Suicide

As someone who believes that the universe tends to make sense more often than it does not, I prefer to think that there are logical reasons for instinct, which can then be explained logically.

the universe makes mistakes, and "corrects" them, the hard way... There are species going extinct right now because their instinctive sex drive causes them to accidentally kill their offspring In this particular case it means the "deffective" species will go extinct and the universe did its job... Very logically, by killing everything

I think my problem with this as an example is that if we have no way of knowing Hitler will grow up and be, y'know, Hitler, then:
We can't know he prevented something horrible via suicide early in life, so he can't be lauded a hero.
HE can't know he prevented something horrible via suicide early in life, so he can't be lauded a hero.

From our perspective, given what finite amount we know about what the future holds, it still appears an unjustifiable suicide, and not some grand act of sacrifice for the good of the world. If we start thinking this way, then every action could potentially be called "heroic", and that's a load of bollocks.

Oh but this is part of the point though: there is no way to know. Hippie hitler himself didn't know what he'd do, neither did his parents. Maybe some people who have killed themselves would have become great philanthropists had they not died. But maybe they could have become the next hitler or stalin. there is no way to know. A suicide can be bad, it can also be good. When bruce dies in armageddon who's to say that's a good thing? He saves humanity and then it moves on to ruin the rest of the galaxy? What if the asteroid's purpose (if it had one) was to kill humans/earth in order to preserve something else?

The way I see it, "suicide" is the bad kind of self-killing and "heroic sacrifice" the good kind of self-killing.... And as Elizabeth so eloquently said, "I think the only difference between suicide and self sacrifice is viewpoint".

ren wrote: A suicide can be bad, it can also be good.

I think the point I'm attempting to make here is that an action isn't good or bad until it is made. If a suicide would prevent an evil, then that evil doesn't exist, and therefore, has no need to be prevented. Likewise, if a future-philanthropist commits suicide, they are not robbing the world of good, because that good isn't good until it's manifested. They've just killed potential, they haven't prevented an ill or a public good.

If a suicide would prevent an evil, then that evil doesn't exist, and therefore, has no need to be prevented.

I'd say the "evil" exists until prevented by suicide. Just because we don't know what the future is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is no way to know what a suicide (or any other act) really achieves or "robs", but that doesn't mean it achieves nothing, or that potential was killed. Action in inaction.

ren wrote:

If a suicide would prevent an evil, then that evil doesn't exist, and therefore, has no need to be prevented.

I'd say the "evil" exists until prevented by suicide. Just because we don't know what the future is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is no way to know what a suicide (or any other act) really achieves or "robs", but that doesn't mean it achieves nothing, or that potential was killed. Action in inaction.

But if there is no way of knowing what the future holds then any talk is simply conjecture (unless you have enough information to make an "educated guess"). The predominant problem with consequentialism (which is what you're talking about - the morality of actions is decided by their consequences), is that we can only know the morality of an action based on what happens in the future at some later date. The problem is though that the future, for all intents and purposes, stretches out into infinity so we can never obtain 100% of the information necessary to know whether such a decision is morally right or wrong.

What if the asteroid that kills us stops the evil humanity, but that in 100 years we were going to have completely overcome our problems and spread through the galaxy benevolently helping all other beings? Whatever good or bad consequences that occur in the short/medium/long term there are always consequences that can happen at some later date.

Consequentialism is proven by history not forward-thinking. There is a huge information gap because we simply never know what "might" have happened if something had gone differently. If one doesn't have such information then one cannot say whether a suicide was "good" or "bad".

Akkarin wrote: Wes would you mind being a little more specific about what you mean by "error in logic"?

The Dalai Lama is an internationally famed figure so it is unsurprising that you haven't heard of a more unknown figure. Have you heard of all the unknown figures who teach the same things the Dalai Lama does? Of course not, the comparison you made seems a little inappropriate.

Regarding the friend with the dog, I did say "informed choice". For a choice to be informed it requires deliberation and consideration, not just a spur of the moment or idle thought.

If you have a seriously debilitating medical or physical condition you can't simply "get over it".


Regarding logic:

A utilitarian is someone who believes in maximising the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is entirely reasonable for a utilitarian to come to the conclusion that in order to try and fulfill this goal. Whatever unhappiness etc that is caused by the suicide might be overwhelmingly outweighed for example by not having to use up lots of medical resources that could be used elsewhere, in addition to all the people who might be taxed to pay for such resources and the governmental budget, in addition to perhaps an inheritance gain for all the people related to that particular person. It is perfectly reasonable that a utilitarian might conclude - perfectly logically - that their death is the best course of action.

A hedonist is one who believes that the highest good one can achieve in life is the pursuit of pleasure. If their life from that point on is not going to contain much, or very little, pleasure relative to the vast amounts of pain and suffering they are likely to receive then they might conclude that suicide is the best option.

A consequentialist is one who believes that the consequences of an action determine its morality. Ever seen the film Armageddon? SPOILER Bruce Willis commits suicide to prevent the extinction of almost every living thing on the planet. His action which was to allow himself to die, on purpose and with full knowledge of the consequences, is certainly suicide.

What exactly do you mean by "error in logic"? When making a decision one follows a set of steps logically to arrive at their conclusion, which part of this process is in error?

About the Dalia Lama, the point was that whatever message the monks were trying to spread by a dramatic death was not as successful as if you stay alive and preserver.

Most people’s idea of how the world would be better without them is based on a very limited field of influence. Only their immediate surroundings are considered. Looking at a larger sphere of influence we have to consider blood donors. Each pint of blood one donates can help save up to three lives. Saving lives is worth being alive for. You can donate blood every three months, one person could help save up to 12 people a year.

An error in logic comes from when we fail to consider all the possibilities and remain short sited in our thinking. And since we can never see all outcomes or futures, it is completely illogical to assume based off the information at hand that our lives aren’t worth living.

But I notice we keep coming back to mental illness, physical disability and medical conditions… there are other threads dealing with those topics. This is really to address an otherwise healthy individual that wants to kill themselves.

The difference between self-sacrifice and suicide is motive and reason.

Honestly, I can’t believe I’m even having this argument with a senior member. The very first couple lines of what a Jedi believes says…

Jedi Believe
In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.
In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.

But I guess you forgot that? Changed your mind? :blink: Don’t care maybe? :ohmy: Only believe it when it is convenient? :huh:

Wescli Wardest wrote: About the Dalia Lama, the point was that whatever message the monks were trying to spread by a dramatic death was not as successful as if you stay alive and preserver.

Taking a contemporary example, what is more likely to encourage people to extremism (in this case Islam - but I'm only choosing it for this point)? A preacher who talks about bringing war to the "West" to a small handful of people? Or the terrorists who flew the planes into the twin towers? Which one sends the bigger message?

Wescli Wardest wrote: Most people’s idea of how the world would be better without them is based on a very limited field of influence. Only their immediate surroundings are considered. Looking at a larger sphere of influence we have to consider blood donors. Each pint of blood one donates can help save up to three lives. Saving lives is worth being alive for. You can donate blood every three months, one person could help save up to 12 people a year.

Are those people who commit suicide motivated by thinking the world will be better off without them? Or are they motivated by thinking that they can no longer cope with the world around them?

Wescli Wardest wrote: Honestly, I can’t believe I’m even having this argument with a senior member. The very first couple lines of what a Jedi believes says…

Jedi Believe
In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.
In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.

But I guess you forgot that? Changed your mind? :blink: Don’t care maybe? :ohmy: Only believe it when it is convenient? :huh:

That looks like it is verging on ad hominem, maybe it is unintentional, but I felt it should be highlighted at the very least.

"Wescli wrote: But I notice we keep coming back to mental illness, physical disability and medical conditions… there are other threads dealing with those topics. This is really to address an otherwise healthy individual that wants to kill themselves.

This was not stated in the original post.

An error in logic comes from when we fail to consider all the possibilities and remain short sited in our thinking. And since we can never see all outcomes or futures, it is completely illogical to assume based off the information at hand that our lives aren’t worth living

This conclusion does not appear to follow on from the preceding statements, it is non sequitur, the exact opposite conclusion can also be drawn. If an error in logic comes from failing to consider all possibilities (thereby making us short-sighted) and given that we can never see all outcomes and futures it is completely illogical to assume based off the information at hand that our lives are worth living.

How do you know that you life will be worth living if you cannot see all possible futures?

But if there is no way of knowing what the future holds then any talk is simply conjecture (unless you have enough information to make an "educated guess"). The predominant problem with consequentialism (which is what you're talking about - the morality of actions is decided by their consequences), is that we can only know the morality of an action based on what happens in the future at some later date. The problem is though that the future, for all intents and purposes, stretches out into infinity so we can never obtain 100% of the information necessary to know whether such a decision is morally right or wrong.

Which is why I agree with elizabeth that it's all down to viewpoint. And this is exactly my point: there is no way to know whether an action will be "good" or "bad", which is why I say a suicide could very well be a "bad" thing or a "good" thing: there's no way to know (and in case no-one spotted the obvious, I think that we shouldn't judge).
I guess the sticky point with steamboat (and perhaps you too Akkarin) is that even though I do not and cannot know the future, I still consider it to exist, and for all actions/inactions there is a reaction, even if we never find out what that is (as you said it'd just be conjecture). Have I ever told you I'm well into that wu-wei stuff? Because I'm really well into it

Consequentialism is proven by history not forward-thinking. There is a huge information gap because we simply never know what "might" have happened if something had gone differently. If one doesn't have such information then one cannot say whether a suicide was "good" or "bad".

... And that is why all scientific theories are called theories.

What if the asteroid that kills us stops the evil humanity, but that in 100 years we were going to have completely overcome our problems and spread through the galaxy benevolently helping all other beings?

ROFL slow down cowboy. I think you've been doing too much star trek and lsd. :silly: Humanity? giving up it's greatest asset: the ability to exploit the crap out of everything exploitable? It'd be conjecture to say it'll never happen, common sense to say it won't be happening within a few hundred years. Even with replicator technology we'll find a way to become obsessed with gold-plated latinum or something. :woohoo:

Honestly, I can’t believe I’m even having this argument with a senior member. The very first couple lines of what a Jedi believes says…

Jedi Believe
In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.
In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.

Nowhere does it say we find suicide immoral, nowhere does it say we fear death, in fact we say death is not the end to anything (death yet the Force).
"Dead life" isn't worth nothing, and I would say that a natural interpretation of the "no death penalty" line means that we do not believe in forcing death, or life, on anything.
Most importantly there is another line, "In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination", which I think clearly places matters of life and death in the hands of the leaseholder.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I apologize. It was not intended to be a smite against you but rather the validity of your argument.

This conclusion does not appear to follow on from the preceding statements, it is non sequitur, the exact opposite conclusion can also be drawn. If an error in logic comes from failing to consider all possibilities (thereby making us short-sighted) and given that we can never see all outcomes and futures it is completely illogical to assume based off the information at hand that our lives are worth living.

I agree that the argument can be turned the other way but the value of the life is still greater than the individual realizes. Again, look at blood donors.

Not “being able to cope” is not a validation for quitting. It is a sign of needing help. The only reason to quit is that one has adopted a defeatist attitude.

In the original post, the first sentence states…

It’s been brought up in other threads, suicide. Assisted suicide was talked about in one thread and then in another, dying for your country became a suicide conversation.

And my very next post…

And I am not referring to assisted suicide. This is not about ending suffering of a terminally ill patient. There is a whole other thread for that.

I don’t know why people keep bring up fearing death. I don’t believe I have stated once about fearing death. I don’t fear death. I prefer to live. But; it is not out of fear but, because I love life.

Nowhere did I mention that suicide was immoral. I don’t believe morality has anything to do with it. But nowhere in any of our teaching does it say “go ahead and give up.” It says that we believe in the inherent worth of all life. The sanctity of human life (holiness of life and character, the quality or state of being holy or sacred, Synonyms: blessedness, devoutness, godliness, piety, piousness, sainthood, saintliness, saintship, holiness ). As far as I know, none of those things lose value or worth.

And if horrific criminal activity that destroys and ends other lives is still so sacred that we do not believe in ending it, then clearly the worth of one person who has done nothing more then been stuck in a bad situation where they feel they can, using your words, “no longer cope” still has enough intrinsic value that it is sacred and thus not end.

Unless you’re going to tell me that a mass murders life has more value than a depressed person’s life, then there really is no valid argument that can be made according to our stated belief. Or am I interpreting our beliefs incorrectly? I mean, it is the sanctity and worth of life that makes it worth preserving?

I'm sorry but if someone is healthy and sane then as a 'human' they have responsibilitie for their own life, or death.
If they choose to commit suicide then it is their choice regardless of motives or anything else.
You don't have to like it, may try to stop them. But really what gives anyone the right to say they have to live? Your viewpoint is yours and valid, so is their's. you can't say your view is any better compared to there's.
To others it may be giving up but that's their opinion.. Not the truth.

This is not an argument. And I'm not attempting to sway anyone. This is only my experience.

This whole thread is reminding me a lot of the abortion threads.

Right to life? Right to die?

I don’t know.

I’m not nearly clever enough to argue let alone understand some of the philosophical, ethical or spiritual implications of those concepts.

As has been said before, and I agree, there are two different sets of circumstances being discussed here.
Suicide and euthanasia. Yes, the lines can get a bit blurry, but the result is always the same.

I have a friend, Helena, who is dying of secondary breast cancer. This means that the cancer that she had been treated for has metastasized and spread throughout her body. She was first diagnosed in 2008 and thought she had escaped and carried on with a renewed sense of wonder at her invincibility. She is currently on medication that is prolonging her life, but will not prevent the already painful death she will have. She’s made peace with it.

She considered suicide very seriously. It was a conversation I will never forget. But decided against it. In her words "I was going to die anyway right?!"

In the last 6 months (already 2 more than she was given by her doctors) she has met her soul mate, gotten engaged, worked her way through an ever growing bucket list of totally absurd things. (like meet honey badgers and have a musical written about her life) despite the fact that she is in constant pain, she has packed more into the last year and has lived more fully than anyone I have ever known.


In 2000 and again in 2002 I tried to commit suicide. I was found in time both occasions.

Since then I have traveled to 7 different countries. Lived in 3. I have worked for 9 different charity organizations. I have studied psychology, counseling, a little bit of law, nutrition, coaching and beauty therapy (dont ask!). I have shared my home with 2 dogs. A cat, a parrot and a horse. Taken part in political rallies. I have met and loved more people than I can even count. I have started a company, a blog, quit jobs. Cried. Seen things that make me laugh so hard that my stomach and cheeks hurt and I cried some more. Been happy. Been depressed. Worked in soup kitchens. Written terrible poetry. Screamed at people. Drunk more tequila and rum than I care to think about. Painted. Swam in the ocean. And met my own soul mate who for me, is the universe incarnated.

These are just the things I can think of offhand.

And you may find this silly, but I’m sobbing with gratitude for my life as I write this.

What I am trying to say, with my story and Helena’s, is that while I don’t feel I have a right to tell someone else whether they should live or die, I have seen the life that comes after the moment where given the choice, death is told, not today.