On Suicidal Thoughts
Many people struggle with suicidal thoughts and it is often condemned as something terrible, even by those who do not profess any religion. What causes this to be considered wrong? From my perspective, merely thinking about something rather dark while still holding relatively firm to even a weak thread of hope is not wrong or necessarily bad. After all, if there is a reasonable explanation for the existence of one's being, then thinking about it without strong emotions involved should be a beneficial exercise. The fear seems to be based on if there either is no reason to exist or if one cannot deduct a reason because of clouded judgment (emotions, for example).
Comments (56)
Hence, the need to be cautious about the conclusions derived from emotional reasoning.
As far as what people generally think, I think @MindForged hit the nail on the head. I don't think it's a moral problem as much as a moralized emotion. For myself...
There is nothing morally wrong with being sick. And in the great majority of cases where suicidal ideation occurs it is the result of sickness, and not deliberate action. So it is right to intervene in those cases since the person's very agency is compromised by the sickness.
Suicide is not morally wrong -- it's a tragedy, not something to be condemned, even in cases where we might say a person is rational rather than sick.
The terribleness of suicidal ideation has more to do with the pain associated, and not with some sort of moral duty or something. There is also the real threat that someone could die from it, just as someone can die from lung cancer.
Obviously, if someone is sick, they should be helped but thinking about suicide doesnt mean you are sick. Indeed, we would want someone to think long and hard before they commit suicide. Its no small thing.
As for suicide itself, I also don’t see a problem. There is just something unacceptable about forcing someone to live if they would rather die to me. Whatever sovereignty a person has for themselves, the last shred of it will be found in the ability to, if nothing else in life, decide when you keep living or not.
Perhaps it is not emotional reasoning, in some cases, people struggle with those thoughts regardless of the emotional state. Happiness is an emotion, hence the reason to NOT die would be a result of emotional reasoning.
Interesting perspective. What if a person who was sick had no desire to be cured? Likely due to depression, but is it justifiable for another to act contrary to the suicidal person's will to prevent suicide?
Some people have more of a fear of dying rather than mere death. Serious contemplation of suicide seems to be in a way, hopeful. Hopeful that there is an escape from the issues one faces. Yet, on the other hand, it can be quiet dark, as there may be other solutions available. In some ways, thinking about it can be a bit of an anxiety release as one has that option, and at least pondering it helps sooth the claustrophobic sensation of being trapped in life.
I agree, that kind of perspective is what I mean by demystified.
Even if one thinks it's permissible to do X doesn't mean they think one ought to consider it, for various reasons (context, severity, repercussions, and so on).
I don't mean this in a universal sense, exactly. But rather in a more general way -- more often than not it's justifiable to intervene, because more often than not the sick person's agency is compromised regardless of what we do -- and this would be the main reason why it is normally wrong to intervene on the decisions of others (again, only in a general way -- obviously there are exceptions, and obviously there are other values we have to consider besides autonomy)
Oh, I don't know. It seems to me that to want to commit suicide requires some sort of emotional backdrop where one is depressed, anxious, or in persistent extreme pain. I don't know of any cases where one was happy and thought about committing suicide.
when I’m being dragged down into the inferno my suicidal thoughts manifest themselves as fantasy, an irrational urge to end a (struggle).
When I’m flying high the thoughts appear as something equally irrational but strangley rather beautiful.
When “normal” I think it’s a ‘rational’ conclusion of the critical thought of a sensitive individual. A kind of post-modernist intrusion upon the classical soul.
It’s beauty that keeps one alive in my view.
That’s just a few ramblings that come to mind. Another I guess just quickly is suicide and death may be scary for some but it’s entirely dependent upon philosophy but I do wonder upon that final moment. The Anna Karanina moment. And also the Martyred Socrates moment.
Apologies for rambles
Are you suggesting that assisted suicide be legal (given caveats). The reason I ask is I still don’t quite have the handle of the reply and quote system. Any if that is what you are suggesting I think it’s an extremely interesting debate. One that we need to really consider.
“The Morning After I Killed Myself” is a poem by 22-year old Meggie Royer, who writes at Writings for Winter. She has two published poetry collections, “Survival Songs” and “Healing Old Wounds With New Stiches.” Her Poem, “The Morning After I Killed Myself,” is a message about the finality of suicide, the impact it has on loved ones, and the lost opportunity for a better day.
“The Morning After I Killed Myself”
The morning after I killed myself, I woke up.
I made myself breakfast in bed. I added salt and pepper to my eggs and used my toast for a cheese and bacon sandwich. I squeezed a grapefruit into a juice glass. I scraped the ashes from the frying pan and rinsed the butter off the counter. I washed the dishes and folded the towels.
The morning after I killed myself, I fell in love. Not with the boy down the street or the middle school principal. Not with the everyday jogger or the grocer who always left the avocados out of the bag. I fell in love with my mother and the way she sat on the floor of my room holding each rock from my collection in her palms until they grew dark with sweat. I fell in love with my father down at the river as he placed my note into a bottle and sent it into the current. With my brother who once believed in unicorns but who now sat in his desk at school trying desperately to believe I still existed.
The morning after I killed myself, I walked the dog. I watched the way her tail twitched when a bird flew by or how her pace quickened at the sight of a cat. I saw the empty space in her eyes when she reached a stick and turned around to greet me so we could play catch but saw nothing but sky in my place. I stood by as strangers stroked her muzzle and she wilted beneath their touch like she did once for mine.
The morning after I killed myself, I went back to the neighbors’ yard where I left my footprints in concrete as a two year old and examined how they were already fading. I picked a few daylilies and pulled a few weeds and watched the elderly woman through her window as she read the paper with the news of my death. I saw her husband spit tobacco into the kitchen sink and bring her her daily medication.
The morning after I killed myself, I watched the sun come up. Each orange tree opened like a hand and the kid down the street pointed out a single red cloud to his mother.
The morning after I killed myself, I went back to that body in the morgue and tried to talk some sense into her. I told her about the avocados and the stepping stones, the river and her parents. I told her about the sunsets and the dog and the beach.
The morning after I killed myself, I tried to unkill myself, but couldn’t finish what I started.
Yeah, it used to seem like a fantasy to me too, but anymore it is becoming more and more realistic. I should be disturbed at this, but I'm not terribly worried.
Not to mention the fact that many cannot and will not debate their own existance. Many even here claim that suicide comes from an illness but it is all the contrary. Narcissist fear death the most, next to psychopaths, etc.
? Aristotle
I also found this quote for you, I pretty much said the same in longform.
You are punishing yourself due to some unfulfilled desire, goal, or dream, and it is the losing and clinging to hope of this subpersonality which is punishing the shit out of you, and threatening your murder for your failure to fulfill it. It's what needs offing. It's what needs severing, abandoning, killing. Let it die. Don't let it do that to you.
Pray for help.
As far as the issue of autonomy goes, I do think it is wrong to prevent a suicide from happening in many cases. The justification that because some people are not in their right mind because of mental illness and therefore cannot exercise their autonomy doesn't seem to work for several reasons:
1. Mental illness is a social construct on some level. That is not to say that it's not "real" but rather that the line between a healthy and a mentally ill individual is arbitrarily drawn. Why not raise or lower the bar for what constitutes mental illness? Why not say that the majority of people in our society are mentally ill? We can't simply claim that someone is wrong about their desire to die because our society deems it wrong. We have to have a demonstration of why we have strong reason to think that existence is better than nonexistence. I don't believe that we have that strong reason.
2. Should all people perceived as irrational lose their autonomy? If we use the reasonableness of a person as a marker of "maturity sufficient for autonomy", then should we also be justified in violating the autonomy of anyone we deem as not capable of making good decisions? If someone wants to be irresponsible and spend his life gambling, drinking, doing drugs, and having sex with hookers, then are we justified in violating his autonomy for his own sake? I think it's more reasonable to commit suicide under great suffering from mental illness than it is to gamble away your life savings. But I think we can agree that we should respect the autonomy of the irresponsible people because we think most consenting adults have a right to autonomy without much exception. I think it's safe to say most suicidal people are reasonable enough to fit the category of adults that should be able to act accordingly to their wishes.
3. A person who is suffering from mental illness paradoxically has a good reason to commit suicide. You might suppose that not seeking help for that mental illness first is irrational but let's face us: we don't know how to effectively treat mental illnesses.
To be suicidal and seek help is to admit to being weak and the stigma of being weak (dependent) is looked down on in our individualist culture.
Being ill generally disgusts other people. Being ill with no loved ones at the level of poverty might as well be a death sentence.
Well, suicide stigma seems to be worse in collectivist societies in my opinion. In collectivist societies, people often have a duty to their families, their community, and country. While in more individualistic societies, people have a duty only for their own personal well being and the well being of their children until they are 18. Collectivist societies are less likely to respect people's autonomy because the morality of the collectivist societies is often centered around social cohesion rather than respecting individual rights. Obviously there are some exceptions, but generally speaking this seems to be the case. A collectivist culture is more likely to think it has a duty to prevent people from committing suicide and it's also more likely to think the individual has a duty not to kill themselves for their family, friends, community, and state. This can often be used justify violating a individual's autonomy to decide to commit suicide. Although, on rare occasions, collectivist societies might even encourage people to commit suicide if they are a burden to their collective. I personally think that the preference of the individual should usually outweigh the preference of the collective in regards to suicide or any other issue. That is because while there are more preferences in a collective, they are weak compared to the preferences that the individual has for himself.
It isn't easy to generalize this along the lines of "collectivist versus individualistic" cultures and I'm a bit wary of your conclusion. Though I concede I may be guilty of this in my post. By some measure we are all subject to the pressures you describe from the collective because as human beings we all depend on one another. Ideological tribes which appeal to individualism do so to maintain a specific kind of collective life that is free from the extra constraints of a central state authority.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
Not when it comes to killing folks though? That is one tough kind of individual preference to favor but maybe it's no different than admitting that anyone is free to kill anyone else, so long as they're willing to deal with the collective's consequence.
Yeah, but I think the opposite is true here too. The strange thing about the general prohibition against suicide is that to seriously entertain suicide and not seek help is a tacit admission of weakness within the secular bourgeois order in a way that essentially mimics what existed in the previous religious order. Namely, you're interpreted as a mental health case who is currently failing to cope with your weakness; but it's okay, see the scientific professional and you can overcome your personal weaknesses! (So now it's a weakness of mental health - see a doctor! - instead of moral weakness - see a priest!).
Well, in the case of killing people without consent, you would be violating the preference of another individual to not be killed in order to fulfill your preference to have that person killed if you commit the murder. This would be a violation of the murdered individual's strong preference. I wasn't really specific or clear enough by what I meant when I talked about individual and collective preferences so I don't blame you for the misunderstanding. An individual preference is typically a strong interest that one person has for something to happen to him or not happen to him. For example, I could have a preference to be married to Susie but Susie might have a preference not to be married to me. Because both of our preferences are strong and I could only fulfill my preference by violating her preference, it would be unjust for me to violate her preference by forcing Susie to marry me. On the other hand, a collective preference is more like a series of weak preferences held together by a multitude of individuals towards the same unified consequence. For example, imagine most people in a local village in Africa have a preference to stone a woman for cheating on her husband. No one in that village, except maybe her husband, has a strong preference to have her stoned but rather a flimsy one. The woman, on the other hand, has a strong preference not to be stoned. Therefore, the strong preference of an individual should be privileged over the weak preferences of a collective. I hope this clears up any confusion.
Which is better? Pizza? Or BfXuide7_xx3?
It seems to me that all such calculations are faith based and that each person can only operate within the boundaries of whatever faith tradition they subscribe to.
I used to think in the past that there could not be any comparison made between life and whatever comes after death also. But, now I think that while it's hard to imagine nonexistence, it could be understood in some capacity. Of course, before assuming that nonexistence comes after life, we have to ask ourselves how we know that this is the case. I think we have pretty good reason to think that our personality, memories, and sensory experiences are all localized somewhere in the brain. A person could lose his memories by a blow to the head, for example. Some people experiences massive personality changes after experiencing brain damage. What's also interesting is that we can lose our memories and alter our personality by taking certain types of chemical substances like LSD, alcohol, cocaine and so on. I think this gives us good reason to think that the source of our consciousness lies in our neurochemistry. A person could also lose his senses through blindness, deafness, paralysis, or smoking too much(in the case of taste senses lol). We don't deny that sensory experiences could be removed through physical means. So, why not think that all of our experiences would be removed if we died? If any individual aspect of our experience could be removed by physical injury or substance consumption, I think it's safe to say that all of our experience of anything would be gone if we died.
But, how can we know what nonexistence feels like, you might ask. Now, it's hard to imagine what feeling nonexistence would be like since it's almost like an infinite amount of time passing by infinitely fast. But, if you have ever been under general anesthesia you probably know what nonexistence is like at least temporarily. I know technically you couldn't know what general anesthesia feels like because it feels like nothing. But, I think it's imaginable what it's like to feel nothing. You have never been distressed before you were born, for example. You also don't recall feeling any joy prior to existing. These facts could be used to make a pretty relevant comparison between existence and nonexistence, in my opinion.
You're expressing a common theory, which I am not in a position to dispute.
I'm just referencing certain instances when something appeared to be overwhelmingly obviously true beyond doubt, but turned out to be completely wrong. As example, the Earth being at the center of the universe. Everyone could just look up and see this for themselves with their own eyes, so this conclusion seemed to be beyond theory, a hard fact. Like these earlier humans, we really have no way of evaluating our perspective on such matters. So...
You might be right, you might be wrong. My best guess is that whatever the reality might be it's beyond our imagination at the moment, just as the size of the universe would have been incomprehensible to earlier peoples (and basically still is). But of course, this too is just a guess.
Many, perhaps most, people will dismiss these reports as being nothing more than drug induced illusions, which of course might be true. But then we'll have to dismiss all my posts too, given that I typically write them while high on caffeine.
One doesn't. But every life ends with death, so the unknown appears on both sides of the comparison and can be cancelled out.
One is left with a shorter and a longer life to compare, and the quality of the extra life is crucial.
I agree that we can't know for sure if any fact is true. There's the black swan problem, of course. But unless we want to be skeptical about every decision we make in our lives, we have to take educated guesses. For example, I might ask, how can we compare your life if you decide to get a PH.D. in philosophy vs if you decide to become a nurse instead. If we have to have epistemological certainty about the outcomes of both decisions in order to be able to decide on the merits of each, then we can't make any decision in our lives. We might as well sit in a corner and rock in the fetal position obsessing about how we can't know anything lol. In the case of the suicidal person, the person has a decision to make and he has to rely on whatever knowledge he has to guess if it will be a good decision or not. Either way you're taking a risk though. If you commit suicide, you risk being put into a worse state. If you don't commit suicide, then you risk experiencing more suffering in life.
The amount of life, and the quality of that life, don't matter so much if for example, one is going to spend eternity in heaven. Your analysis is based on the "death is bad" assumption which can't be justified by much of anything.
But he doesn't have any knowledge about death, nobody does. All we have is a circus of competing speculations.
I was using the word "knowledge" in that in my last comment as a synonym for "evidence". I'm sorry for not being 100% clear about that in my first comment. The difference between knowledge and evidence is that knowledge implies a certainty by which something is true while evidence implies a reasonable belief that something is true. My argument is that you don't need knowledge but rather just evidence to analyze and compare 2 possible value-relevant(by value-relevant, I mean that it falls on a spectrum of good and bad) configurations . In your earlier comment, you pointed out the problems of having empirical evidence being called factual knowledge by pointing out that we believed with what was considered good empirical evidence that the Earth was the center of the universe. Later we attained new empirical evidence that it is not the center of universe. You then used that example to make an analogy between my belief that there is no afterlife and the belief held by people in the past that the Earth was the Center of the Universe. Since, the suicidal person cannot have factual knowledge that there is no afterlife, he therefore cannot not make a reasonable decision is your next argument.
But, I want to point out the implications of the position that you hold. Under your view, no person could make a reasonable decision of any kind because there is no hard factual knowledge of any kind since every scientific/empirical theory or fact that we have could be falsified if we find what is called a "black swan". A black swan constitutes any empirical evidence that contradicts an existing scientific fact or theory. For example, we might believe that Earth is the 3rd planet from the Sun, but if scientists discover a new planet between Venus and Mercury, that scientific fact would no longer be true. Any scientific/empirical discovery we have made could be false and many of them will be false. But, if one cannot make a reasonable decision without knowledge(AKA something certain to be true), then one cannot make any decision in life reasonably. Some philosophers are willing to accept that conclusion. I, on the other hand, believe that there's a spectrum of reasonableness that could be discerned based on relevant evidence(AKA empirical observations and reasonable hypotheses on the basis of these observations) surrounding a particular decision-making case that allows us to conclude that some people have acted better than others in the decision-making case. For example, if a suicidal person decides not to commit suicide because he has no effective way of doing so, he would be making a wise decision. That is because we have good reason to think that the suicide attempt will fail and that he will suffer more because of that, even though we have no knowledge that his suicide attempt would fail or that he would suffer more.
Perhaps meaning is something that one doesn't care for, as the meaning may be percieved as hurtful.
Quoting Emmanuele
That makes sense. Many people simply don't understand it. It is kinda sad though that some people's best argument is that if the individual commits suicide is that it would make them seem like a bad friend, parent, and so forth.
Quoting All sight
Intersting perspective.
Quoting TheHedoMinimalist
So basically you are saying that the suicidal person ought to be free to fulfil that desire?
They are free to fulfill that desire, no one can really stop you, but you'll still be dropping all of your burden, and making everyone you love take it on without your help. It can be sane if people like, but it is nowhere approaching anything but self-centered.
For the most part, I think there should either be some acceptable legal way one can be painlessly euthanized without having a terminal illness or we should have minimal rights to prevent suicides. I also think that if you see an unconscious person who has attempted suicide, then perhaps it is bad to prevent that suicide from being successful.(it obviously depends on the situation though. If the suicide attempt is clearly unsuccessful, then it might be better to take the person to the hospital. That wouldn't really count as preventing a suicide though.)
Yeah so we said that Suicidal thoughts are natural however they're probably not healthy in concerns of 'keeping you alive' but it deepens your thoughts and creates new values.
So when someone of your family blames you for suicide they're just trying to extend their nihilism on to you. If people actually would put some thought on their existance they would comprehend your position and let you free to do whatever you wanted or even better, they'll probably give you a logical reason to why you shouldn't do it. Instead they do this crap which is rather insulting to your intelligence. It's just how it is.
My view on the common sense concerning this topic is that many people stick to primal ideals. They only try to satisfy their physical needs. The intellect is often left to rotten just for the sake of being happy and unperturbed
Yes, I think it does deepen how one thinks, exploring the depths of the mind.
Yeah, it isn't very convincing when people give selfish responses to "prevent" suicide.
Well, that's easier said than done. I don't deny that we should study suicidal behavior and figure out ways to alleviate suffering which typically causes suicidal ideation. But unlike "curing" suicidal ideation which requires time and effort, respecting the autonomy of suicidal people requires no effort. If life gets good enough that no people ever want to commit suicide, there would be no need to argue about this controversial issue. I think we can both agree that such utopian future isn't likely to come about any time soon.
I think the last part of your comment describes one of the reason why I think we are so bad at treating suicide ideation. We treat it like it is a symptom of an illness when we should be treating it like an understandable response to life's suffering. That's not to say that suicide is an ideal option and that there aren't obvious drawbacks to it. Rather we shouldn't automatically assume that if someone finds the idea of no longer existing appealing, that there must be something wrong with their head and that justifies us forcing the person to remain alive. We typically use the category of mental illness to denote any behavior that impedes functionality and that's useful in the context of identifying dysfunctional behavior which can cause a person to suffer or cause other people to suffer. Often times, dysfunctional behavior arises from immense mental suffering and it leads to more mental suffering once the original suffering triggers the dysfunctional behavior. It then becomes an inescapable feedback loop and, understandably, the victim of this hell will do anything to escape it. It's like they have been tortured beyond their last capacity to cope. Of course, since suicidal ideation is dysfunctional, it fits the criteria of belonging to the category of the mentally ill. But criticizing suicide for being a dysfunctional activity is missing the point of suicide to begin with. One does not need to be functional if one no longer exists. Therefore, calling suicide ideation a byproduct of a mental illness is like accusing a stripper of sexual harassment during a lap dance. The whole point of suicide is to try to be free from having to function in the world, just like the whole point of a lap dance is to "sexually harass" a willing patron. Having said that, I think there are more effective ways of discouraging suicide:
1. Treat suicide like it is an understandable life decision but convince the suicidal person that it is more likely to escalate their suffering rather than reduce it. Suicide attempts are extremely likely to fail and when they fail, you descend into a deeper level of hell that you didn't even think existed.
2. Provide social support to the suicidal person. Lots of people commit suicide because they have no one to help them with their suffering.
I think one of the main (but not the main reason) that I have not committed suicide nor have any attempts is because that so many fail and end up causing more misery. Thankfully, I have not been able to perfect a plan, because then I would probably succeed... also the same reason I struggle to stop thinking about it because OCD says I have to perfect everything... :shade:
As for social support, sometimes that's really not enough for some people. Often, it is lack of self-direction and a broken will, at least in my case. Lots of my friends have tried to help me with it, but the struggle is still there.
Well, I wish you my sincere luck with your struggle. I agree that social support might often not be enough. I personally find that the advice that the Stoic philosophers like Epictitus and Seneca have taught can be extremely useful in dealing with difficult situations in life and in regulating emotions. I also found Epicurean philosophy helpful in learning how to avoid unnecessary suffering in life and getting rid of unhelpful habits. But the advice given by Epicurus is pretty controversial. His views on death could intensify suicidal ideation. Nonetheless, he is a philosopher you can read and understand in like an hour or two. He encourages people to avoid unnecessary luxury and to not make a huge fuzz over minor and unnecessary things. I heard that learning how to meditate could be useful also. I haven't seriously tried meditation though so I don't really know about that. Finally, I heard some people benefit from psychedelics and it cures them of their suicide ideation. I would use that as the last resort though and ideally you would want to find someone who knows how to use psychedelics in a more therapeutic rather than recreational way.
On the other hand, St Augustine pleads for the women who had been violated by the visigoths NOT to end their lives.
Those are just a few , scant examples to display that there have been many views and voices over many, many years.
I don't know.
Perhaps the notion of life being a ''gift'' from God or, in the Buddhist sense, the best opportunity for nirvana might explain why suicide is considered bad.
In a sense it means this life is not ours to do what we wish with it. Few would argue that we could do whatever we want with something that is not ours. It kinda dovetails into a more secular perspective of social existence. We live for others and they, in turn, live for us. So, suicide would be violating this agreement.
The above perspective makes complete sense when we consider how sacrificing one's life for another is valued as heroic and almost encouraged of us. The ''agreement'' that your life is best spent or, in this case, given up, for others isn't transgressed.
Also, someone may choose suicide due to factors that could be remedied if only the person had realized it. This means some suicides are ''aviodable'' and therefore an irrational choice. Since suicide itself is an irreversible process we would like to prevent the ones that are ''avoidable/irrational''. So, perhaps, we opt to err on the side of caution and brand ALL suicides as ''bad''.
Euthanasia comes to mind and it should be allowed because certain medical conditions may be impossibly difficult to bear. Death would be a welcome relief in such cases and it's not immoral or bad to assist someone who has exhausted all options in life due to a known condition that is both unbearable and incurable.
While I do think that your friends and family do give you some reason not to commit suicide, I find it hard to imagine that we have made an agreement to continue living our lives for the sake of others. For one thing, it seems like an agreement requires an agreer. That is to say, in order for someone to be violating an agreement to continue living, he would of had to agree to uphold the agreement in the first place. Since nobody chooses to be born or signs an actual contract agreeing to not commit suicide, it seems difficult to argue that there’s any kind of agreement in place. I suppose you could argue that as long as you are living in a society, you have to abide by the rules of that society. But that just means that it is permissible for you to commit suicide if you decide to move away to a deserted island. As far as any agreement made to a divine being not to commit suicide, I find it hard to imagine how it would be justified for a God to have me be born without my permission and then punish me for violating an agreement to continue living my life that I never agreed to. Having said that, I’m glad we can at least agree that euthanasia should be allowed and that it is not immoral to provide it.
Biologically, we fear death. No animal other than humans commits suicide. Even among us those who fear death vastly outnumber those who kill themselves.
Perhaps the answer to your question can be found in this curious state of affairs.
Are animals too dumb to realize that sometimes death is the best option?
Or
Are humans so smart as to realize that death, sometimes, is the best option?
I saw an animation movie about cave people in prehistoric times (sorry I don't remember the name) and in it the daugther replies to her over-protective father who won't let her explore the world with ''Dad, there's a difference between not dying and living.''
As you can see, life, human life, has acquired a new dimension over that of animals. Life is not just about breathing, eating, reproducing. Life has to be a certain way which agrees with an individual's worldview, tastes, hopes, etc. When these ''extra'' conditions of life aren't met then depression and suicidal thoughts may arise.
Unfortunately, our fear of death and our intrinsic selfishness precludes the vast majority of us loving anyone enough to put their needs first when it comes to letting go.