Acceptable Suicide?

[KlingPosnot]

Can a person's suicide ever be reasonably accepted?......keep in mind suicide is killing ones self, and one doesn't always have to make a conscious decision to do so...For example, studies have shown that the human body can be tricked into physical illness by thoughts in the brain. This can happen (even up to death) if the person convinces themselves they have the disease...A sort of self hypnosis if you will...So my question can actually be translated into (in this particular case), "Is a person always to be held at fault for their own death if they were responsible for it, whether it be at a conscious or subconscious level?"...Interpret this question however you want...Keep in mind my example was just one of many possible ways to elaborate on the question.

[Bynary Fission]

In most cases, suicide is for the weak. For example, if a junkie gets AIDS from using a tainted needle when getting a hit of smack, then it's his fault. If somebody embezzles people and steals, yet bad fortune befalls him and he goes broke, and possibly caught, it's his fault. Those who commit suicide are cowards. They cannot face up to what they have done, and want an easy way out. The world would be better off without them.

But there is an exception, at least in my eyes. Have you ever heard of Huntington's Disease? It is characterized by a slow slip into dementia, it causes speech impairments, and extreme, shooting pain all across the body constantly. You linger for 10-15 years before you finally die. I once saw a moving documentary on a mother who lost her sons and father to this disease. Her father died after 15 years of developing the disease. She killed two of her sons after they screamed and begged for mercy, for her to kill them after suffering for years with this disease. She eventually did it. It was ruled assisted suicide, and she got 5 years, but served a 1/3 of it. She was not looked upon as a monster for what she did, in fact it caused a stir, and people went outside the courthouse protesting her punishment.

To be honest, that is a fate worse than death. Somebody with such a disease would rather die than live, as characterized by what I just said. Somebody who wants to commit suicide is not a coward when such extreme circumstances surround the situation and the individual. Now Huntington's disease is not the only exception, but suffering to an extreme like that is torture to the person. If you were being tortured, would you want to live or die? Exactly my point.

Also, not to exclude an important facet: Ritualistic or religious suicide. People who do such an act, such as seppuku, don't do it out of cowardice or because they couldn't handle life. They do it for honor, or religious reasons, and those people are exonerated, and possibly looked upon as heroes when they die. Samurai who committed seppuku were freed of any dishonor they got upon losing a battle. If their daimyos died, they also committed seppuku.

So in both cases, I do not see a person killing themselves a coward. They died because it was their obligation (Though others may not agree with it, but if they must do so by their code of honor or religion, so be it). And for the first reason...it's hard to comment on that. I nor you will ever understand unless you or somebody close to us was tangled in such a sad state. But really, other than the aforementioned exceptions, suicide is for cowards. Even if they were family, it would be a dishonorable way to go, and they would not be remembered well, even if their death is sad. (Or at least I wouldn't remember them well, I cannot speak for others).

This is largely an opinion, so please don't take all of what I said in verbatim.


~Bynary Fission

[Emo_Saur_]

Wow, that was a very well thought out response, in the same ways I agree with you Bynary.

You are a man of many words, you must be very respected.

[Kilroy_x]

Suicide is always acceptable. It's a personal decision that doesn't particularly effect anyone else.

"But Kilroy! It effects loved ones by making them sad!"

It's not the responsibility of any one party to predict the feelings of others. Furthermore, shouldn't they be presumed to have control over them? If a families sadness is a deterministic effect of someones suicide, then plausibly suicide is a deterministic effect of something else. So you either have a crime without a victim or a crime without a criminal. Take your pick you worthless liberal scum.

[toxicninja]

I think suicide is justifiable as long as the problem that's making them want to do it isnt temporery and cant be solved, killing yourself because your girlfriend broke up with you is rediculous. while killing youself because you are very obviously psyically deformed, have been bullied all of your life and suffer from chronic depression seems reasonable. If a person really want's to kill themselves though you kind of have to wonder how bad things are for them at that point and if they'll get that bad again.

I thought that i'd felt suicidal a few times but looking back i wouldnt have gone through with it. I find it hard to understand whats going through peoples heads and how much pain they would be in if they could do it. Although sometimes people attempt suicide as a cry for help knowing that they probably wont die via the method that they used.

[Corbin Wells]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Suicide is always acceptable. It's a personal decision that doesn't particularly effect anyone else.

You truly believe suicide has no effect on anyone else the person may have known or been close to? Do you not see anything selfish with it, or do you not truly care about those you speak and converse with every day in your life? Did you even bother to take into consideration what it does to those closest to the person? Did you even bother to think of what it might do to you if someone you were really close with committed this act, or do you not seem to care at all about anyone in your life?

[Kirsten926]

Suicide is acceptable in some circumstances. Like if someone was in deep pain, in other words if they were very old or very sick and they knew it was over soon anyway. But for young people to commit suicide is completely pointless and selfish. I know some people have emotional issues and all but they can get help for that. No one should ever give up on life. Life is trying, life is pain, life is love, and life is work. Thats just the way it is. Thats the way it has always been and always will be.

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Suicide is always acceptable. It's a personal decision that doesn't particularly effect anyone else.

Suppose a family is raising a three-year old child who has decided not to live any longer because of trivial reasons. (like not getting to watch his favorite TV show) The family is looking forward to raising a successful, hardworking man. If suicide is always acceptable, then the kid presumably has the right to decide to die, even at age 3. Yet at his age, he has very few rights compared to adults. Why should he have the right to end his own life at that age when his understanding of life itself is so remedial? Wouldn't this child's suicide interfere with the rights of the parents to raise their child the way they want to?

[devonin]

This thread has been cleansed. Remember kiddies, "I agree" and "I disagree" are not valid posts in CT. Provide reasons for your views. Also, using a discussion about suicide as a platform to flame/troll people is also not cool.

[fuzzykoala]

What about killing yourself in order that someone else can live?
I heard that old people in Inuit tribes used to wander off into the cold when a baby was born because they didn't have the resources to support both the old and young.

[moches]

Originally Posted by fuzzykoala

What about killing yourself in order that someone else can live?
I heard that old people in Inuit tribes used to wander off into the cold when a baby was born because they didn't have the resources to support both the old and young.

There was an article in May 2006 of Reader's Digest about a doctor who talked about the cycle of life, about how it's like plants. Old ones die so the new can come up and thrive.

Suicide is only acceptable if you already knew you would die or to save the life of another. It's called sacrifice, and it's justified. In all other cases, however, suicide is selfish and cowardly since the person is only concerned with himself rather than with other people.

[devonin]

In all other cases, however, suicide is selfish and cowardly since the person is only concerned with himself rather than with other people.

Going back to Kilroy's post, there are some questions that need addressing before you can try to make this claim as though it is conclusively correct.

1) What is your basis for claiming that suicide never accounts for the feelings of other people?
2) What is your basis for claiming that being concerned with yourself is cowardly?
3) What is your basis for claiming that you are required to consider the feelings of others?

[Bynary Fission]

Originally Posted by Emo_Saur_

Wow, that was a very well thought out response, in the same ways I agree with you Bynary.

You are a man of many words, you must be very respected.

Most of my posts are ignored, actually. But I thank you for reading what I have to say and reflecting upon it.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Suicide is always acceptable. It's a personal decision that doesn't particularly effect anyone else.

"But Kilroy! It effects loved ones by making them sad!"

It's not the responsibility of any one party to predict the feelings of others. Furthermore, shouldn't they be presumed to have control over them? If a families sadness is a deterministic effect of someones suicide, then plausibly suicide is a deterministic effect of something else. So you either have a crime without a victim or a crime without a criminal. Take your pick you worthless liberal scum.

Excuse me, just because we have different opinions than you doesn't make us "worthless liberal scum". That is a stupid, ignorant statement. After all, if we didn't agree with you, could we say you were a right-wing extremist zealot if you had conservative views we didn't agree with? I think not.

And I disagree with your statement. Suicide does affect other people. If you killed yourself, would your family and friends be indifferent to your death? Would people take it the same way if their favorite TV show got canceled? No. Suicide leaves deep scars in those who love you and embrace you. They would wonder where they went wrong, why you killed yourself, and wonder if it was somehow their fault. It is a person's choice, yes. But that doesn't mean it is without consequence. If you steal, is it your choice? Yes. But does that mean it affects nobody around you, and you don't have to live with your consequences? No.

Originally Posted by toxicninja

I think suicide is justifiable as long as the problem that's making them want to do it isnt temporery and cant be solved, killing yourself because your girlfriend broke up with you is rediculous. while killing youself because you are very obviously psyically deformed, have been bullied all of your life and suffer from chronic depression seems reasonable. If a person really want's to kill themselves though you kind of have to wonder how bad things are for them at that point and if they'll get that bad again.

I thought that i'd felt suicidal a few times but looking back i wouldnt have gone through with it. I find it hard to understand whats going through peoples heads and how much pain they would be in if they could do it. Although sometimes people attempt suicide as a cry for help knowing that they probably wont die via the method that they used.

Now I agree more with that statement. When people kill themselves, it's usually for a good reason, at least to themselves. But even if you were depressed and bullied all your life, you still should not commit suicide. This is because even those around you would be deeply affected and hurt.

I have Asperger's syndrome., I have been teased and ridiculed all my life, and I was depressed for a long time. But, guess what. My parents showed no form of emotion, and just told me to "get over it". I suffered from anxiety a lot, and the worst part is, my parents expect me to act normal, as if I didn't have the condition. You don't understand what that feels like. Only recently was I able to get past the depression and anxiety, but without notice. I thought about suicide, but I never did it. Because I knew that while things were real bad for me, it would scar and hurt those around me so much.

Somebody who commits suicide is so selfish that they didn't care who they hurt. They only wanted to do what they want without caring about those who were affected by their decision. That's why in 99.5% of cases, I look down upon suicide. I mentioned two exceptions earlier in the post I made previously. Religious or ritualistic suicide, and wanting to die under being tortured in some way. So really, when suicide is acceptable can vary from person to person, culture to culture. To me, with the two aforementioned exceptions, I look down upon suicide greatly. There is always something to live for, that should never be a reason to kill yourself.



~Bynary Fission

[moches]

Originally Posted by devonin

1) What is your basis for claiming that suicide never accounts for the feelings of other people?
2) What is your basis for claiming that being concerned with yourself is cowardly?
3) What is your basis for claiming that you are required to consider the feelings of others?

1. I never said that. In most cases, suicide is done because the person simply is depressed and feels there is no other way. If they would realize how suicide affects others around them (friends, family, etc.) then they probably wouldn't commit suicide, now would they?

2. Being concerned with yourself isn't cowardly. Being concerned with ONLY yourself is because you've reached a level where you are too scared to face the outside world, and in doing so, close up in an attempt to survive.

3. You're right on the basis that no one is required. But like my answer to question 1, if the person commiting suicide had considered the feeling of others, they wouldn't commit suicide in the first place.

[arsonistsgetallthegirls]

Suicide is acceptable as a last resort way out.
It's just quick death (often painless) that puts you out of your misery.

It may affect the people you know, but those people should rather you depart from this world than have you stuck here as a miserable soul. They will recover, and if they can't, they should've done more to comfort you while you were still here. If they tried everything they could, then tough ****. Life isn't fair, otherwise the you wouldn't have killed yourself to begin with.

Depressing point of view, but it should make a point.

[fuzzykoala]

Ok, I'm gonna go off on a tangent here because it's something that's been on my mind lately. If you don't agree with the assumptions that I'm making here (I don't think they're controversial), just go with it and judge my line of reasoning on its own merits. Also there's a bunch of factors involved so bear with me here.

Everything that we comes out of nature. It is easiest to think about in terms of energy. To simplify, globally we consume about 30% more than the Earth can regenerate a year. Everywhere in the world, people are consuming more and more energy per capita while the population increases. Unless there is a technological miracle that happens, ultimately not only will there not be enough energy for everyone, but the environment will have degraded to the point where it is not possible to support a population even near to the
achieved maximum.

The two factors involved with this problem are the size of the population and the amount of resources/energy consumed per capita.

I am also going to assume that people should have a reasonably equal chance to advance themselves in life and be able to achieve a respectable and relatively existence. I personally don't think that it's fair that I should have the chance to do anything I want with my life if it means that some kid in x number of countries has to work 16 hours a day in a sweatshop without any hope of doing anything else.

Ok. Now the question is what to do if I want to consider myself a moral person.

The most obvious answer that we as western society is overtly pursuing is to bring all those other people up to our standard of living. The problem with this is that consumption will continue to increase unabated, resulting in the problem described above - and the ugly ugly deaths of billions of people.

Another possible solution is to reduce the amount that we consume. By we, I mean the wealthy developed world. If we want to be fair about it, some people that have calculated the maximum possible amount of productive land have estimated that there's enough space for everyone to use 2.2 hectares. People in the developed world tend to use about 10. That represents a significant drop in standard of living. Is there a point when lowering the level of consumption makes life no longer worth living?

If we answer yes to that question, that leads us to the problem of lowering the population. Now, the methods for this are either controlling the population by limiting how many kids people can have, or straight up killing them. Since the population of the first world is declining, it stands to reason that it makes sense to control places where the population is increasing. However, since these people are living in places where they generally consume much less per person, and therefore killing one person in the first world would have more of an effect than a bunch of poor people.

Therefore, should I kill myself in the interest of giving someone else the chance to use the resources I would otherwise consume more effectively and sustainably? How can I justify destroying the futures of untold generations of children and the hopes of the developing world by shortsightedly destroying the environment by maintaining a lifestyle that I think is worth living? If I am the only one who kills myself is it a pointless gesture?

I'm sorry that this isn't directly related to the topic, but I'd like to know what someone else thinks about all this.

[dore]

Originally Posted by fuzzykoala

If I am the only one who kills myself is it a pointless gesture?

Yes, which pretty much makes the entire point moot.

[Bynary Fission]

Originally Posted by fuzzykoala

Ok, I'm gonna go off on a tangent here because it's something that's been on my mind lately. If you don't agree with the assumptions that I'm making here (I don't think they're controversial), just go with it and judge my line of reasoning on its own merits. Also there's a bunch of factors involved so bear with me here.

Everything that we comes out of nature. It is easiest to think about in terms of energy. To simplify, globally we consume about 30% more than the Earth can regenerate a year. Everywhere in the world, people are consuming more and more energy per capita while the population increases. Unless there is a technological miracle that happens, ultimately not only will there not be enough energy for everyone, but the environment will have degraded to the point where it is not possible to support a population even near to the
achieved maximum.

The two factors involved with this problem are the size of the population and the amount of resources/energy consumed per capita.

I am also going to assume that people should have a reasonably equal chance to advance themselves in life and be able to achieve a respectable and relatively existence. I personally don't think that it's fair that I should have the chance to do anything I want with my life if it means that some kid in x number of countries has to work 16 hours a day in a sweatshop without any hope of doing anything else.

Ok. Now the question is what to do if I want to consider myself a moral person.

The most obvious answer that we as western society is overtly pursuing is to bring all those other people up to our standard of living. The problem with this is that consumption will continue to increase unabated, resulting in the problem described above - and the ugly ugly deaths of billions of people.

Another possible solution is to reduce the amount that we consume. By we, I mean the wealthy developed world. If we want to be fair about it, some people that have calculated the maximum possible amount of productive land have estimated that there's enough space for everyone to use 2.2 hectares. People in the developed world tend to use about 10. That represents a significant drop in standard of living. Is there a point when lowering the level of consumption makes life no longer worth living?

If we answer yes to that question, that leads us to the problem of lowering the population. Now, the methods for this are either controlling the population by limiting how many kids people can have, or straight up killing them. Since the population of the first world is declining, it stands to reason that it makes sense to control places where the population is increasing. However, since these people are living in places where they generally consume much less per person, and therefore killing one person in the first world would have more of an effect than a bunch of poor people.

Therefore, should I kill myself in the interest of giving someone else the chance to use the resources I would otherwise consume more effectively and sustainably? How can I justify destroying the futures of untold generations of children and the hopes of the developing world by shortsightedly destroying the environment by maintaining a lifestyle that I think is worth living? If I am the only one who kills myself is it a pointless gesture?

I'm sorry that this isn't directly related to the topic, but I'd like to know what someone else thinks about all this.

If you are the only one who kills yourself, yes, it is a waste. After all, animals and humans use resources that are overused or not. But animals don't kill themselves over it. So why should we? Who says that you can't give back and help improve the quality of living for all? The only way we can improve the quality of life for others and possibly help create or promote new ways of generating energy is by living, in turn using energy.

Yes, many areas of the world are using more resources than can be replenished. Yes, we have severe issues with overbuilding in many areas of the world. But considering we are a sentient, intelligent race that goes through periods of growth and intellectual Renaissances, we are bound to eventually take up more than can be used. However, we are also discovering new methods of using energy, and possibly even new energy sources. It takes time for this to be developed, and if the people who researched this killed themselves to stop using energy, we would end up being far worse off with them dead then them being alive.

Have you ever heard of a Dyson Sphere? It is a spherical object that would encompass an entire star to harness it for energy. This is highly theoretical, but maybe possible in a few hundred years from now given the rate of technological advancement. And what about colonies in near-space? They can run off of 100% solar energy, which is virtually unlimited. And don't forget about using antimatter as a possible energy source. The technology for it is very far off, but it may be available within the next 30-50 years. The only way to do this is to go through years and years of building, research, and energy expenditure.

My point is, is that we cannot harness energy without using it. You can't make money without spending money. And you can't make friends without being one. All the same principles apply here. Killing yourself because you use energy is a WASTE. Animals have to use energy to live. So do we. While you may have noble intentions, you won't do a single d*** thing for humanity. Now if billions of people decided to do the act, then you'll make an impact. But until you can influence a billion people to do so, that is not a viable topic. If you go, you'll save 1/7000000000th of the energy used by humans. That will make no difference. So live your life, do good, and be part of the solution, not the problem. Then, you will have made more of an effect in life then you ever could in death.


~Bynary Fission

[KlingPosnot]

I personally don't think that suicide is acceptable in most situations normally thought as associated with the act (depression related suicides). I feel there are situations in which it is forced upon people, or chosen by them as a means to save a life, as stated in prior posts, that can be counted as a justified act...The main thing that anyone thinking about going through with it needs to know, is that others will be hurt no matter how trivial your life may seem...I can say right now I have known 7 friends who have committed suicide...all of them with their own reasons (2 of them were just because they got themselves into a situation in which their death ultimately came out as a byproduct)...It really gets to me when my friends decide living in this world isn't worth it (and many times it has made me ask the question of whether or not it truly is)...I would say that fuzzykoala's example of the Inuits sacrificing themselves so that others may live describes the only way I could accept someone's reasoning for suicide.

[fuzzykoala]

Well Bynary, you're a lot more optimistic when it comes to the future of the species than I am, but that's neither here nor there. All I'll say in response is that pretty much every great civilization has fallen apart and that we're on pretty thin ice at the moment.
You definitely make a good point when it comes to suicide though and (upon reflection) the problem I present is really an impersonal one.
This is reaching a little bit to illustrate my point, but I remember reading somewhere that when the Nazis were moving Jews to the death camps, they sometimes threw loaves of bread into the train cars where the prisoners would fight and kill each other over them because they were so hungry.
What if I find myself in a situation where I either can kill someone else to survive or let them have what I need? Should I let my animal nature assert itself or rather abstain in order to keep from doing moral wrong? Obviously whoever survives in the end will be able to say that they were in the right, but is it morally acceptable? How can we choose who lives and who dies?