicit claim is that there are some decisions about my own life that I do not have the right to make. This may well be true, in the sense that we all have responsibilities to others, in one way or another. But it does not follow that there may be circumstances when those responsibilities fall away, as when I am no longer able to meet them.
I wonder if you are reading posts at all before replying. I have never said that you will die multiple times. No, never said that.
I said that death continues, once one dies. Death is a fact or case, which will continue eternally. Once one was born and lived in this material world, death, when it happens, continues eternally. No one can erase the fact or the case.
Some people enjoy the mania.
I agree, ultimately, that the individual gets to choose. I don't know what my friend might have done differently had he realized how much harm his choice was to cause my family.
Personally, I think the depression side of things caused him to act impulsively, and that he would have preferred not to act when in that state. The drinking and arguing he had done with my brother certainly complicated his choice.
For sure we should not, societally, make it 'easy' to choose death in moments of despair. But Ryan didn't have a gun, he chose a train. I don't think we can, or even should, regulate that sort of choice out of existence.
No matter what else I think on this subject, I know that I have always forgiven Ryan his choice.
If you're going to just repeat yourself, that's fine but you're wrong.
Right. I've had similar concerns.
I guess my premise is that there is something about that 'stuff' that furthers the project, meaningfully, for some practitioners?
I am a straight-up atheist, but I particularly dislike the secular sort who dismisses the religious as fools and then tells you about that ghost they saw once. (Not suggesting you or anyone else here posting).
Even the secular tend to be spiritual.
However, the "Buddhism without Beliefs" premise strikes me as being as silly as you suggest. It feels very narcissistic-now to take that stance, one that implies a sort of certainty that enlightenment rationality is definitively the superior belief system.
I think all belief systems have things to offer, and that science is the best one yet, but science sucks when it comes to any sort of 'spiritual realm', and I might be wrong in thinking it best.
My favourite reason for ignoring the mystical in Buddhism without dismissing it for all is the 'world's happiest monk' Matthieu Ricard. He spent a total of five years alone meditating in a hut, and his brain scans are remarkable.
Perhaps one does not half to be mystical to do that. But I suspect some mysticism makes is more possible.
Quoting unimportant
I liked "The Moral Landscape". I will have to check out "Waking Up". My own premise insists I remain open to all paths as potential sources of Nirvana. 'Many paths, one truth'. Harris seems to need his truth to be true, which puts him in the same camp as the typically-religious to me.
Quoting unimportant
I totally agree, but I don't think, as an atheist, that we have to insist that genuinely religious people must be so literal? I mean, all those scribes, scribing away at holy texts. Someone screwed up along the way.
I just re-read "Siddhartha" by Hesse. Have you read it? Hesse's questing protagonist rejects all teachers and teachings, essential to his enlightenment. The first time I read "Siddhartha" was as close to divine inspiration from a text as I have come, but it's definitely a western take, low on the mystical, and praising it too much may get you charged with cultural appropriation.
Quoting unimportant
To reply to your comment to Moliere, I agree with you, but wonder if the essential component of spiritual teaching and rationalistic counselling is the same, some sort of virtuous / relational quality between people, that may be more valuable than how 'silly' or 'conformist' a statement is?
BTW, to repeat a story I shared elsewhere, I did find a good teacher once. I asked him when to meditate, since I was 'too busy' in the morning. He told me to 'meditate twice'.
They are not just events. They are also extension into the being and transformation of the being. That is exactly what I was pointing out. But you can only see one aspect of the event, and were blinding yourself into darkness.
Quoting AmadeusD
I had to repeat the points because your couldn't see them any further.
That is my position and you haven't said anything that even could move this. All good.
Please go and read some books on Introduction to Philosophy.
Because I don't think anyone is going to take that seriously, in same sense no one considers "life" an extension of "birth". You are not "born" for your entire life. You are born at one moment, right? And hten your life extends beyond the moment of birth. Hence use of that term. THe same applies to Death. So what are you talking about? It would be helpful to not repeat yourself, because that has been poetics so far. But you seem hell-bent, to the point of being childish, on having this taken seriously - so help me out.
It is not that simple just like the shallow medics and legal folks see the issue. If that is all there is to it, then why people do philosophy? Philosophy is a subject which goes deeper and behind what is visible and audible. It is a serious subject.
If you say they are just events, then that is the talk of the ordinary folks. Yes, even 10 year old know what you are talking about. But here we want to go deeper and behind the objects and events. But you mock the wisdom of depth. Hence I asked you to go and read some Introduction to Philosophy.
I get the impression of a chap who is an alumnus of the Jordan Peterson school of Philosophising.
This is not philosophy mate. All good.
1 the act of dying
2 the state of being dead
https://www.wordnik.com/words/death
@AmadeusD has been using the word in sense 1, @corvus in sense 2.
Aren't you guys tired of quarreling over semantics?
Before you judge, most of us knew the OP from past posts. Darkness had not been doing well. His post was not coming from a purely intellectual place or morbid curiosity. I genuinely hope they are doing well.
If you read his posts, he talks in the ordinary street folks manner on the hot philosophical terms, and then tells you are wrong with no backing arguments why you are wrong. He just keeps repeating himself saying others point of view is not philosophy. It is not just clash of different semantics.
Corvus is literally using poetics to try to make metaphysical points. Its weird and empty.
Or you meant you will 'deal with me' in the Mafia sense? Ok, the suit makes more sense now...
This is classic JP style.
Besides past poster's personal issues it has been a fruitful discussion and likewise should it not be discussed as catharsis, indeed all the more reason to as Moliers and Jeremy Murray above have noted they get value from such exercises.
Of course, if you know particular poster's to be particularly vulnerable one must tread very carefully but I did not know any of that background and besides isn't the thread several years old? so I doubt the OP is even watching it any more so new people need not have that initial concern.
With the same breath, you deny it is semantics, and insist that "death" means only one thing?
Different strokes for different folks. To me, that sounds more like an encouragement for suicide, not an escape.
Of course, it’s just personal taste. I’m not sure music or books have ever offered me much consolation. I’ve sometimes thought it might be nice to overdose to Strauss’ Four Last Songs (Jessye Norman) and some good whisky. I rarely read and listen at the same time.
Interesting, that you find my points are poetics. Poetics are supposed to be beautiful written expressions of thoughts on the nature or mind. What part of my thoughts and writing were poetics?
Quoting AmadeusD
Really? What is your definition of philosophy?
In the film Nomadland (2020) there is a speech that sums up the essence of self-help therapy talk, it is the final scene with Bob Wells (The clip/or full movie can be easily pulled from YouTube) where he looks a lot like Karl Marx and Santa Claus combined, and for me the most poignant point of the film that hits home melancholically, but ultimately very human, be it myth making or not… not sure how much Bob is acting or playing himself here either way the dramatic dialogue distils in a few minutes the lingering ghosts of mourning, a hauntology.
https://youtu.be/rnwNR6q5kNQ
Yeah slight typo but no I don't actually want to end it, it just seemed like the quickest way to deal with my problems at the time. But deep down I know I have no real desire to end my life barring some intense circumstance.
Fantastic to hear. I admit to some concern when this thread continued and you hadn't posted for a while. Glad you're in a better head space.
If someone is suffering from pain, then the cure will be medical help in order to ease the pain. Killing oneself because of the pain would be like, demolishing a whole house, when it has a roof leak, or broken window. It sounds irrational act as well as immoral doing so, or recommending so.
Death is not momentary event. When someone dies, the ripple of the death lasts and could affect many other close people of the dead for long time. And the world of death is totally unknown to mankind. Buddhists believe when one dies, they incarnates into other beings based on the karma.
It is not a case of simple momentary event which happens in a second, and everything will be the end. That would be an idea of the ordinary folks who have no idea on the bigger picture of the transformation of the living existence on the Earth into the unknown world.
Okay, but what about the situation when killing oneself is the answer to the problem?
The rest of your posting treats death as an option that those who don't perform suicide can avoid. Alas, everyone must address death, suicide merely alters the timing of it somewhat. I do agree with you that suicide is commonly a mistake, but there are cases when it is a reasonable course to take.
I couldn't think of any of such situation. What could it be, for example?
I always used to think killing oneself is committed when one is in deranged mental state or under illusions of some sort.
When some one is condoning and even actively promoting assisted killings, in most cases they seem to be motivated by their own financial gains by killing the sufferer under the disguise of act of mercy, which is immoral.
Used to think? Well now that you're smarter and more experienced, what do you think now?
As to your last paragraph, I'm curious what the source of information you're using to derive your conclusion as to why folks "seem to be motivated" as you describe.
Lastly, for someone whose family and close friends have passed and are suffering from intractable pain that their doctors have no answer for and are due to die of this malady in say 1 year, would extending that to two years be preferable? How about shortening it to 6 months? Could logical arguments be made in both cases?
Out of interest.
My view has not changed.
Quoting LuckyR
It comes from my own experience having witnessed my father's death. He was suffering from illness in the hospital. He didn't last too long, and passed away. I still feel if he is still alive, and is here on the earth, it would be better than the death. Because it would be possible to have some conversation with him. Death makes impossible to even have a chat with the dead. The death never ends. It continues eternally.
Also I have noticed the doctors in the hospital and my step mother, wanted, and recommended ending the care for my dying father, so she could grab the inheritance, and get on with her own life, and the doctors wanted get the fees paid as soon as possible, and move on the to next suffering patients. They didn't have any sympathy for the dying person, and had no care for life.
I commend you for your honesty, though I'm not putting much stock in a generalization based on an anecdote with an N of 1.
I'll take your silence on my last question as acknowledgement that an argument can be made for shortening one's time of suffering in certain limited circumstances.
If there was something worth fighting for that gives one reason to live but why does one want to fight for the above soulless nonsense? It seems that is satisfactory for the majority of society and I have never been able to get it or see how that can bring them satisfaction.
I thought the answer to that question was implied in my posts.
This is a hard question to answer. Suppose everyone has different answers depending on what their thoughts are on their own life.
Logically, we 'choose' to be alive simply just because of our biologically hardwired survival instincts. There's nothing more than that, essentially. All other reasons are basically just cope. But, humans being human, our consciousness can also (specially) 'choose' whether to live, or cease to exist (if we really want to). Other animals don't have this (please correct me if I'm wrong though).
If we look at the bigger picture, cosmically speaking, there is nothing special about whether we live or die. Life goes on. Nothing lasts forever. And nothing really matters, in the grand scheme of things. We're all just like ants: some live, some die. That's just the way it is. Any other notions than that, it's basically just our man-made delusions.
I have demonstrated my points on the issue in logical manner. Now it is your turn to demonstrate and present your points on the issue.
I feel like these 'excuses' people make about life being special are akin to the classic religious tropes of intelligent design and such.
Yes it might be very slim a chance that the universe and then in turn life came into existence, and that coming about can be quite interesting to learn about but it doesn't mean that life is intrinsically good and must be preserved at all costs, which is the leap that most make.
The Buddhists have it right with 'life is suffering' however they then pile on their own religious delusions like the rest.
Oh that reminded me when I was thinking of this again. Nietzsche is just the same as the others in that he makes the leap that Will to Power is good in itself, same kind of life affirmation as the other existentialists, which we could say he was a precursor to. However, Schopenhauer, who he got most of his theories from up to the point of will to power where he then diverges had it best I think.
Schopenhauer is a good middle ground between western empiricism/reductionism and eastern thought and he was pessimistic in his outlook, which Nietzsche rejected calling it, and the eastern traditions, life denying. I had forgotten all about him but will have to take another look now at his The World as Wille and Representation.
If we define life as the most precious and unique experience for the individual who is living, and also life can be suffering, then ending it abruptly by own choice or others' recommendation due to some suffering or any other whatever reasons sounds utterly irrational and deranged act committed out of some sort of illusion.
That's interesting. I was thinking along opposite lines. While I agree that it gets many things right, I think it has some substantial problems. Here are some issues I see with 's post:
(1) Reduction is not explanation
To say “survival instinct explains why we go on living” is not the same as saying “survival instinct exhausts the reasons for living”. This collapses reasons into causes. While it may be that I am causally disposed to avoid death, it doesn't follow that my normative reasons for living are illusions. Calling reasons "cope" merely assumes, rather than argues, that reflective endorsement adds nothing over brute causality.
(2) Conscious choice cuts both ways
Niki wants consciousness to do two incompatible jobs. On the one hand, consciousness is dismissed as a post-hoc rationalizer ("cope"). On the other hand, consciousness is elevated as the faculty that allows us to [I]override[/I] biology and choose death. You can't have it both ways. If reflective agency is real enough to negate survival instinct, then it is also real enough to generate reasons, commitments, and meanings that are not reducible to instinct.
(3) "Nothing matters cosmically" is a category mistake
This sounds deep, but it trades on equivocation. The absence of cosmic meaning does not entail arbitrariness unless one assumes - without argument - that value must be cosmic to be real. Sure, nothing matters to galaxies or black holes, but meaning was never supposed to matter at that scale in the first place. Meaning is agent-relative, but not arbitrary, and the demand for cosmic endorsement is a pseudo-standard. Meaning lives at the level of agents, practices and commitments - precisely where humans actually exist.
(4) The "ants" analogy fails
The analogy erases the very feature that is doing the argumentative work: self-interpretation. Ants do not ask whether their lives are worth living or frame their suffering as tragic or unjust. The moment suicide becomes a [I]question[/I], the ant analogy collapses. As Camus saw clearly, the absurd does not eliminate meaning, it forces the question of meaning into explicit consciousness.
(5) Perfomative nihilism is self-undermining
Niki's post is itself not neutral. It frames all positive valuation as illusion, but exempts [I]its own[/I] evaluative stance from that diagnosis. Calling everything "cope" functions no less as a coping strategy, one that protects the speaker from vulnerability, disappointment, attachment and loss. This is not a moral criticism but a philosophical one. The stance tries to cut a "view-from-nowhere" that human agents cannot actually inhabit.
Never said by T. Clark.
@T. Clark
A lot of distilled information in the post so I won't try and respond to all in one go but will pick this one up.
I am not saying I agree 100% with all the assertions, but rather I approved of the general thrust that all human motivations and rationalisations for the specialness of life can be reduced to survival instinct.
That is a very good and sneaky point lol.
I did not make that argument so I don't have to defend it hehe. Your counter does indeed make me re-evaluate what can and cannot be attribute to, or is in the service of, instinct though.
Gonna have to think about that some more, perhaps reading their original post again as well for context.
Uummm... okay, except that isn't the common definition of life. In fact my review of the 20 definitions in Websters, doesn't find that particular nuance.
I wouldn't be impressed with anyone just copying over the common definitions from the internet, and pastes to forum posts. No. That is not Philosophy.
My definition of life is a reflected and meditated points from the common definitions, which is not grossly strange, weird, disagreeable or meaningless. Anyone with common sense would agree with my definition of life. If one cannot find any agreement or understanding from my definition of human life, I would find the person with a very peculiar set of mind, or must be some sort of internet information worshiper.
The three words that helped the most were: life just is.
Life is not a problem to be solved.
Life is not some race to win in.
Life is not about achieving anything.
Life, in its truest sense, is a mystery. Existence itself, and the factual experience of being alive or witnessing other living creatures, is both absurd and amazing. Do you ever observe how a river flows or a flower blooms or a bird flies? How they don't need to prove anything or justify their existence or worry endlessy? They simply exist in their nature.
What happened to humans is that the tool of our minds grew exponentionally. We became way too skilled at thinking (and worrying, and rationalizing, and planning, and so on) and this has dominated our true selves. And this is reflected in the world we live in today, endlessly obsessed with productivity, status, wealth, achievement, prestige, and, the biggest myth of all: progress.
The unnatural world we have made is a reflection of our internal world, and our collective internal world is, by and large, defined by fear. Reject this theatre and you will find freedom.
I also strongly agree with Unenlightened that love is what makes live worth living, yet I also acknowledge that millions of people right now struggle with lovelessness and loneliness because we live in a horrible machine-world that has no use for love. So many people are just looking for validation or security or intimacy and they miss the obvious truth that love is unconditional. Yet you can find freedom here also: you can love yourself, love life, love nature, unconditionally and perpetually, even if you feel like your life is not worth living for whatever reasons you bring up.
Suicide is a tender topic but the fact that an absurd amount of people commit it every single day should raise serious concerns for any of us who still care. Suicide should be extremely rare or non-existent, which can only be achieved if we create a world that is worth living in for all human beings, a world based on respect, empathy, rest, fairness, meaning, and so on.
Perhaps one day we will remember who we are and where we came from. Perhaps we have to go through hell to reach heaven. Regardless, life will always be a beautiful mystery, and simply embracing this truth offers stillness.
Actually I have had a change of heart and agree now with earlier comments about shying away from discussion which could possibly enable someone.
Plenty of other interesting philosophy topics to discuss which do not have such a weight of responsibility.
OTOH... it is illegal and thus unethical for a parent to withhold lifesaving medical treatment from their minor child (thereby hastening the child's death), yet it is completely legal, and most agree, ethical for a competent adult to forgo lifesaving medical treatment, similarly hastening one's death.
You seem to be taking things too personally, not reading the post properly. What I said was, copying and pasting internet definitions with no reflection and thoughts into the forum posts, and blindly worshiping the information as some biblical truth, is not philosophy. Nothing to do with because LuckyR said. I don't care who said what.
And moreover, if your read OP carefully, this thread is not about extending or hastening someone's life. It is about arguments against suicide.
But I believe that no one should control other people's life. Only thing a decent human being must do, is to help other human being's life by caring and saving them making better, if they can, no matter under what circumstances.
It's illegal in our home state of Oregon, but legal in Idaho. The "Followers of Christ" religious group doesn't believe in using medicine. Some of their children die horrible (and preventable) deaths, from diabetes, for example.
Two paremts were convicted of manslaughter in Oregon, but the cult continues its practices in Idaho. My son (a journalist) wrote stories about them and worked on the documentary "No Greater Law", which is quite well done and availsble on line on many streaming channels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Greater_Law
Interesting review. Two things. First, what is your opinion? Is it ethical for a parent to hasten the death of their minor child? Personally it violates my moral code and I'd argue it violates the national ethical standard. After all, why write an article about a routinely acceptable occurrence.
OTOH, refusing one's own lifesaving medical treatment is routinely done and no one bats an eye ( ie it's broadly considered ethical). In fact the practice is codified in the creation of palliative care and hospice.
I don't think denying treatment to children is reasonable or ethical. However, whether it should be illegal is a more difficult question.
But to broaden the point, we agree it is unethical to shorten someone else's (one's child's) life, yet most agree it is ethical for a competent adult to shorten their own life.
From What I can tell, all of it. Nothing is direct description or argument for anything - it's just (admittedly, very nice and enjoyable) ways to describe your position. That's fine, btu does nothing for hte things I've put forward.
Quoting Corvus
I don't have a definition. But I can tell you that flowery, interesting ways to put forward ones opinion isn't doing philosophy. I'm sure you'd agree (acknowledging you doin't think you've done this - fine).
Quoting Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
Pretty cool that I gave much, much more than this.
I have no idea what you are havering about.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't agree with you.
In context, what I said was:
Quoting Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
You may have given heaps more, but the crucial thing you did not supply was any evidence to support your idea that "death" only means the one thing that you say it can only mean. Unless you are able to provide that, I don't see any point in continuing to discuss this issue with you. To be honest, I am in some doubt as to whether it would be worthwhile to discuss anything with you. So I will just conclude with saying Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. If that fits, wear it well.
The main point I was trying to make, long ago, before Christmas, was that while
@Corvus was saying that (1) there is something, namely the state of being dead, which lasts forever;
@AmadeusD was saying (2) there is something, namely the act or process of dying, which lasts but a moment;
statements (1) and (2) are by no means contradictory, although it seemed to them that they were contradicting each other, because Corvus wanted to call (1) "death", and AmadeusD wanted to call (2) "death", and either one or both of them thought that "death" only meant that one thing and nothing else.
I stand by the claim that "death" has both meanings, but I don't want to dispute about it any further.
When a death occurs, the biological body ceases to exist. The fact the death has occurred will exist and remain forever. Death is not the biological body. Death is a fact.
Your second line can apply to any singular event. I am a rape victim. I will never not be one. That fact will exist for all time. And, technically, beyond.
And to be clear, my intention was to hold you to the fire about making no real sense. Not a semantic argument.
Quoting Gregory of the Beard of Ockham
I've come to this conclusion some time ago. I'm sure we can get on without each other :)
Dead body is not a biological body. It is a body. It is about logic.
You can extract DNA from rocks. Dead body is not biological body. It is a corpse.
Biological body means a body with the biological functions.
Yes, we seem to be talking in different planets for sure. I can tell you are into poetry.
You cannot extract DNA from rocks, per se. You can extract other organic material in the rock pores. Di you mean to indicate that Rocks have DNA?
I do like poetry. But I don't think it's the right way to approach this type of thing, outside of writing poetry.
This is why I call your utterances largely poetics. They are en-flowerizing concepts we already have down. Nothing wrong with that, other than that it is wrong lol.
From my reasoning, you are not just wrong, but also you sound like you are relying on the doctrine of authority or popular media.
Sorry mate, your claim is not accepted.
Here's the Wiki page. And a quote:
Biological material may refer to:
...
Organic matter, matter that has come from a once-living organism, or is composed of organic compounds
Biomass, living or dead biological matter, often plants grown as fuel.
I understand you're using your own reasoning. You can reject whatever you want, but dead bodies are biological bodies buddy.
Sounds like you just don't like getting it wrong?
Your claims sound so illogical and nonsensical. It reminds me of reading something in the shady internet commercial sites, or ChatGPT stuff. Dead body has no life which is devoid of biological functions. You don't say something is biological when there is no life in it.
It is you who keep returning to this petty point, and telling off I am wrong. I am just replying to you trying to be polite not ignoring your posts to me even if there is nothing interesting or worthwhile in them.
I have provided you ample evidence for what I'm saying. You retreating in to the (mild) ad hominem of having to cope by saying it sounds like AI doesn't do anything.
It would be better if you could actually address the evidence i've given you. At this stage, you are wilfully ignoring that.
It's something I've always felt, I never actually wanted to end it, not really. Quoting Esse Quam Videri
I've actually lived that life for 10 years and it's the most fragile and weak position one could have. I say that having spent that time spreading that message only to have it easily dismantled in every space (even in one forum for psychedelic users, so if they're telling me I'm mistaken then I REALLY need to reevaluate myself.
Though I'll say having seen the original post saying it "gets a lot right" is being very charitable. It doesn't really get anything right, I say that from experience because I had a similar attitude for years and my reasoning was always torn apart when I tried to spread that view.
Love does not make it worth living, I speak from experience.
Hindsight is always 20/20, I see that now.
What do you believe the most significant difference is between people who love life and those who seek suicide?
Think of this example.
1. Amad died and his biological body was found in his house.
2. Amad's biological body was removed from his house after his death.
These statements sound not correct and misleading.
Biology is a term which has strong connection with and implication to life or living which has biological function such as breathing, eating, digesting, growing or getting old.
Just because you can extract DNA from the dead body, you insist it is biological body.
That is a claim which is devoid of logic and also linguistic coherence, which is incredibly silly.
Social Darwinism in action! Yay!
The feeling that one's material wellbeing is guaranteed. The former have it, the latter lack it.
Quoting Martijn
Mysteries stop being beautiful once one is hungry, sick, and cold.
The answer to the problem according to whom?
Perhaps the Palestinians should all kill themselves to solve Israel's problem, the Russians should kill themselves to solve EU's problem, the Greenlandians should kill themselves to solve America's problem ...?
Historically, in many societies, a sexually abused woman or a widow was expected to kill herself in order to solve her and her family's problem. For a member of the nobility, suicide was the proper answer if he or she fell from grace. And the list goes on.
What I'm getting at (and which you and several posters repeatedly refuse to address) is how much a particular person's suicide solves _other_ people's problems. And how, in some cases, it is expected that someone would take their own life, even when said person does not experience any particular pain or profound suffering.
I doubt they hold consumerism as the highest ideal per se, or that it brings them much satisfaction per se. But it certainly looks like it is the best available relief from existential anxiety for them.
We can tell your Christian sentiments from your response to LuckyR. Doubling down on the notion above are we?
Why must people take seriously the brain affliction of dead web spinners...? :roll:
Eh?
I, a Christian??
A disenchanted socialist, yes. A Christian, never.
No idea.
Quoting Corvus
Uhhh, no. There is nothing devoid of logic, the dead body is still biological because it's organic material. Death and decomposition are still part of biology.
Quoting baker
The other odd part is that even those who claim to kill themselves out of some expectation to right a wrong still don't solve anything. The people who claim it does often are lying to themselves, because they still regret the loss of someone taking their life.
It's nice, but there's more to life than just that. Life is what you make of it TBH.
Though I was wondering what your beef with Corvus was about. Sounds like defining death, which IMO has nothing to really do with the morality of suicide.
I guess I'm just not familiar with the scenario you're describing. Whereby person A commits suicide because person B "expects" person A should do so. Specifically because B reaps a benefit from the event.
Please enlighten me about this situation. I'd think such cases would be all over the media. Perhaps I missed them.
The Stoics were closest to the truth, atleast in my view, regarding how one 'shapes one's life'. Life is a duality of actions and reactions.
Our actions are our behaviours and choices, the tiny ones we make every day to the larger ones we might make in life. Actions can only occur if we are in the position to make them, and this varies wildly between individuals based on countless factors, which is why every single unique individual has a different life.
Our reactions are our thoughts, emotions and feelings based on what happens to us; all that occurs that we did not choose. Life is not inherently 'fair' and there are a lot of issues one may have to deal with such as illness, handicap, loss, betrayal, and so on.
To say that one's life is 'what one makes of it' would neglect the second part, ergo every individual is a blank slate and all that matters are their choices, and the context of the first part, ergo the context is irrelevant because, once again, all that matters are choices. This is misguided because it would assume that every individual could live their dream life if they just 'made it' that way. People who suffer because they are born into war-torn countries, or born with uncurable genetic diseases or crippling handicaps, or those who are raised in abusive households, extreme poverty, and so on and on, just need to 'get it together' and 'fix' their life. It doesn't work that way. Why would anyone choose to live under these circumstances?
The truth is twofold: life just is, we have far less control over it than we think, and our current global society is extremely unfair, where a tiny minority of elites and a small number of companies are absurdly powerful, while billions struggle daily, with of course the root of evil - money - being one of the main pillars.
The point of all this is to help you ease your mind. If you contemplate suicide, for whatever reasons you have right now, then reconsider because you do not have full control over your life. There is no 'winning' or 'losing' in life. There are problems in life, some of which can be solved and some which cannot, but there cannot be a singular problem wherein suicide is the answer. Even problems that will cause your near-term death, such as suffering from starvation, because dying from starvation is not a choice, and suicide always will be.
You are simply ignoring reality in lieu of your personal views, and then running htem together. Suffice to say the world doesn't act the way you want it to. Nor should it. But I do understand the distinction you wish was imported to the words we use. It just isn't there.
Bodies are biological, living or not. Nothing interesting going on there. Your claim about "logic" appears to be just using words you don't understand to get points here. Also, uninteresting.
There isn't really evidence to show we have free will or make choices, also the Stoic philosophy is internally contradictory which is why I never took it too seriously. It had some good point but quickly became a case of want your cake and eating it too.
Quoting Martijn
No it's not, you just lack the ability to see it. It's ironic that you'd cited Stoicism but then go on to say life isn't what you make of it when that's what they teach. And yes ever individual can live their dream life if they made it that way, however it's not the dream you are imagining it to be. Yeah people born like that do need to get it together but not in the way you think.
This honestly sounds more like your failure in imagination than logical holes.
Quoting Martijn
That's not twofold, that's just one point.
Quoting Martijn
Not having full control over one's life is honestly the biggest reason for suicide, a lot of people do it because they see no other option available to them. And there is a such a thing as "winning" or "losing" in life, it just doesn't always match what society says. And every problem has suicide as an answer. Starvation can be solved with suicide because you wouldn't be hungry anymore.
Honestly you just sound naive TBH. But then again you said love is what makes life worth living so I wasn't expecting much.
You're severely depressed and are clinging to your depressed beliefs. Hope you can atleast see this in yourself.
On a side node, how is Stoicism contradictory? Sure their society was flawed as hell, justifying slavery and so on, but that doesn't mean the fundamental philosophical principles are misguided. The first line in The Enchiridion literally states that some things are under our control and some our not. The factors that are not under our control may still shape our lives, some in minor ways and other in major ways. Our only option is to choose how to respond to these factors. The other half is the actions we make every day, the ones we do hold control over: "Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions."
Master your own mind first, and then do the right action (regardless of outcome) to shape your life. We do not have full control, it's part of being human. If this offends you so much that you actively seek to end your own life then what can any of us say? None of us control your mind or what you do every day, only you do.
You're reading depression into it because you don't have a counterargument.
Quoting Martijn
The first line in the Enchiridion is technically not true, at least according to certain philosophies. It's also not true that you choose how you respond to these, that is already made up before you're aware of it. Recent evidence tends to show free will to be an illusion which renders the philosophy invalid. Though you don't need that to see the contradictions between the aims of stoicism and it's methods. But to the second point, none of those are in our control. Not opinions, pursuit, desire, aversion, any of it. You don't control any of that. You either feel that or not. Again choice is an illusion.
Quoting Martijn
This is part of the contradiction. There is no master, furthermore there is no such thing as a right action. There is no separate observer that can veto actions as they happen and there is no right action. Also you're deflecting, I never said I wanted to end my life but lack of control is often a reason people end theirs because it's a choice they believe they have. But your last remark is simply false, as that's not how reality works. "you" are not in control of anything, and modern neuroscience proved that. Everything we are and do is the result of everything around and before us, there is no you or choice involved in any of it. But these are nice illusions.
Again you just sound naive, which is what you say stuff like love is what makes life worth living.
Sadly your claim is still coming from appeal to authority or popular media. Your rant is devoid of logic and knowledge what the word "biological" means.
Which 'certain' philosophies are you referring to?
Do you not choose how to respond to events? Are you dominated by your self, your emotions? Do you have to be offended if someone criticizes you? Are we even living in the same reality?
We don't choose what happens to us and yes, most of us respond due to heuristics, habit and so on. But you still have the power to change, to change how you respond, how you view yourself, and the choices you make. This is why breaking free from an addiction, for example, is not impossible, or leaving behind suicidal ideation, or to better deal with grief and loss: the list goes on.
If you don't control your opinions, your pursuits, desires or aversions, then who does? Are we all just NPCs controlled by the hivemind? Is it not possible to detach oneself from desire, or to change political opinion, or to make drastic changes in life?
And no right action.... Would you not mind if I were to abduct and torture someone's child? Would it be fine if I were to buy a gun and randomly shoot up a shopping mall? There is no right or wrong so nothing matters, there is no observer, no conscience, and life is utterly meaningless.
Also funny how you say i'm deflecting or that i don't have 'counterarguments' but you keep calling me naïve and you don't elaborate on anything you're proposing. Again, which philosophies counterargue the first line of the Enchiridion? Neuroscience? Which scientific studies, what are they based on, what did they research and what is their validity?
You are free to believe what you want and live your life accordingly, but so do I, because I have the power to choose.
Take care.
Buddhism for one.
Quoting Martijn
You're creating a distinction you that seems to sit apart and is watching when that isn't the case. No one chooses how they respond to events, they respond based on what they know. We are living in the same reality yes, but as for subjective experiences no. As for being offended if someone criticizes, no, but you don't control whether you are or not.
Quoting Martijn
No you don't, you actually have no power. That's an illusion neuroscience destroyed and past thinkers couldn't have known. You cannot change how you respond, how you view yourself, or the choices you make. Those either change or they don't, your "Will" makes no difference. Breaking free from addiction is impossible for some, and for some it's not. Neither has a say on whether they will or not. Doesn't matter how long the list is, you choose none of it.
Quoting Martijn
There is no "Who" in control. What it is is the interplay of a variety of factors and influences that the brain automatically processes. You don't even choose what you sense as that's already done before you're aware of it. It is not possible to detach from desire (despite what some might say they still unconsciously have desire), but it is possible to change political opinion or make drastic changes, but YOU don't get a say in whether that happens or not. Either it does or doesn't, and that depends on history and surroundings.
Quoting Martijn
I wouldn't mind but someone might. However that doesn't make the action wrong. In short everything you mentioned would be "fine", there'd just be consequences for it. However there is no such thing as a right choice, there's just consequences you can live with or not. Your rest doesn't follow. No right or wrong doesn't mean there is no observer or conscience, or that life is meaningless. That's not only a strawman but a logical leap.
Like I said you just sound naive, and possibly stupid.
Quoting Martijn
I call you naive because you are making normative statements about life that are really just personal opinions. I also explained why they were faulty and why you were naive and predictably you deflected again. Neuroscience pretty much demonstrated that choice is an illusion, not only through optical illusions but also findings like the McGurk effect which shows your sensation is more an average and not direct sensation. Yet being aware of the effect doesn't mean you can stop it. Same with your senses. Your vision for example is just an average of the last 15 seconds of input, yet you cannot stop it. There is literally a wealth of data proving Stoicism wrong but you clearly don't care about that so why would I bother?
Buddhism also proves it wrong with dependent arising, showing that everything "you" are is just from somewhere else. There is no "you" at the core making choices and if you try to find it you'll end up with nothing. But it's a useful illusion.
Neither you or I are free to believe what we want or to live life accordingly, we never had the power to choose, that is simply a helpful illusion. If you never came across Stoicism you wouldn't be following it, and whether you were swayed by it wasn't you, rather it was your history, upbringing, and other factors.
It's adorable you believe you have choice and agency but that's what I meant by naivete. The idea of free will is something most philosophers grow out of after a few years, because not only is the idea untenable when you examine it but recent findings in neuroscience demonstrate as such.
Like I said, you're just naive.
You're the only one who doesn't know and you're not fooling anyone. I get that you might genuinely think otherwise but that means nothing.
You truly talk like an NPC, where everything in your life is simply what occurs, like you're watching a movie play out and you are just sitting around waiting to die. Also your take of 'no right or wrong, just consequences' says it all and I'm glad you actually hold no significant power in the world, because that's borderline psychopathic thinking.
So even though you are a depressed, infantile, brainwashed NPC, I still wish the best for you and hope you change your internal world and make the changes accordingly. Or don't, I'm just letters on a computer screen.
What you're doing isn't reasoning though, it's just dogma.
Quoting Martijn
Again this is just you being myopic. I laid out the evidence and the proof that "choice" as we envision it is merely an illusion. Though just because free will isn't real doesn't mean one is waiting to die, I mean you can make the same point as if we have free will. We are all waiting to die, just deciding what to do until then. Also my take of "no right or wrong" is just reality. Just because we as a society agree on what actions are good or bad doesn't make them objectively so (not to mention attitudes change over time). In the ULTIMATE sense there are only actions and consequences and what matters is whether you can live with your choices. Existentialism also argues the same thing too.
The fact that makes you uncomfortable is irrelevant frankly, since that's just how life is. Existentialism is the school about how to deal with that reality.
Quoting Martijn
The NPC line means nothing because your talking points are literally just the naive dialogue tree from someone who hasn't read much philosophy (you mention Stoicism but I doubt you understand what they mean as much of what I said is what they echo). I knew what you were going to say based on your initial comment about love making life worth living. That kinda shows me someone who hasn't thought hard about the nature of our existence.
Only NPC is you dude, and your replies prove that much.
That sounds like a typical mindless utterance from someone who can't reason. Tell us what you know about reasoning and dogma in logical manner. And explain clearly why my reasoning is not reasoning but dogma in understandable way, rather than just spitting out some emotional meaningless utterance.
Well judging by your replies and exchanges so far there would be no point in doing so, which ironically proves my point.
If you cannot demonstrate, explain and prove your own statements on others in logical and understandable manner, when asked, then your statements wouldn't be accepted as significant philosophical remarks or comments, but will be regarded as just your emotional blurt out on others.
To be perfectly honest, no one in the forum would like to read statements in that nature, when they are trying to discuss serious philosophical topics. It is just waste of your time and others' time.
Like I said, there would be no point with you as has been shown when others attempted with you, so you don't really get to demand that of others.
I find it ironic to try to draw on some social pressure for your point when social consensus so far on this thread is that you're wrong. You cannot even see the contradiction in your use of biological.
I'm just taking your replies as seriously as they deserve to be (not at all if that wasn't clear).
Take, for example, the practice of sati in Hinduism.
This is suicide. Are the other people happy that the newly widowed woman killed herself? Apparently so. Do they regret she did it? Apparently not. It was the social norm, it still is to some extent, even if officially illegal.
Quoting LuckyR
*sigh*
Your tone is duly noted.
You keep saying that sometimes, "killing oneself is the answer to the problem". Would you apply that to the suicides of teenagers who kill themselves after being bullied? Or to situations where a person kills themselves after being mobbed at work or losing their job?
I don't have the stomach right now to wade through the exchanges on social media where after their victim committed suicide, the bullies said "Good riddance" and such. But these things happen. Some people do feel satisfaction when someone kills themselves.
Of course, there is something to be said about the political correctness usually inherent in discussing suicide and everything related to it ...
That's on the surface for social appearances. It's sorta like people asking how you are and you're supposed to say "good".
Quoting Corvus
Incorrect, death is biological as it's the cessation of biological phenomenon. Maybe you're just stupid.
Firstly, I apologize about the way my tone struck you. I can see (after a re-read) that A) you're using "benefit" differently than I was expecting and therefore B) in that context my question would sound flippant.
To clarify and be more complete, I absolutely agree that suicide is NOT the answer for, say, 99+% of cases (of which you, correctly named several). I was in discussion previously where the assertion was made that suicide is NEVER the answer to the problem. Whereby I cited (admittedly rare) situations where it could be. But these would be exceptions and statistically insignificant.
If it matters, I read the comment of "benefit" to mean financial benefit like a grandson, seeking an inheritance, convincing grandma to kill herself.
We were talking about the body which is dead. Calling the dead body biological is real stupid. Anyway you don't even know what the point of talking was, so what does it tell you?
Quoting Darkneos
Because when I read in your original post,
Quoting Darkneos
(emphasis added), I thought you were (implicitly) asking for an ethical argument. But if there is no right action, no distinction between right and wrong, there can be no ethical reasons, no (sound) ethical argument.
If no ethical reasons, what kind of reasons are left that one could give? It seems to me that the only other possible response would be to appeal to the emotions and motivations of the person contemplating suicide. Am I missing something?
Those kinds of reasons are highly variable: what appeals to one person will not appeal to another. And a person who is deeply depressed has minimal motivation to do anything, except maybe to die. So the whole "argument" would decline into subjectivity, and that would not be philosophy, which aims at objective truth.
What was this kind of question doing in a philosophical forum? Was the first sentence of the first response possibly the only one that should have been made?
Quoting T Clark
(although T Clark could not have known that from the O.P.)
If you ask for an argument against suicide, but then you don't want to hear ethical arguments, isn't it like saying "prove that the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles", but please don't use the axioms of geometry?
you're kinda not paying attention to the conversation if that is what you thought I meant. I meant there is no objectively right or wrong in the world, not that such things don't exist subjectively. The person I said that to thought otherwise.
Butting in, but I think this misses a trick: children who say these sorts of things (and, indeed adults, but explication will make the distinction pointless..) are trying to support an internal emotional state, not accurately assess the world for benefit.
If you told someone to kill themselves in earnest (from their perspective) and they do it, it is going to be pretty traumatic to then admit that you caused someone's death vicariously. Particularly a child.
It is self-preservation to rationalize the prior behaviour into something which make sense of your emotional state - defiant, self-absorbed and unflinching in the face of real gravitas. Active ignorance, I think.
Not that your scenario never happens, though. There are psychopaths.
If I have now understand you correctly, you're willing to be receptive to ethical arguments, even though you think they are subjective?
Look at certain political options, I won't mention names here. These people are the kind of people who would be satisfied if certain people died, regardless of method. These political options have a considerable voter base, they win elections. To dismiss such considerable numbers of people as "psychopaths" is naive and irresponsible.
Other than those, there are those who wish to revenge themselves but aren't able to, and are satisfied if the other person dies; again, not a case of psychopathy.
Quoting AmadeusD
Traumatic how? In the sense that such a person could be in some way legally responsible for the other's suicide?
To the best of my knowledge, legal systems in different countries treat such cases differently, and this at least to some extent informs the way people will treat other people.
You could mean many different things here which would drastic change how to interpret and respond to this. Suffice to say I don't think that's true of probably any politician. I do think several would be unbothered though, but so would most people. It seems some celebrate "worthy" deaths. It sucks. But i'm unsure its relevant here... but again, I'm not sure what you mean so i'm being a bit meager.
Quoting baker
You'll note I think you're being extremely unrealistic about the types of people you think are about in large numbers, so there's an empirical divide here.
Quoting baker
No, but that does come up. What I mean is if you're 13 and don't actually understand the consequences of your actions, or are responding to abuse and trauma of your own, you wont actually expect someone to kill themselves. It's dissociative in some sense. So when this person goes a head and kills themselves, it absolutely upends you and brings in emotions you've suppressed etc.. and you now see yourself in ways that are pretty hard to deal with. And to some degree, that's fair - that's how you learn. But in some sense, it could absolutely crack a child. There's no defense in this, I'm just noting the unintended consequences of being an ignorant child at the extremes.
Quoting baker
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - is this about how people wont wish others kill themselves if they might end up culpable?
Well I don't find them very convincing since it's more trying to convince someone life is worthwhile and if they don't you cannot really say it is.