Suicide: Is it really irrational?

Proverbs · Apr 12, 2009

I'm here to bring up the subject of suicide and the rationality/irrationality of it (or, if you prefer, the morality/immorality of it). First, let me clear a few things up about my personal beliefs so this doesn't get into a discussion of who 'believes' what. I want this to be based on logic and reasoning.

As most of you probably know, I'm a Christian. The Bible pretty clearly makes suicide out to be a sin (1 Corinthians 3:17). For that reason, I believe committing suicide is wrong and will do whatever I can in my power to dissuade anyone from committing suicide. I also want people to know some of my background with the issue: I've had a good number of friends be suicidal, some who were put in a mental hospital for a while because of it. I have been suicidal in the past, prior to becoming a Christian, and have attempted suicide on a number of occasions. As you can infer, I never succeeded and today have a much different outlook on the subject.

However, my question to you today is, outside of a religious text, can we really claim that suicide is something immoral or irrational--something that we should dissuade people from? Is there something intrinsically negative about suicide that we should stop people from doing?

I ask that you leave your religious beliefs at the door, and I do my best to do the same as well. From here on out, take nothing I say to be from "the Christian perspective" for I am merely trying to reason this issue out. That being said, let me begin with my opening remarks:

I personally am not yet convinced that there is anything intrinsically negative about suicide. The reason why one would try to dissuade someone from harming themselves in other ways is because it makes this life unpleasurable (apparently that's not a real word, but I'm using it anyway). I try to dissuade someone from doing drugs because most put them into a bad place in life. I try to stop someone from cutting themselves because they're not really getting better emotionally or mentally. I try to stop a child from touching a hot stove because his hand will be burned--all of these things have effects that are worth stopping merely for the reason that they make the life of the person unpleasurable.

However, if we are leaving our religious views at the doorstep, we must act as if there is no religion or God to judge this sort of action. Therefore, nothing happens after you die--or if anything does happen, it is completely unaffected by suicide (in this scenario). So, suicide would not make this life unpleasurable at all. In fact, it might free many people from great pain--whether it be physical, emotional, or mental. Indeed, if someone was merely 'bored' of this life, committing suicide should be a 'personal choice'. Right?

But why is it that even as you read this, you might cringe at the thought of suicide being a normal and acceptable option in life? Is there something really irrational or immoral about committing suicide?

Some might say that it harms the people around them. To that I have two answers: Do these people care enough for the person to want his good instead of their own? That is the first. The second is if we decide to take the concept that utility defines 'morality'. If that is the case, then we must define why utility is any more moral than a lack of utility. It merely increases happiness, which, from a very unbiased perspective, is no better an emotion than depression. The only benefit it has is mental and physical. But what do the mind and body matter, in the end? If we do not care about the mind or the body, 'utility' becomes not utilitarian. This is why I disagree with that ethical theory, as utility can be ever-changing unless there is a real 'good' deep down and a real 'evil'. However, this is straying back to beliefs, which I said I would leave alone. But I did want to include this, so that even utility as a moral belief would be left out.

So, my question to you is: Can we prove that suicide is wrong/bad/irrational/immoral?

I'm mostly undecided, but I am leaning toward the idea that there is no proof for it without the existence of a God or a real, objective morality. However, I am more than open to having my opinion changed.

And with that, I open this topic for discussion.

aeghrur · Apr 12, 2009

I'm confused by your wording, so can you explain to me what you mean by "utility defines morality."?
Are you saying usefulness=morality? Because I really don't understand that either, lol, since many things are "useful" but not "moral." =/

Proverbs · Apr 12, 2009

Ah, I'm referencing Utilitarianism as defined by Jeremy Bentham/John Stuart Mill. Mill refined Bentham's theory and was his student. Utilitarianism, put simply, is that whatever leads to the most pleasure or the most reduction of pain, is the most moral. Not in a hedonistic sense--we don't just mean carnal pleasures, but even the finer pleasures, which are brought out by education and are of more worth than the simple pleasures.

That's the basics of it. There's more to it, and if you've got questions you can always look it up.

manhunter098 · Apr 13, 2009

Well I think you are leaving out a critical element, the effect of suicide on the people who are close to the person who takes their own life. Basically, it can ruin families, make it more difficult for the remaining parent to take care of any children that are left without one of their parents. In general people dying at least in the prime of their life really has a very negative impact on society around them. Thats not to say that I am opposed to all circumstances for suicide, but in the majority of situations its impact is pretty much entirely negative and if it can be prevented in those circumstances then that is certainly the best action to take.

Proverbs · Apr 13, 2009

manhunter098 said:
Well I think you are leaving out a critical element, the effect of suicide on the people who are close to the person who takes their own life. Basically, it can ruin families, make it more difficult for the remaining parent to take care of any children that are left without one of their parents. In general people dying at least in the prime of their life really has a very negative impact on society around them. Thats not to say that I am opposed to all circumstances for suicide, but in the majority of situations its impact is pretty much entirely negative and if it can be prevented in those circumstances then that is certainly the best action to take.

Proverbs said:
Some might say that it harms the people around them. To that I have two answers: Do these people care enough for the person to want his good instead of their own? That is the first. The second is if we decide to take the concept that utility defines 'morality'. If that is the case, then we must define why utility is any more moral than a lack of utility. It merely increases happiness, which, from a very unbiased perspective, is no better an emotion than depression. The only benefit it has is mental and physical. But what do the mind and body matter, in the end? If we do not care about the mind or the body, 'utility' becomes not utilitarian. This is why I disagree with that ethical theory, as utility can be ever-changing unless there is a real 'good' deep down and a real 'evil'. However, this is straying back to beliefs, which I said I would leave alone. But I did want to include this, so that even utility as a moral belief would be left out.

Nope, didn't leave that out at all. Feel free to disagree on that point, but I didn't see you really take issue with anything I said in that paragraph, and if you missed that I'm not sure if you read the whole OP.

Aorist · Apr 13, 2009

I'm not too experienced with philosophy, but I'm going to attempt to argue the morality of utility anyway.

Emotions can be grouped into three categories: positive, negative and situational. As purely biological creatures, humans, in order to propogate and procreate need to have a proper functioning of the human body. As a result of actions that further this purpose we have positive emotions (love, arousal, happiness (because we just did or got something that improves our quality of life) etc.) and as a result of actions that run against our need to propogate and procreate, we have negative emotions (grief, jealousy, pain, etc). The negative emotions indicate that we need to change our situation in order to have a positive situation. Envy, for example, is felt because someone has something that we do not, and indicates that we ought to get either it or something similar.

I have established that emotions represent how well we are achieving our purpose as human beings. Humans instinctively want to behave in ways that benefit their genetic imperative, and this is why we have said emotions. We are more harmonious if we behave in ways that we instinctively want to without behaving in ways that compromise others' instinctive wants, and obeying the genetic imperative generally works in this fashion. As morality is a system that is designed so that humans may live together harmoniously, barring exceptional circumstances such as stealing another's mate, obeying the genetic imperative is moral.

Maximising the potential to achieve one's genetic imperative increases one's positive emotions, and so actions that have a net benefit to emotions, by the above logic, are moral. Thus, at least abiding by the framework I have set, utilitarianism is moral.

***

I am of the opinion that suicide can be either moral or immoral, depending on the situation.

For the following reasoning, I am:
1) Disregarding religion, as per the OP
2) Only taking into account the experiences of the suicidee

When someone dies, what they lose is the potential to live longer and experience new things. For suicide to be utilitarian, the pain must be worse than the prospect of oblivion.

What I have said thus far is largely trivial. The problem is defining how much pain is worse than oblivion. I believe that for it to be worse than death, it must qualify under the following categories:

1) There must be no foreseeable end.
2) It must impair normal functioning, whether physically or emotionally.

However, just because it qualifies under those options does not mean that people ought to suicide. The suicider must also be in a state of mind wherein they feel that suicide is the only way out. The above merely outlines when it is justified.

And I am personally of the opinion that when something is justified and doesn't affect anything else, it is moral.

Now, ignoring the suicidee, there are situational factors that can determine the morality of the suicide. Suiciding when it will reduce other people's quality of life is immoral. If people are relying on you for income, support, whatever, suicide is wrong.

If it doesn't affect others and the pain qualifies under the above factors, suicide is justified and then no longer immoral.

manhunter098 · Apr 13, 2009

Proverbs said:
Nope, didn't leave that out at all. Feel free to disagree on that point, but I didn't see you really take issue with anything I said in that paragraph, and if you missed that I'm not sure if you read the whole OP.

I dont really see how that covers what I said.

Proverbs · Apr 13, 2009

Aorist said:
I'm not too experienced with philosophy, but I'm going to attempt to argue the morality of utility anyway.

Emotions can be grouped into three categories: positive, negative and situational. As purely biological creatures, humans, in order to propogate and procreate need to have a proper functioning of the human body. As a result of actions that further this purpose we have positive emotions (love, arousal, happiness (because we just did or got something that improves our quality of life) etc.) and as a result of actions that run against our need to propogate and procreate, we have negative emotions (grief, jealousy, pain, etc). The negative emotions indicate that we need to change our situation in order to have a positive situation. Envy, for example, is felt because someone has something that we do not, and indicates that we ought to get either it or something similar.

I have established that emotions represent how well we are achieving our purpose as human beings. Humans instinctively want to behave in ways that benefit their genetic imperative, and this is why we have said emotions. We are more harmonious if we behave in ways that we instinctively want to without behaving in ways that compromise others' instinctive wants, and obeying the genetic imperative generally works in this fashion. As morality is a system that is designed so that humans may live together harmoniously, barring exceptional circumstances such as stealing another's mate, obeying the genetic imperative is moral.

Maximising the potential to achieve one's genetic imperative increases one's positive emotions, and so actions that have a net benefit to emotions, by the above logic, are moral. Thus, at least abiding by the framework I have set, utilitarianism is moral.

The only problem with this is that you're arguing from a biological standpoint. Suicide shows a complete disregard for what is better biologically. I don't think we can set biology as the ultimate good in this circumstance. If it is, then suicide is never justified, as we'd only seek for the continuation of life.

As Epicurus says, "Death is nothing to us," meaning that it is neither positive nor negative. It is not an improvement in your way of life or a worsening of your way of life, for there is no life (in the situation we're operating under now).

In Hamlet's 'To Be or Not to Be' soliloquy, he says the following:

Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

The end of this selection he basically says: We put up with the things in this life only because we don't know what will happen in the next, "makes us bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of." And, in the following line (which I didn't quote), "thus conscience makes cowards of us all."

So, perhaps our aversion of death is merely cowardice. We merely do not want people to commit suicide for we know not of what happens next. But this is all just speculation. I'm just throwing out ideas for you guys.

***

I am of the opinion that suicide can be either moral or immoral, depending on the situation.

For the following reasoning, I am:
1) Disregarding religion, as per the OP
2) Only taking into account the experiences of the suicidee

When someone dies, what they lose is the potential to live longer and experience new things. For suicide to be utilitarian, the pain must be worse than the prospect of oblivion.

Why? What if the person thinks nothing is better than pleasure? And in this sense I mean that nothingness is better than pleasure, not that there is no higher good than pleasure. Nirvana in itself is merely the cessation of being, and the Buddhists seek this as their ultimate goal. If suicide was the path to it, I'm sure they'd take it. Should we then have a problem with that?

Many people prefer a quiet day of relaxation than a day filled with activity. Does that mean that for someone to want to do nothing that they must need to be experiencing such pain that only doing nothing will solve it--and that is the only justification? Of course not! Some people merely prefer doing nothing rather than enjoying what other people call 'pleasures'. Why do we not take this perspective of death, then? What is so good about life and life's experiences that we should stay here?

What I have said thus far is largely trivial. The problem is defining how much pain is worse than oblivion. I believe that for it to be worse than death, it must qualify under the following categories:

1) There must be no foreseeable end.
2) It must impair normal functioning, whether physically or emotionally.

I already pointed out above, why I don't think you need to be escaping pain in order to commit suicide. So this doesn't really apply so much anymore (from my perspective, anyway. I'm not saying your theory is useless).

However, just because it qualifies under those options does not mean that people ought to suicide. The suicider must also be in a state of mind wherein they feel that suicide is the only way out. The above merely outlines when it is justified.

Again, I'm not sure why it needs to be the only way out. Why can't suicide be just an escape from this world in general? We all know it's screwed up. Why can't it merely be escaping into Nirvana, which is, as the Buddhists claim, the ultimate good? Why is suicide not just 'personal choice'?

And I am personally of the opinion that when something is justified and doesn't affect anything else, it is moral.

This is off-topic, but this is a bad view of morality. What if my pains are so great in my life emotionally that the only way I can escape them is by viewing child pornography? In that case, for me it would be justified. And, if it's free, I am not supporting the pornographers at all. If that's the case, it is not affecting anything else. By your standard, it would then be moral.

Seriously?

Disagree if you like, but you should have no problem with the man who views it. Maybe with the child pornography itself, but you must see nothing wrong with, indeed, that perversion. There are a million and one situations like this I could use to show why that view of morality just doesn't work.

Now, ignoring the suicidee, there are situational factors that can determine the morality of the suicide. Suiciding when it will reduce other people's quality of life is immoral. If people are relying on you for income, support, whatever, suicide is wrong.

If it doesn't affect others and the pain qualifies under the above factors, suicide is justified and then no longer immoral.

This statement doesn't work because everything affects other people. If I wear red that affects other people. Think about it. If I wear red then people will naturally take notice of me more. You might say that's trivial, but I say that you merely haven't defined to what degree it needs to affect someone in order for it to be considered an issue. Or even that it needs to be a negative effect!

Beyond this, at what point do we draw the line with suicide? You say that if my family is relying on me, then I should not commit suicide, morally. However, what if it would put my family in a state of shock? Is that too much? Or what if it just makes them feel sad for a few days? At what point is the negative effect on others something we should avoid?

In my opinion it's impossible to keep from hurting people. People take issue with things and get hurt even unreasonably. And, in fact, if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with suicide, then the people around me are getting upset for no reason. By that point of view, I am doing them a service by shocking them out of their misunderstanding of life as a whole.

You're also operating under the idea that we should seek other people's goods ahead of our own. I'm not sure you can justify this morally through utilitarianism. You must define for me whether we seek other people's goods or our own for your view of utility. And if it's merely what ends up in the most pleasure or pain, then what if my pain is so great that it would be a net gain for me to kill myself and for my family to starve to death? Should we just try to add up, if that were possible, the net pleasure or pain and see which is more favorable? Or is there something intrinsically wrong with suicide that we should not take so cold an approach to it? Because if we are to only seek the greater pleasure, we are only mathematicians.

Likewise, if the whole family I'm supporting agrees on joint suicide, is that immoral? It's not affecting them anymore and we're all being freed from the pains of this world. Or how about if they don't agree? So far, without the existence of an afterlife, we cannot prove that death anything more than "nothing to us." For that reason, a murder-suicide of the entire family should not affect us at all. For, in the end, it is "nothing to us."

manhunter098 said:
I dont really see how that covers what I said.

It doesn't, necessarily. I was merely pointing out that I did cover that issue. It's your job to read what I said regarding that issue and show me where my standpoint fails and where yours corrects those failures. I'm not going to do your job for you and point out the supposed flaws in my argument, show what the supposed corrections yours makes, and then show you why those aren't real corrections and mine still succeeds. You need to be doing the first two parts of that.

So if you want to show why mine doesn't answer your question or cover what you said, you need to point that out. As it is, I said something on the issue. You haven't done your job by pointing out what I missed or got wrong.

EDIT: Wow, I just now realized that there was a similar thread in the Proving Grounds. Oh well, this is different to a large extent as we're arguing without personal beliefs and morals in this one.

Amide · Apr 13, 2009

To answer the question, "Is suicide really irrational?", the answer is sometimes. If someone is in extreme pain, physical OR emotional, I think it's pretty selfish to tell them to keep going if nothing is going to improve his or her's physical/mental state. But there are also spontaneous suicides, which really are irrational. Someone could simply be having a bad day, to decide to kill themselves.

Even though it can be irrational, I don't think suicide should be kept illegal. It's not a society's duty to force people to make good choices for their bodies. This is why smoking, tanning, and junk food are and should stay legal. The only line is drawn when suicide would impact others, for example, your family depended on your income as Proverbs mentioned. (Suicide would most likely be more prevalent with lonely people though.) The only way most people are affected from a suicide is one smaller carbon footprint on this planet.

aeghrur · Apr 13, 2009

Proverbs said:
Ah, I'm referencing Utilitarianism as defined by Jeremy Bentham/John Stuart Mill. Mill refined Bentham's theory and was his student. Utilitarianism, put simply, is that whatever leads to the most pleasure or the most reduction of pain, is the most moral. Not in a hedonistic sense--we don't just mean carnal pleasures, but even the finer pleasures, which are brought out by education and are of more worth than the simple pleasures.

That's the basics of it. There's more to it, and if you've got questions you can always look it up.

Ah, thanks a lot for the clarification.

Really needed it, lol. Of course, I still don't know how to rebut your ideal happiness=depression. >_< Lol.
Maybe I'll rejoin this debate later... T_T

Aorist · Apr 13, 2009

Proverbs said:
The only problem with this is that you're arguing from a biological standpoint. Suicide shows a complete disregard for what is better biologically. I don't think we can set biology as the ultimate good in this circumstance. If it is, then suicide is never justified, as we'd only seek for the continuation of life.

You misunderstand my point, Proverbs. I'll summarise.

1) Morals are merely a series of rules that we live by in order to increase harmony between humans.
2) Emotions are a manifestation of how well we are abiding by the genetic imperative.
3) Abiding by the genetic imperative, as a whole, increases harmony, and is therefore moral.
4) Given the previous, any increase in positive emotion or decrease in negative emotion is a moral thing, and any increase in negative emotion or decrease in positive emotion is an immoral thing.

Thus, utilitarianism is a valid way of determining morals. This is completely independent of suicide.

Analysing suicide from a utilitarian perspective, if it results in a net increase in positive emotion or decrease in negative emotion, can be justified.

However, I must count potential positive and potential negative as determining factors, because people commiting suicide whenever they stub their toe is rather ridiculous.

Rather than go individually through your points, I should mention that many are invalid because utilitarianism must take into account the emotions of every person that the action affects.

Proverbs said:
Many people prefer a quiet day of relaxation than a day filled with activity.

"Prefer" implies that they derive more enjoyment out of it.

Given my slightly updated reasoning for utilitarianism, with the inclusion of the bit about it being "net" emotions over all affected, and the idea of "potential" emotion, I don't think I need to deal with the rest of your points.

Pr0phetic · Apr 14, 2009

I'm sorry but, is there really a debate in this? Suicide is plain horrible. I like TLink's perspective on it, as life long suffering is hardly worth it. But for any other kind of stress, definitely not.

Pluvia's other account · Apr 14, 2009

How is suicide plain horrible?

:mad: · Apr 14, 2009

I think they just don't like murder in general. Really, the only way I see suicide as an option is if you're a prisoner of war, and need to prevent giving secrets. And besides that, if you're dying with no chance of survival, you end it early. Put yourself out of your own misery.

aeghrur · Apr 14, 2009

Oh, I thought of something.
You say that pain=happiness due to utility not being utilitarian anymore, so why shouldn't everyone suicide? I mean, from an unbiased perspective, we're all going to die, emotions are simply emotions, no point in life, might as well end it early. =/

illinialex24 · Apr 14, 2009

Suicide is horrible because for what we know, we get one life. In most cases, existance is better than none so someone saying they would rather feel absolutely nothing than live means that they need help, because they are not enjoying life.

aeghrur · Apr 14, 2009

illinialex24 said:
Suicide is horrible because for what we know, we get one life. In most cases, existance is better than none so someone saying they would rather feel absolutely nothing than live means that they need help, because they are not enjoying life.

But why does it matter if they're enjoying life or not? What's the difference, if you look at it in an "unbiased" manner, between enjoying and not enjoying life? There is none, they're both just emotions, and neither is better than the other. =/

Eor · Apr 15, 2009

For starters: I suffer from depression, had a bout where I seriously considered it, and I'm currently on anti-depressants.

But is it rational? I don't think something like suicide, or even death in general, can be tied up to "rational or irrational". It's all relative. For the vast majority of people who consider it, then no, it is not rational. It's a cliche, but it's a "permanent solution to a temporary problem". Things in life are not constant, they fluctuate constantly. Yes, you can, say, ruin your life. You could fail college, get kicked out of the house, work at McDonalds, have your girlfriend dump you, the have your cat die, and while it's all incredibly terrible, that's not constant. You are not constantly going to be like that, so killing yourself for something that's going to change is irrational. And when people ask "How do you know it's going to change?", the answer is simply that things are not constant. Things change constantly. Even if the guy spends his entire life doing the same thing, it's not likely that his view point will just stay the same depressed. If it does, then this person almost definitely would have a sort of mental problem, which is different.

But on the other hand, there are, say, those who literally cannot live. These are extreme cases. I find it rational to commit suicide if, say, you're being tortured for information and don't want to give it up, or if you're dying and want to end it quickly, or if you're someone who literally cannot survive normally anymore. I remember hearing a story about a Vietnam veteran who tried to kill himself every week for over ten years. If the guys life is going to be spent doing that, then I'd consider it a rational thing to finish it, instead of spending years trying to do it.

And to Aeghrur above me: "But why does it matter if they're enjoying life or not? What's the difference, if you look at it in an "unbiased" manner, between enjoying and not enjoying life? There is none, they're both just emotions, and neither is better than the other. =/"

Neither is better then the other? That's not an unbiased manner, that's a silly matter. It's incredibly clear that enjoying life is better then not enjoying it, or between being depressed or not depressed. It matters if you're enjoying life because being happy is one of the main goals everyone has. The side effects of depression (and that's what 'not enjoying life' is) are well known and detrimental, it's not the same as say, "favor color" which has no baring on someone's life.

RDK · Apr 16, 2009

Proverbs, about your statement on morals and biology:

Science has nothing to say about the existence (or lack of) morality, let alone what values it entails. The closest it's ever going to come to a conclusion on morals is a completely naturalistic mindset--organisms have a single goal, which is to survive long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation. Outside of this responsibility, no objective moral system can be made, no matter how right you think your religion's moral system has it.

That being said, you could kind of stretch the naturalistic view into what could be loosely considered a moral system; namely, any action inhibiting the well being of an individual is considered "immoral", while any action taken that is beneficial to the individual is "moral" (as far as choices go). The problem is that exactly what is considered "beneficial" and "inhibitory" is pretty much subjective, and almost certainly varies from person to person (or animal to animal), so it can't really be used as a standard except for the defining axiom: survival.

For the sake of example, let's use a cheetah and a gazelle. For the cheetah, killing and eating the gazelle would be the "moral" thing to do in this instance, considering it relies on the gazelle to survive. While that would be bad for the gazelle, he can't expect the cheetah to abide by his personal moral system. Because natural morals are based on the survival of individuals who have evolved separately and in different environments, with very different functions and needs, there's obviously going to be a conflict when it comes to values.

In any case, suicide, like any decision made by a responsible adult (given that they are rational in the first place), is acceptable if that person deems it to be so. It's not anybody else's business what anybody else does with their body, and that includes offing yourself.

Edit: Sorry to hear about your depression, Eor. I think everybody suffers from varying degrees of depression sometimes (not to diminish yours); I have some experience with it, although I've never really seriously considered killing myself.

Everyone has ****ty days.

Pluvia's other account · Apr 16, 2009

Depression is much more than ****ty days though.

Is suicide irrational? When you're in the position that you're contemplating it, no, it's not. Depression is crippling, it's a horrible, horrible feeling, which is why, illinialex, people would prefer to feel nothing at all.

But this doesn't mean we should stop trying to talk people out of suicide. Almost anyone can get better with the right help.

Deleted member · Apr 16, 2009

I don't know if suicide is irrational or not (that would depend on your mental state - I think everyone has considered suicide once or twice just out of curiosity. I can think of rational reasons to end this life) but most of the time it's just plain annoying. If you want to kill yourself, do it in private. Don't jump into the train tracks and delay me an hour.

aeghrur · Apr 19, 2009

RDK said:
In any case, suicide, like any decision made by a responsible adult (given that they are rational in the first place), is acceptable if that person deems it to be so. It's not anybody else's business what anybody else does with their body, and that includes offing yourself.

But it is my business if someone else decides to hurt me right?

Aorist · Apr 20, 2009

Well, yes, but your right to happiness doesn't override anyone else's right over their own body.

RDK · Apr 20, 2009

aeghrur said:
But it is my business if someone else decides to hurt me right?

I assumed we weren't talking about suicide bombers.

5ive · Apr 20, 2009

DeLoRtEd1 said:
I don't know if suicide is irrational or not (that would depend on your mental state - I think everyone has considered suicide once or twice just out of curiosity. I can think of rational reasons to end this life) but most of the time it's just plain annoying. If you want to kill yourself, do it in private. Don't jump into the train tracks and delay me an hour.

Are you referring to a recent suicide? If you are, you may be referring to a person who went to my school. Oh what a small world.

Deleted member · Apr 20, 2009

Nothing recent, heh. More just like when you're on the TTC and someone decides to make it public. :/ Not much sympathy there..

aeghrur · Apr 21, 2009

Aorist said:
Well, yes, but your right to happiness doesn't override anyone else's right over their own body.

I believe our government was founded upon life, liberty, and property correct?
And I believe that the point of the government is to protect my life correct?
And so, if someone was to harm my life, the government would take control of their body, such as policemen stopping someone from assaulting me, shooting me, the likes. This is no different. If they don't stop a suicide and cause me and my family to suffer depression, that's not just me they're hurting, that's a group of people. Furthermore, depression will cause harm to both physical well-being and mental well-being, 2 aspects of life. I do believe that it is the government's job to protect my life, along with my family's, so... why should they then be allowed to harm us?

And no, this isn't suicide bombers, although you can see it like that.

RDK · Apr 21, 2009

aeghrur said:
I believe our government was founded upon life, liberty, and property correct?
And I believe that the point of the government is to protect my life correct?
And so, if someone was to harm my life, the government would take control of their body, such as policemen stopping someone from assaulting me, shooting me, the likes. This is no different. If they don't stop a suicide and cause me and my family to suffer depression, that's not just me they're hurting, that's a group of people. Furthermore, depression will cause harm to both physical well-being and mental well-being, 2 aspects of life. I do believe that it is the government's job to protect my life, along with my family's, so... why should they then be allowed to harm us?

And no, this isn't suicide bombers, although you can see it like that.

Because the government doesn't get to say what I can and can't do with my own body.

Any emotional distress on others caused by the suicide of an individual isn't nearly enough to merit making it illegal. Whether or not someone is going to be sad after they hear that you offed yourself is of little to no consequence. If they're really that concerned about you, they could have done something to stop you in the first place.

RazeveX · Apr 22, 2009

I know that the question here is whether suicide is "irrational", but it seems like people are looking more at whether it is "immoral" or it should be illegal.

Also, just because something is "rational" doesn't make it right, a good decision, or mean that it works within our society.

If rationality is the issue, it can easily be argued that life is pointless; that we all will eventually die, and our work will be worth nothing. Pleasure can be seen as a rational reason to live, but then it can also be said that if one is not experiencing pleasure, or is concerned about the amount of pleasure they will feel in the future, then a rational decision is to avoid that point in their life (ie. suicide).

(I should also point out that regarding true rationally, no one else matters. Without punishment, one can suggest that killing someone and eating them is perfectly rational. But like I said, rational doesn't equal moral.)

But is it an ethical thing to do?
Many people commit suicide whilst in a spiral of depression, a pitfall of their life. However, with treatment, a lot of them could be living a normal life; contributing to society, curing cancer, starting a charitable foundation, leaving their mark on the world. Yes, I exaggerated on likely achievements, but everyone is important, and has some effect on the world. Simply, life should not be wasted for (at times) easily avoidable reasons.

Also, the pain that suicide can cause to others can be much worse than the pain one would feel whilst in a suicidal position. So in a sense, suicide can be a selfish way to dump your pain onto others.

For these reasons, I feel that suicide is immoral.

I really don't want to argue whether it should be legal or not, but I will say one thing. Assuming suicide is illegal, punishment if failure occurred could be seen as a rational reason NOT to commit suicide.

SuperBowser · Apr 22, 2009

RazeveX said:
I really don't want to argue whether it should be legal or not, but I will say one thing. Assuming suicide is illegal, punishment if failure occurred could be seen as a rational reason NOT to commit suicide.

I don't think many people consider their future well being while trying to kill themselves.

aeghrur · Apr 22, 2009

RDK said:
Because the government doesn't get to say what I can and can't do with my own body.

Any emotional distress on others caused by the suicide of an individual isn't nearly enough to merit making it illegal. Whether or not someone is going to be sad after they hear that you offed yourself is of little to no consequence. If they're really that concerned about you, they could have done something to stop you in the first place.

I'm just going to stop here. I know we won't get anywhere because the base of our arguments disagree. =/ Thus we can't really agree on this point...
I believe hurting others is justification, especially since due to the damage depression causes.
You believe depression isn't enough to make the government intervene in some suicides.
I will say though, if the family understands, go ahead and suicide.

Suicide: Is it really irrational?

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Smash Apprentice

Dodge the bullets!

Smash Master

Bird Law Aficionado

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Banned via Warnings

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Champion

Smash Apprentice

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Information

Network