Suicide
A question I have is a dark one but is asked with no ill intentions.
If someone finds their life to be "useless", who's say is it to try and deter their thinking. Also, are there any arguments that support suicide besides that of physician assisted suicide?
If someone finds their life to be "useless", who's say is it to try and deter their thinking. Also, are there any arguments that support suicide besides that of physician assisted suicide?
Comments (46)
There were some romantic German Weltschmerz philosophers who discussed suicide - Schopenhauer, von Hartmann, Mainlander, etc. Might be worth looking into. If I remember correctly, Mainlander thought suicide was the path to salvation.
Also check out Cioran and Leopardi.
The problem is that we often don't know when someone needs a helping hand. And to suggest that it's dignified to let someone determine their own life or death? As if to let them determine when they "need a helping hand"? How does that square with an outside influence "lending a helping hand"? Should we be "sensitive" enough to realize when someone doesn't "want" a helping hand and let them end it? There's no logic here.
Yes, people should be more acquainted and comfortable with suicide. It shouldn't be this "other".
Suicide is threatening to the established order of things. God, it'd be nice to live in a world where people freely discussed how much they hate life without repercussions, where life is widely seen as a huge pain in the neck, and suicide (opting-out) is as acceptable as abortion and homosexuality. Instead we have all this repression and insincere fake-it-till-you-make-it bullshit.
I sense your emotion on this subject; it seems important to state my own position: I've entertained suicide on a hypothetical level. Amongst those who have really tried, I guess I would be a greenhorn. My sincerity in committing the act would be rightly questioned.
That being said, I was calling into question what I saw as conflicting ideas of 1) "a lending hand should be offered to suicidal people" and 2) it's dignified to let people commit suicide.
Why 'should' they?
Some people kill themselves for bad reasons, and they ought to be offered help if possible. At the same time, other people kill themselves for completely rational reasons, and so helping them doesn't make any sense.
Making that distinction can be hard, which is why you should offer help. But it's not your place to interfere with someone's destiny. Ideally there would be ways to opt out that aren't so makeshift and clandestine. Just like how there should be ways of having abortions without coat hangers.
Quoting Anthony Kennedy
Dialogue.
Quoting Isaac
Because over a million people attempt suicide every year, and countless more think about it every day.
That's just a statement of fact, I'm asking why people 'should' take any action at all about it. I could completely ignore that fact, why should I not?
What are "bad reasons" for suicide, versus "rational reasons"?
Quoting darthbarracuda
This is way too loaded. At least for me, as a suicidal greenhorn. Quoting darthbarracuda
"Opting out" being a metonymy for suicide? Or no? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm aware of that. I'm asking about your thought process, not asking for your permission. You said that people 'should' be more aquatinted and comfortable with suicide. In another response you say people 'ought' to help, and that people ought not to interfere. I'm wondering where you're getting all the moral imperatives from.
IDK, I think a large part of it depends on how long someone has considered it for. Is it a spurt of the moment thing that they're liable to fuck up, or is it a decision based off serious reflection and planning?
In other words, are they an amateur, or a master?
Are they sure?
Quoting Noble Dust
I dislike the term "committing suicide", it sounds like a crime. "Opting out" is more humane.
Quoting Isaac
The same place anyone else gets moral imperatives from, their own reasoning.
So your reasoning is...?
This language seems completely false; a "master" of suicide would presumably be long gone. Does the master teach the apprentice? How can he if he has "opted out"? How can a master teach an amateur how to opt out?
"Committing" followed by an action does suggest a crime, to be sure. I don't argue that.
I wonder how many suicides people have known. I have known two with some intimacy, my ex, and my current wife's niece.
Consider a hand tool - a hammer, say. It it useless to itself? It is useful to the hand that uses it, and when the hand has no use for it, it waits on the tool rack. So to be useful or useless is a relational term, just as morality is relational. So if one wants to think of oneself in terms of use, and if one wants to think of what one ought to do, one must consider others, not merely oneself. Otherwise nothing will make sense.
Suicide is totally self-centred just as the phrase I quote above indicates. And necessarily, a self-centred view cannot reach a use, a purpose, a meaning, or a reason to live.
I do think freedom of speach on this issue is needed. We should be able to talk about everything openly because that is the only way we can correct our thoughts and ideas if they turn wrong. There shouldn't be tabooes. Keeping dark thoughts for oneself only makes them darker and harder to understand. The one with the struggle needs to see his situation from a different angle and he could get that only from another person (if he is not able to transcend himself).
Quoting darthbarracuda
And rational is everything you plan for a long time? It is something you are sure of? I wouldn't agree. Take people with mental illnesses for example. People with suicidal thoughts are ill, whether you want to admitt that or not. I myself only thought about it hypothetically, but it was in times of my mental distortion (I'm not a loonatic, don't worry), in times of psychological instability. It's always like that. There are no rational reasons to kill yourself. There are hard times under which your mind cracks, and it can last for ages before it breaks. But if you have a strong and healthy mind, you will survive. It's all about your mental strenght. No man is purposless. There are just some week people whose head is so bent under the pressure of life that they don't see anything but dust under their feet.
Quoting unenlightened
True.
One of the initial psychological assessments many clinicians make is the distinction between a cry for help, or a risk for being a danger to oneself. additionally, there is a philosophical difference between terminal illness, and feelings of suicide. For the latter, one could lose a loved one and have temporary depression or even clinical depression. This is why going to a certified therapist is important because they can decipher the problem using the DSM-5 to make an accurate diagnosis. For me it's always beneficial if we can maximize someone's happiness and potential even if they're going through suicidal ideation. The thing is psychological help is there through constructive mediation, difference between that and terminal illness is the inevitability of biological death which cannot be remedied.
This is bothersome to me, not only as a clinician, but because enabling suicidal behavior as "speech" according to you ought to be a thing.
I agree completely. There is a balance to be struck between helping those in need and respecting someones personal sovereignty.
I think the resistance you are getting is part of the stigma of suicide but also of death itself. You gotta get people more comfortable and less afraid of death before you can expect them to wrap their heads around a more open attitude about suicide.
Well a rational reason would be to end intolerable suffering or as a means to avoid future intolerable suffering. Whats intolerable is going to vary from person to person.
A bad reason should be obvious as well, for reasons inspired by mental illness for example, or as a means to hurt people (“ill show them!”).
The people with bad reasons deserve our help but the ones with rational reasons deserve our respect and understanding.
I think its just as self centred to force a person to suffer through life just because other people aren’t comfortable with losing them. Thats just as selfish. Also, self centred views can have a use (to yourself), a purpose (service to self), meaning (very obviously, meaning doesnt disappear just because the meaning is self centred) and “reason to live” can be self centred, in fact reasons to live are often self centered (“i enjoy life!”).
So I think you are wrong from start to finish here, on every level.
You ate equating speech with behaviour here. The point made was about being able to talk about suicide or how shitty life is, not about the act of suicide itself.
Its about not being judged as mentally ill or immoral just because a persons projecting their own fears or discomfort about death and suicide onto you.
Does that happen much in your experience?
What does that matter? A lack of frequency alone doesn't justify ignoring the instances if it happening.
Well it seems to me that it doesn't happen much at all. Institutions obviously can't be seen to allow suicide, prisons, mental health institutions, etc, but apart from cases of incarceration, there seem only to be some rare cases where suicide is impossible without assistance, and one cannot demand assistance, so i am wondering what cases you are talking about and how they relate to what I have said.
Who said anything about assisted suicide? The quote of yours I responded too was about suicide being “totally self centred”.
This is non-sequitur to both the posts you’ve responded to.
So your response to my pointing out that the line of thinking that sometimes leads to suicide is self-centred is, speaking of non-sequiturs, to point out that other things can be self-centred too?
Cool.
No, i wasnt making a general statement about some unrelated example of being self centred. Also, you didnt say “sometimes”. The words you used were “totally self centred”.
I wasnt pointing out that other things are self centred too, I pointed out how the specific instance of forcing someone to suffer because you are not comfortable with their death or suicide is just as selfish. This is relevant and sequitur because that accusation of being self centred is being made (in the context I provided) in an act of being self centred. (Putting your own desires ahead of the suffering of the person).
This does not exclude cases where the person is actually putting the welfare of the person ahead of their own such as in the cases of mental illness leading to suicide. (Rather than some intolerable suffering leading to suicide).
Except it doesn't happen. Forcing someone to stay alive is difficult even when they are incarcerated. I keep asking you what is your experience of this or what cases can you cite, and you don't come up with even a description of an instance.
And again, even if it were commonplace, what is the relevance to my description of the nature of suicide? I'm certainly not forcing anyone to stay alive, I'm posting on a philosophy site and I wouldn't have a clue how to go about it.
About the only cases I can think of that might fit the bill are the force-feeding of the suffragettes to prevent their hunger-strikes in prison. Which no one would attempt these days in any country I know. Again, once they are unconscious, medical ethics would probably mandate treatment, as with anorexics, but that is not what you are describing either. Who is forcing people to suffer? What situation are you talking about? Tell me about it and I'll join your protest.
Why don't the most self-centred twats (e.g. putin) commit suicide then? I consider people like that the most self-centred and useless beings on Earth.
Dude, you can be right and I can be right too. I say 'Stop lights are red' and you say 'How come tomatoes aren't stop lights? Tomatoes are the reddest things ever.'
When I was in college, I attempted suicide, so I feel compelled to try and offer some insight. Introvertedness, sense of purpose and Being, self-centered-ness, all play a role in the emotional angst that contributes to such suicidal tendencies.
As unenlightened suggested, a 'selfish' person (for a lack of a better description) only looks at their feelings of happiness, purpose, goals, etc.. And to put too much emphasis on oneself, greatly contributes to the existential angst. Constantly worrying about yourself can put you in a funk. In times like those (dark moments where thoughts can easily spiral out of control into nothing but dread), it is best to let be. Feel those feelings of despair for what they are; they are naturally telling you something... .
Become more self-aware and allow for time to pass, and pay particular attention to recognizing that life is all about relationships. Someone built the house you live in; assembled the car you drive, made the food you eat, comes to your graduation event, supports your business (customers) etc. etc.. It is through others that we achieve our goals; sense of purpose, happiness/sadness, open doors/closed doors (yin-yang of life) and so on. Remember we are all interconnected Beings.
Sometimes you can confuse loneliness with boredom. Get out, reach out, and stay engaged and connected. Life is, once again, about relationships.
Why don't those with power consider suicide?
Quoting 3017amen
Oh yes, that's really insightful. I say selfish not as a moral condemnation, because it comes very often from trauma, childhood trauma often. It's just a simple fact that might sound more acceptable if I put it thus: only love is a reason to live.
Indeed. It was me who used the word selfish, but it's kind of appropriate. Selfishness is kind of like pride. There is a good kind of pride (proud of your accomplishments, family, etc.) then there is the bad kind of pride/exaggerated self worth (AKA big ego). Selfishness can be bad if it turns into a sort of narcissistic preoccupation, and fragile ego. And so the good kind of selfishness, is that we are all self-directed individual's with unique qualities we decide to bring to the dance.
Perhaps it comes down to volitional existence. We can choose to participate and be part of a bigger thing, or we can choose to check-out.
Alright, fair point I should have used a less strong word than “force”. What I had in mind is when someone wants to end their suffering by ending their life (which is rational) and someone tries to stop them, either by social pressure or physically by having that person committed etc.
If you are trying to prevent someone from killing themselves in the context ive laid out then you are in some sense forcing them to suffer (in cases where ending their suffering is their reason for killing themselves.)
I wasnt intending to talk about literal cases of actually physically restraining someone from the act of suicide.
Anyway, It hasnt gone unnoticed by me that you have failed to actually address my points against you here so Ive begun to wonder what the point in wasting my words is.
Thanks for your wisdom in this thread. I feel like I'm eating philosophical kale.
Yes, it is certainly possible to use coercive control or the mental health system for such selfish ends. It is possible too to have selfish motives for opposing suicide in general - one might have the patent on happy pills or something.
Quoting Chisholm
If I used the term 'personal' instead of 'selfish', would you allow that I might be somewhat sensible of each and every one of those considerations you mention?. All i have really said is that if one kills oneself for the benefit of others, rather than to end one's own suffering, we do not call it suicide, but self-sacrifice.
In addition, I was responding to the particularity of the op: Quoting Anthony Kennedy
I may have misunderstood, but it is indicative of a very common line of thinking philosophically that demands that life should have a use. A cost-benefit analysis of life is bound to find it useless. because use is relational, not an objective property. I do think this is quite important, and that it is a great pity for people to die of a philosophical folly that arises from a totally self-centred viewpoint and that leads inexorably to depression, feelings of absurdity, anxiety and so on that you mention.
An interesting take on the issue of suicide - relating the intent to end one's own life to one's perceived (and actual) utility. Reminds me of my college days when I came across biochemical redundant systems in cells. It appears that there are multiple chemical pathways that end in a desired biomolecule but only one of them is actually operating at any point in time. The other redundant, useless, pathways lie dormant until the primary pathway fails or is rendered non-functional. In effect, redundant or useless biochemical pathways are like backup generators that switch on when the main power supply fails. In the context of this discussion, it might be immensely beneficial to maintain a healthy population of completely useless folk and it beehoves us to discourage suicide among them. :chin:
I'm not interested in love but I like living. There are more reasons than love to live.
Admitting you are depressed isn't that different from saying that you have a kind of physical wound, of course, people are going to recommend that you get it treated or offer you aid. Depression isn't an intellectual position, it's a mental illness that nobody would choose for themselves and someone in this state of mind either has ideas helping to cause their depression (which is bad) or has ideas shaped by their depression.
That's the issue with illnesses that affect the mind, it is disrupting one's thoughts and interfering with one's ability to think clearly.
I'm open to persuasion on that, though I take 'love' broadly in my universal pontification. Reasons that are not about other people you may have, but a solitary life is certainly harder to sustain in a positive frame of mind. But tell us about it. Personally, I find I am dependent on others not merely physically, but psychologically - but there are sociopaths and hermits I suppose.
I guess i am sceptical mainly because liking living seems a very fragile motivation for living, if one became subject to chronic pain, such a liking might not be sustained.
I wasn't talking about a solitary life. Friends, family, flings, etc. By "love" I assumed you were talking about romantic love which I'm not looking for.
...interesting views that everyone has contributed thus far, I must say... .
I did think that the aforementioned quote from Judaka was worth noting too, because of the pathological metaphor there. I look at it like the concept of 'extremes'. Meaning, being extremely happy all the time v. being extremely sad all the time. Regarding the former, an analogy would be PBA, the laughing disorder. While it's almost funny just writing about it here, imagine if one could not stop laughing, would it get old? (It might result in a lot of physical pain too... .)
I think in many ways we are back to moderation (Aristotle), balance, yin-yang, integration of opposite's (Maslow), so on and so forth. Put it another way, aside from one's body wearing out, the more you live life, the more fun it is....really!!!!
Beyond this, indeed, depression can be a very very serious disorder that needs immediate attention.