Psychologically Motivated Suicide Is Not A Right
The right to die is defined by Wikipedia as "The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that a human being is entitled to end their life or undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood that a person with a terminal illness, or without the will to continue living, should be allowed to end their own life, use assisted suicide, or to decline life-prolonging treatment. The question of whom, if anyone, should be empowered to make this decision is often central to the debate." I'm with the right to die camp for the most part when it comes to physical ailments. It, however, does not seem to me that any person could responsibly advocate that a person end their life due to that they are "without the will to continue living". Anyone doing so, to me, just seems to have to be some sort of cult leader. It's not that suicide is immoral, it's just that it goes, by in large, unsanctioned, and rightly so. You can not be of any decent Ethical paradigm and advocate that person commits suicide due to psychological durress. Camus was only so correct in positing that the human condition was absurd, but right to suggest that we should rebel against such a state of affairs. Sorry to come back here, introduce a totally controversial topic, and then leave again, but, as someone who has attempted to commit suicide twice, this has just been bothering me. Basic human sympathy seems to suggest that you can offer a person any other option. Even the most vague optimism or the most banal platitudes can make all of the difference in the world.
Comments (36)
I think that the act ought to be given due regard. It's certainly tragic. That someone does so calls everything into question. It should very much so be considered on its own terms. I just really do think that no person could ever find themselves in a situation where advocating that a person end their life would be the right Ethical thing to do. There's always someway out of every bad situation. There's, at the very least, always a means to cope. I know that "The mind is its own place and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." is the part of The Argument that is put forth by Satan which Milton intended to refute, but I don't believe in a fatalistic God, and, so, I think that that really rings true.
Certainly no would would advocate for someone's suicide (without being seriously sadistic and sick), but I think that someone with profound emotional pain who seeks an end that way has the fundamental right to make their own choice. I think that some people are so empathic and so sensitive to various things going on in the world right now and how nutes humanity is, (unlike millions of people who don't seem to be feeling or perceiving this at all). On the other hand, next time, they will come right back to the same karma, so ideally (from a Buddhist-type perspective), we man up or woman up and face our worst demons. Again and again.
I think it's a deeply tragic choice when someone does make it--like they never got the right support/medication/counseling that might have assisted in the process of coming to a desire to live and change. BUT since I've never been in that person's shoes, I absolutely will not judge them.
I do see what the other side is. If you know someone, you want to treat the act with a certain degree of reverence. To truly cope with it, I think, though, means to accept it for what it is which is made in desperation. Suicide is tragic, but it's just that. It's not like this brave Existential act or anything. I honestly can't really engage in any sort of encounter on this and don't quite know why I even decided to bring it up.
Whether or not you have a legal right to just doesn't matter. You can always kill yourself either way. What is the fundamental right if not that you are advocating that they should do so given significant emotional pain or whatever?
I'm, of course, not advocating that people who commit suicide should be judged. It's something that other people can not possibly empathize with. You do just not know what it is like.
I don't know. There's just something about right to die advocacy that sort of bothers me. I bet it's not quite as cultish as I think. I feel like it's kind of like Eugenics or something. Eugenics can be pretty terrible. People should use contraception, but Eugenics can be pretty terrible.
That's just a projection, though. I feel like people assume that I'm right to life because of my opinions on this which is totally false. There's probably a lot of that that goes on with this debate.
My point is that, while surely suicide shouldn't be punishable by law, suggesting that people have a fundamental right to it seems to advance that, in exceptional cases, it should be advocated. What does the normative natural or divine law do otherwise?
What does it matter what anyone does or does not prohibt in regards to suicide? They can stop anyone. I think that suicide is a somewhat exceptional case where the taboo is well founded. You probably should attempt to stop the person in most cases.
Like, what I mean is that suggesting that a person has a fundamental right to suicide seems to imply that it is something that is said person's choice and that you should respect that. What I am saying is that, if you can talk the person out of it, then, you probably shouldn't. Perhaps the right exists, but there is a greater Ethical concern. The situation created by the other demands that you respond to it in some, way, shape, or form or another.
I don't know where this "advocated" thing is coming from. It seems to kind of sit there, in the middle of the discussion, without a clear reason for its presence. This has nothing to do with eugenics, so you have lost me.
You've lost me again. Re-read, if you will, what I first wrote above. Of course forms of appropriate intervention are an ethical obligation, but should never be forced on anyone who's not delusional.
Eugenics was a ramble. I'm suggesting that invoking a fundamental right implies that, in exceptional cases, you should not try to stop a person from committing suicide. I don't think that that is the case.
I guess I would posit that being suicidal is a pathology. It can be resultant of dire circumstances, but it is still a pathology. Life can always get better.
Perhaps you have a right to suicide in some abstract sense, but there doesn't seem to be any practical application of such a right as, in all cases where you can do something to alleviate the other person's plight, you probably should.
You took that quote out of context. "You probably shouldn't [respect said person's right to commit suicide]."
Suicide is an interesting exception to the respect that a person ought to have for another's autonomy. If someone is smoking a joint and you think that they shouldn't do that for whatever reason, and you take the joint out of their fingertips and stamp it out on the ground, then, you have probably done something that most people would consider to be overbearing. If someone is going to commit suicide and they have a bottle of pills, and you have to strip the bottle of pills out of their hand in order to prevent them from doing so, then, it's probably fine that you do that. Maybe it would have been better if you could have just talked them out of it, but it's probably for the best that they don't commit suicide, however that happens.
My point is that, while perhaps you somehow do abstractly, you don't actually have a practical right to die if you are attempting to commit suicide because of psychological distress.
Again, what I think it matters is that I think it's immoral to prohibit someone from doing anything they consensually want to do. That's one of the core tenets for me re my ethics.
I guess I'm not sure that a person can really consent to suicide. You obviously can't know the full breadth of the endeavor.
What's a right to begin with? Euthanasia is one thing, we're discussing a legal issue and rights apply. Suicide itself can't be a right because rights can only go so far, if you're doing it yourself, you don't need approval to suicide you just do it.
I suppose that if you fail and suicide was illegal that it could be punishable which I don't think should happen. A right is like some inviolable thing that a person has. I'm positing that people don't necessarily have a right to suicide, but I'm not insinuating anything by it.
People don't have a right to suicide because it's not something that needs a right. I understand you're saying that we don't need a right to suicide but why would we need a right to suicide to begin with? Why is it important to say that we shouldn't have one. Seems to me you're just saying that "suicide is not the answer".
Well, that is the case, but I am saying that you are Ethically correct in violating another person's autonomy in preventing them from committing suicide which is how it is not a practical right. It may only exist as a right abstractly.
If we are to consider suicide only as an individual choice without any other parties, then I think it can be considered as a right as it is not something that is immoral. You have right to commit suicide in so far that you have not wronged anyone by doing so.
You are correct that whether or not a right is invoked is somewhat irrelevant. The person can do as they please regardless as to what people suggest abstractly or what the law stipulates.
I'm just not sure as to what the right to die entails in regards to someone "without the will to continue living". It doesn't seem like any responsible Psychologist could assess that a person should be let to commit suicide. Any industry or institutionalization of such measures seems rather frightening to me. I suspect for people involved with the movement to have merely overlooked these considerations and don't think that they're quite the merchants of death that I'm making them out to be, but I do think that those things pose serious problems for the movement.
I'm gonna take off now. Feel free to carry on with this discussion in my absence.
For a start, I thought you'd made it clear you didn't have any core tenets and everything was judged on a case by case basis. Second, I don't see any reference here to 'preventing' someone from doing what they consensually want to do, so what exactly was the purpose for this particular pronouncements (apart from furthering your delusion that people are just waiting for you to tell them stuff you reckon about stuff)?
Are you an Aspie? I'm asking because this is further evidence of your reading comprehension deficiencies. You have a tendency to read everything "as 'literal' as possible," with no evidenced ability to pick up on contextual clues for semantic nuance.
What sorts of things would you say constitute "knowing the full breadth," so that one can't know this for suicide, but where it's the sort of thing one needs to know to consent to anything?
Yes.
Quoting Terrapin Station
What 'contextual clues' indicate is a subjective matter, just because you think you have given sufficient context for your meaning to be clear is not in itself evidence that you have, you'd need some kind of external measure (external to you) to support an argument that it's my comprehension that's at fault and not your communication skills. You have no such evidence, so why not just be charitable and explain yourself better rather than complain about the skills of those who can't seem to make sense of what you're saying?
And what's my being an 'Aspie' got to do with it. Do you have a class of people who you prefer not to communicate with?
Thanks for being honest about that. It's been fairly obvious on a number of occasions.
Quoting Isaac
Sure, and a matter that Aspies have a lot of problems handling in any sort of conventional manner. That's one of the characteristics of the condition. Maybe try having less attitude if you don't want to come across as someone who is obviously an Aspie and who is apparently an asshole about it? (Although if you want to come across as that, you're doing a fine job,)
Maybe try answering the questions within the topic under discussion rather your opinion on my personality? You can either explain better what you mean by a 'core tenet' which does not come under the category of 'foundational principles' which you have previously denied, or we can continue this sidebar about evidence of comprehension among epistemic peers. Whether I'm an asshole is not really a suitable topic for this forum.
I address what's an issue as it occurs, and sometimes what's an issue is (due to) someone's personality.
Fine, you think I'm an asshole who should have less 'attitude'. That's that issue covered. Now will you answer the question, or do we have more therapy to get through first?
So I'm not literally saying above that I'm using a foundationalist approach. You need to be able to not read everything in an overly "literal" and simplified way. It wouldn't be a question if you were able to do that.
So, again, thanks for the personality advice, but just saying "it's obvious what I mean if you can read properly" is not really engaging in conversation is it? It is, for whatever reason, not obvious to me, so unless you have some bizarre objection to explaining yourself, why won't you just answer the question positively rather than negatively. Instead of a long list of things you don't mean, why not just provide a fuller explanation of what you do mean.
I say 'bizarre' because surely the only reason to comment here is to communicate your ideas to other people. You seem quite happy to spend thousands of words disparaging my personality, but strangely reluctant to simply explain what you mean when questioned.
If I'm interacting with an Aspie who wants to argue with me, even if it's simply because I have a lot of views that are different than their own views, then explaining myself is going to be a never-ending task. So that would be my objection to it. It's laborious, and ultimately futile in my opinion (reflected by the fact that I keep putting the word "literal" in quotation marks) to try to "Aspie-proof" everything one says.
A suggestion that would help a lot--and I know I gave this suggestion earlier, is that rather than approaching a desire for clarification in an argumentative manner, try approaching it in an inquisitive manner--you catch more flies with honey than vinegar . . . of course, to do that, you have to at least be able to pretend that you're interested in others persons' views simply because they're another person's views, and you have an interest in understanding other persons' views as such.
Natural rights can be prevented, including legally, but it's seen as morally wrong to prevent them.
Legal rights can be prevented--physically, for example, but it's illegal to prevent them.
I find that sort of thinking baffling. What can 'moral' mean in such circumstances, or - if you can present their being exercised - 'illegal'? It seems to be a sort of dream world, and I think we'd be better working on the one we live in.