Suicide as a Rational Option

[tojohndillonesq]

Sorry if this discussion is already underway... I searched and found nothing (to my surprise)

If you don't believe the moral stricture that suicide is a sin, what is stopping you? Some possible reasons:

1) Pleasure. You enjoy life and wake up every day to squeeze the pleasure out of it like a big Orange.
This seems valid; if life is really fun for you, it does not have to mean anything for you to enjoy it.

2a) Emotional Responsibility. You have others who count on you emotionally and you don't want to hurt them.
This does not seem valid. If you are not happy and enjoying life, there is NO way you are helping others enjoy it. You cannot give what you do not have.

2b) Financial Responsibility. You have kids or parents or others who are counting on you to support them.
This does not seem valid either. If you don't support them, someone else will. Money can't buy happiness, etc. If all you are good for is money... jeez, that is pathetic for both you and your dependents. (If you are happy then the question does not arise; you stay alive for that reason, not due to your financial responsibilities.)

3) To leave a legacy. (Be remembered, accomplish something, etc.)
Please. This is monopoly money. Nothing counts when the game is over.

I really can't come up with anything else that is remotely rational. In Japan (Buddhist and Shinto tradition of faith), Sepeku was (is?) considered an honorable alternative. If you are a burden or a disgrace to yourself or to others, just die. The ONLY reason we do not have that philosophy in the West is two centuries of Christian ethics weaving themselves through our cultural norms. Is there any other religion that opposes self-conclusion?

Suicide should be an absolute fundamental right, regardless of age or reason. Government interference in this choice is the worst sort of invasion of privacy.

I would further suggest that it should be a socially respected alternative. Regardless of the type of burden you have become - financial, emotional, or whatever - the willingness to remove yourself should be lauded rather than reviled.

OK folks... anyone have a rational argument against it? (Religious/moral reasons are, by definition, irrational.) Or are we all charter members of the "Right to Die" club?

[yy2bggggs]

2a, 2b, not necessarily. Those are only false when they are. You're being overly simplistic.

Your assessment of 3 is an outright fallacy. Say I, in the US, have a girlfriend in China (who for some reason can't use the internet while there). Should I care about her? Per your argument, I'm not even there. It's not relevant whether or not I care about her because nothing I can do can affect her. The only difference between my girlfriend in China and my legacy is that one is separated in space and the other in time.

Either way, what's relevant is whether I, right here, right now, care about the thing separated in space, or the thing separated in time. After all it's me, right here, right now, who has to decide whether or not to commit suicide, and while I both make and carry out that decision, presumably, I'd be alive. I'll only be dead after it's too late to address what I care about.

[Cavemonster]

But here's the biggest point, life is strange and varies unexpectedly.

The Berlin wall came down, women got the vote, the slaves were freed. The world changes, and in a smaller way, the conditions of an individual life change, often very unexpectedly.

So say you are now getting no pleasure from your life. How do you measure how much pain it's reasonable to put up with on the chance that your situation could be different tomorrow.

Of course there are situations where it is vanishingly unlikely that current pain will abate, certain types of disease, etc. But overall, the fact that tomorrow could be an improvement, unless you can logically conclude that a meaningful improvement in a reasonable amount of time is completely impossible, there's no reason not to wait another day at least and see if things get better. After all, you don't lose out nearly as much by missing a day of not existing as you do in missing a possibly good day.

[calebprime]

I believe in the 'right' to suicide, but you seem to be making some kind of general case for why someone ought to kill him/herself. I mean your numbered list. Really, for each of these items, each individual's circumstances and tolerance is different.

You need to disentangle the legal or moral issue from the argument for why one might want to commit suicide as presented in your list. These items seem oddly argued, also.

My middle-aged friends and I say to each other--why not hang on? Can you find nothing to live for, take pleasure in, work for?

Sometimes the pain that is causing the despair can be helped, both through changing the circumstances and by treating the depression...

[plumjam]

Is this a cunning plan to speed up the JREF forum server?

[Marquis de Carabas]

If I kill myself, they win.

[Foster Zygote]

I think the problem is that suicide is most often the irrational option. I can certainly understand why someone would choose an earlier death with some dignity over six months of abject misery being eaten alive by terminal cancer. But most suicides seem to be committed by people who are suffering from severe depression.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

I think the problem is that suicide is most often the irrational option. I can certainly understand why someone would choose an earlier death with some dignity over six months of abject misery being eaten alive by terminal cancer. But most suicides seem to be committed by people who are suffering from severe depression.

Or anxiety. Untreated anxiety will cause suicide.

[Kernel Hapablap]

I recently read an article in "NewScientist" about Thomas Joiner's book "why people commit suicide". Joiner goes out to discover why some people commit suicide, while many others who have suicidal thoughts, don't. He identifies three factors that are necessary before suicide occurs:

A feeling of being a burden on loved ones; a sense of isolation; and a learned ability to hurt oneself

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/joiwhy.html

The argument he makes is that it is not enough to want to commit suicide, but in order to overcome our self-preservation instinct, we have to become desensitized to pain/violence/death. This is why doctors are more likely to commit suicide, for example.

I know this doesn't answer the question of morality and ethics, but I do think it sheds light on the psychology of suicide.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

If I kill myself, they win.

Best secular reasoning against suicide EVER.

[ClassyElf]

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

3) To leave a legacy. (Be remembered, accomplish something, etc.)
Please. This is monopoly money. Nothing counts when the game is over.

Even if a game of Monopoly will inevitably end and be ultimately irrelevant, that doesn't mean one should act like a spoiled brat and throw the game board up in the air walking away mid-game. That's against the rules of the game.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

If you don't believe the moral stricture that suicide is a sin, what is stopping you?

With no supernatural beliefs, I don't believe anything is a "sin", but I do have morality. I think the question presumes a default position that morality stems from religion. I reject that idea.

Morality is a mental capacity we evolved (much like language) for living in complex groups. As with language, there is the capacity and a conventional aspect to morality.

At any rate, to play the game: for someone who believes this life is all there is, suicide is the ultimate irrevocable decision. It would mean the complete and utter annihilation of my self.

If anything, a person who believes he is somehow immortal seems more likely to commit suicide. Maybe that's why they need the "thou shalt not" to keep them from doing it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

To elaborate further: imagine I were faced with something that might make me consider suicide, like chronic pain. As Cavemonster points out, no matter how sure I am that the pain will continue until I die, I don't really KNOW that for certain. So, if I were making a cost/benefit analysis of the decision, on the benefit side, I'd have a less than 1 probability of making this unbearable pain stop, but on the cost side, I'd have the absolute certainty of my own annihilation. I'm not saying I would never make that decision, but it would take extreme circumstances (extremely intense pain that is unlikely ever to abate) to make it a rational choice.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

Is there any other religion that opposes self-conclusion?

Islam

Hinduism

Sikhism

Judaism

Bahai

Do you want others?

[maddog]

I agree that it should be an accepted rational option, but

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

I think the problem is that suicide is most often the irrational option. I can certainly understand why someone would choose an earlier death with some dignity over six months of abject misery being eaten alive by terminal cancer. But most suicides seem to be committed by people who are suffering from severe depression.

FZ is right on target, and depression is truly horrible -- AND treatable. So I would highly encourage even completely rational (if such person exists) suicidal people to try treatment for depression (or, as Cain added, anxiety) before trying to commit suicide.

If you don't like the results of treatment, you can do the other later. On the other hand, if you don't like the results of suicide...

[The Atheist]

These kids clearly agree with suicide as quite rational.

Their families, probably not.

[latent aaaack]

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

Sorry if this discussion is already underway... I searched and found nothing (to my surprise)

If you don't believe the moral stricture that suicide is a sin, what is stopping you? Some possible reasons:

1) Pleasure. You enjoy life and wake up every day to squeeze the pleasure out of it like a big Orange.
This seems valid; if life is really fun for you, it does not have to mean anything for you to enjoy it.

Quote:

2a) Emotional Responsibility. You have others who count on you emotionally and you don't want to hurt them.
This does not seem valid. If you are not happy and enjoying life, there is NO way you are helping others enjoy it. You cannot give what you do not have.

If you're suggesting that depressed people don't hurt others when they commit suicide you are totally wrong. If you know anything about suicide you must already know that.

Quote:

2b) Financial Responsibility. You have kids or parents or others who are counting on you to support them.
This does not seem valid either. If you don't support them, someone else will. Money can't buy happiness, etc. If all you are good for is money... jeez, that is pathetic for both you and your dependents. (If you are happy then the question does not arise; you stay alive for that reason, not due to your financial responsibilities.)

That you would even consider that suicide could possibly be acceptable if you have young children suggests your moral compass is extremely awry. That you say, if I interpreted correctly, that suicide is acceptable if you merely aren't recently getting pleasure out of life rather than only if you are in extreme emotional or physical pain, accentuates the insanity of this.

Quote:

3) To leave a legacy. (Be remembered, accomplish something, etc.)
Please. This is monopoly money. Nothing counts when the game is over.

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the ethics of suicide, but rather the legitimacy of sources of pleasure that some people have. For the purposes of your argument it makes no difference what people get their pleasure from, only that they do so, so this would fall under the category of your first reason.

Quote:

....
Government interference in this choice is the worst sort of invasion of privacy.

This is the worst sort of exaggeration.

Quote:

I would further suggest that it should be a socially respected alternative. Regardless of the type of burden you have become - financial, emotional, or whatever - the willingness to remove yourself should be lauded rather than reviled.

In certain circumstances yes, suicide is fine with me. But you seem to lack an understanding of the conditions in which most suicides occur, most suicides being committed by those who have an often curable or manageable mental illness, or who are experiencing other life events that are temporary, or by people who are in a completely irrational probably passing state of mind, and most importantly most suicides deepy hurting those people who were in the perpetrators' life especially children of course.

Quote:

OK folks...

Please don't "OK folks" an internet message board. Thank you.

Quote:

anyone have a rational argument against it? (Religious/moral reasons are, by definition, irrational.) Or are we all charter members of the "Right to Die" club?

The main reason I can think of is that doing so signifies that there is something wrong in your life and your life is something you have control over. Hell, even if you were born into slavery in the American south your chances weren't that bad of escaping if (and it is a big if) you couldn't find any enjoyment at all in your externally controlled life.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The self-help people have a pretty good saying: "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem."

[Greediguts]

This is a hard one for me...

In 1995, my older brother, four days before his 32nd birthday, took a gun and shot himself.

He left behind a wife and two little girls. At the time, one daughter was six and the other was two.

Medical professionals would have described him as having a history of drug/alcohol abuse and mental illness.

I would have described him as smart, funny, and the guy who introduced me to hard rock music as a kid.

Burned into my memory is the image of his lifeless body, with a hole in his skull, lying in the morgue.

Other memories include watching his kids grow-up, trying to cope with the situation. The youngest really didn't remember him all that well, but the six year old did. For years after, if someone gave the oldest a coin to "make a wish" in a fountain, she would always make the same one...

"I wish I had my Dad back."

tojohndillonesq, I don't know what your experience is regarding suicide, but what I do know is that my brother could NEVER have imagined the fallout of his decision. From reading his suicide note, I know that he was not rational when he pulled the trigger.

But it's too late now...he's dead.

You said, "If you are a burden or a disgrace to yourself or to others, just die."

I say...no.

[Roadtoad]

I'm sorry, but I find the OP's premise to be highly arrogant.

After reading Greediguts response, I have to ask simply: Who determines whose life is worth keeping, and who decides if it's time to end it? What gives me the right to decide, "I'm done," and to go blow my brain matter across the walls? And on what basis?

The biggest problem with this idea is that any criteria proposed is based upon my (obviously) flawed judgment, and that it will result in an equally, if not significantly higher flawed result. It presupposes that any deficit that exists at present will be perpetuated, and the end will necessarily be bad. It's clearly not so: others have overcome far worse than mere embarrassment, and still others have overcome serious medical conditions to eventually do incredible things. It's one of the reason I am opposed to many of these "right to die" initiatives, simply because it presupposes that you will no longer be of "use" to someone simply because of some present incapacity.

We're all going to die at some point or another. I would rather delay that inevitability as long as is humanly possible.

Another point is that a life belongs only to the person living it. It's not so, and never has been. The reality is that a life belongs not only to the individual, but to those who choose to share a life with them, regardless of the time or intensity involved. We simply don't know how a small contact with another person will affect them, and terminating our lives, not so much on our terms but based upon our own selfish intent, is destructive and foolish.

Sorry, but this whole idea of suicide except when a life is nearing an end, and continuing it induces a far worse trauma, is selfish, foolish, and wrong.

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

I'm sorry, but I find the OP's premise to be highly arrogant.

After reading Greediguts response, I have to ask simply: Who determines whose life is worth keeping, and who decides if it's time to end it? What gives me the right to decide, "I'm done," and to go blow my brain matter across the walls? And on what basis?

There is no such thing as a "right". In reality, life is neither worth nor not worth keeping. If I decide to kill myself, or murder dozens of others, I don't need anyone to give me the right to do it.

Rights are social constructs. They are useful concepts when we are able to punish those who disrespect them, but I'm afraid they are nearly useless when it comes to suicide. I'm writing this in response to your post in particular, Roadtoad, because of your indignant tone--like a believer throwing his hands up and saying, "But this is just not right."

I'm not totally opposed to regulating suicide. I think it would be good if we could stop people who have children from killing themselves, for example. They have decided to procreate, so it's fair for us to try to make them accountable. The problem is that it could have terrible consequences. After all, we could only enforce the law if the parents failed to commit suicide. But if they've actually survived, then it's better for the children not to have their parents arrested. It's kind of like drug use, or abortion: even it goes against your personal morals, you have to be pragmatic. You don't want drug users contracting HIV. You don't want women dying in illegal clinics. You don't want kids to be sent to orphanages because their parents tried to kill themselves.

Quote:

The biggest problem with this idea is that any criteria proposed is based upon my (obviously) flawed judgment, and that it will result in an equally, if not significantly higher flawed result. It presupposes that any deficit that exists at present will be perpetuated, and the end will necessarily be bad. It's clearly not so: others have overcome far worse than mere embarrassment, and still others have overcome serious medical conditions to eventually do incredible things. It's one of the reason I am opposed to many of these "right to die" initiatives, simply because it presupposes that you will no longer be of "use" to someone simply because of some present incapacity.

We're all going to die at some point or another. I would rather delay that inevitability as long as is humanly possible.

Another point is that a life belongs only to the person living it. It's not so, and never has been. The reality is that a life belongs not only to the individual, but to those who choose to share a life with them, regardless of the time or intensity involved. We simply don't know how a small contact with another person will affect them, and terminating our lives, not so much on our terms but based upon our own selfish intent, is destructive and foolish.

Sorry, but this whole idea of suicide except when a life is nearing an end, and continuing it induces a far worse trauma, is selfish, foolish, and wrong.

Anyway, if children weren't at risk (i.e. their family could support them), I'd be against regulating suicide, even if it were possible. You say that people shouldn't kill themselves because "a life belongs not only to the individual, but to those who choose to share a life with them." That's baloney. I want to move away to another country--should I not be allowed to do it because my life doesn't belong only to me, but to those who share a life with me in my country? What about divorce? Should we make divorce illegal because a wife's life is not only her own, but also her husband's? Seriously.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Greediguts

Other memories include watching his kids grow-up, trying to cope with the situation. The youngest really didn't remember him all that well, but the six year old did. For years after, if someone gave the oldest a coin to "make a wish" in a fountain, she would always make the same one...

"I wish I had my Dad back."

I had to settle down and wipe the tears from my eyes before I responded. That got to me.

[quote ] You said, "If you are a burden or a disgrace to yourself or to others, just die."

I say...no.[/quote]
I support your position.

"If you are a burden or a disgrace to yourself or to others, just die" is a sentiment that refuses to consider hope, chance, and variable futures.

One may be a burden or disgrace, at the moment.

However grim things are, there is a path of redemption from that, one way or the other. There is a way to heal.

Finding it is not always easy. Often one needs to ask for help. Restoring your rep or undoing the stain on "others" may take a lot of work. Working at it, the journey, has value in itself. It's worth taking those steps to try and find a way out of the ditch, back onto the road.

DR

[MikeSun5]

You can't really apply logic to the irrational. I used to think suicide was nature's way of getting rid of the weak, but I've since learned that it's not that plain and simple. Foster Zygote and maddog brought up the excellent point of depression. You can't really use logic to combat things like depression and impulse.

As far as your reasons against it, if you go ahead and remove legacy and responsibility, you might as well remove pleasure. I know some grouchy bastards that aren't suicidal. Maybe for some it's simply preservation of species. Isn't that what it all comes down to anyway?

[NobbyNobbs]

Tojo,

I am dying. Well, we all are, but my case is somewhat more acute. I could, if I wanted to, rationalize any numbers of reasons why I should do myself in. Therefore, I like to think I can speak as , well, not an authority, but maybe as someone who is a little bit closer to the subject.

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

Sorry if this discussion is already underway... I searched and found nothing (to my surprise)

If you don't believe the moral stricture that suicide is a sin, what is stopping you? Some possible reasons:

1) Pleasure. You enjoy life and wake up every day to squeeze the pleasure out of it like a big Orange.
This seems valid; if life is really fun for you, it does not have to mean anything for you to enjoy it.

You got this much right, and this is one reason I want to live. There's a lot I want to see and do and experience. I want to taste sake. I want to see people walk on Mars. I want to see where technology takes us. I want to have a threeway with Lucy Liu and Salma Hayek.

Obviously, some of these things aren't going to happen within my lifetime. (I mean, Mars?? No way.) But I still want to stick around, just in case they do. To enjoy life is a good reason to live.

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

2a) Emotional Responsibility. You have others who count on you emotionally and you don't want to hurt them.
This does not seem valid. If you are not happy and enjoying life, there is NO way you are helping others enjoy it. You cannot give what you do not have.

I disagree. I have a dear friend (several, now that I think about it) who, even though she was at her lowest, hating life and hating herself, I still loved. I was able to see the goodness in her that she was having trouble recognizing. Given time, she grew to recognize it. You most certainly can give what you do not have, because most likely, you do not have it only temporarily. To have emotional responsibility is a good reason to live.

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

2b) Financial Responsibility. You have kids or parents or others who are counting on you to support them.
This does not seem valid either. If you don't support them, someone else will. Money can't buy happiness, etc. If all you are good for is money... jeez, that is pathetic for both you and your dependents. (If you are happy then the question does not arise; you stay alive for that reason, not due to your financial responsibilities.)

"If you don't support them, someone else will"? Where do you get that from? I am fortunate to have a supportive family and friends, but not everyone does. And do you suppose the person left behind wants to be supported by their in-laws? Whoever said money can't buy happiness had plenty of both. To support the people I love is a good reason to live.

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

3) To leave a legacy. (Be remembered, accomplish something, etc.)
Please. This is monopoly money. Nothing counts when the game is over.

This is, to use a favorite phrase of mine, complete bollocks. In fact, whatever you leave behind when you are gone is everything that counts. There is nothing else. If I kill myself today, what of the life lesson I might have taught my kids tomorrow? What of the book I might write that will affect people's lives? What about the kind deed that, while a small thing to me, greatly impacts someone else? To leave a legacy is an excellent reason to live. In fact, for some people it's the only reason.

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

Suicide should be an absolute fundamental right, regardless of age or reason. Government interference in this choice is the worst sort of invasion of privacy.

I didn't realize it was a crime. And what can they do to you? Either you don't succeed, and so haven't committed the crime, or you do, and you're dead.

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

I would further suggest that it should be a socially respected alternative. Regardless of the type of burden you have become - financial, emotional, or whatever - the willingness to remove yourself should be lauded rather than reviled.

Hooray for Joe! Rather than seeking help and thinking how his friends and family would feel without him around, he decided to take the easy way out with a .45 to the temple. He has nothing left to worry about, while everyone else deals with funeral arrangements and grief counseling and filling a void in their lives. Let's give it up for Joe, folks! A big round of applause!

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

OK folks... anyone have a rational argument against it? (Religious/moral reasons are, by definition, irrational.) Or are we all charter members of the "Right to Die" club?

You can have rational arguments against it (see above) and still be a charter member. There is nothing preventing a person from committing suicide. Therefore, we all have a "right" to die. It's just that indulging in this right is a very stupid, selfish, and above all irreversible thing to do.

[slingblade]

I miss my mom so much, and it's so painful, I know I'd be a real dick to do that to my kids, my grandkids, and my husband, who all love me very much.

No, life isn't any fun anymore, and I have no hope, but damn it. I'm not a dick.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

2a) Emotional Responsibility. You have others who count on you emotionally and you don't want to hurt them.
This does not seem valid. If you are not happy and enjoying life, there is NO way you are helping others enjoy it. You cannot give what you do not have.

I suspect you've never lost a close friend or relative to suicide. I have. My best friend throughout secondary school killed himself when he was 21 and I was 22. The effects it has on people is devastating. It's not about "helping others enjoy their lives".

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

One may be a burden or disgrace, at the moment.

However grim things are, there is a path of redemption from that, one way or the other. There is a way to heal.

Finding it is not always easy. Often one needs to ask for help. Restoring your rep or undoing the stain on "others" may take a lot of work. Working at it, the journey, has value in itself. It's worth taking those steps to try and find a way out of the ditch, back onto the road.

DR

This sums up my feelings as well. So you ********** up. Fine. Stand up and make it better.

And as for being a "burden", it is a real possibility that I will one day be "burdened" with the care of my aging parents. But I will gladly do all I can to care for them until the end because they are my parents. They raised me and made sacrifices for me and I will damned well help them when they need it. Making sacrifices for others in need is what we as humans do at our very best. To loose that desire to sacrifice for the betterment of others would be to loose the better part of our humanity. To encourage those who need our help to kill themselves so that we won't be bothered by their needs is the height of selfishness, even more so than the selfishness that is often displayed by committing suicide

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

If I kill myself, they win.

I went through a pretty tough period. Nothing like some have described here, but for me it was rough

I half heartedly considered suicide, more a day dream if anything. I can say without a doubt that your statement above was one of the few things that got me through.

With medical issues, while ever there is a chance of my quality of life could improve I like to think I have the courage to hang on. If there was no hope of improvement, I wonder if would not take the option

[Dysphemist]

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

Suicide should be an absolute fundamental right, regardless of age or reason. Government interference in this choice is the worst sort of invasion of privacy.

I would further suggest that it should be a socially respected alternative. Regardless of the type of burden you have become - financial, emotional, or whatever - the willingness to remove yourself should be lauded rather than reviled.

A few years ago my Aunty stepped out into a busy main road, was hit by a car and killed. She, her husband and her son were the only close relatives my family had, the closest other relatives a 10+ hour drive away - we lived a 2 minute walk away from each other.
My cousin, who was 17 at the time, came to live with us for the two years after (his father also stayed with us, though he was away alot of the time with work). My Aunty had suffered from depression for years, but none of us thought it could end with this. Maybe she thought she was doing more harm than good. She couldn't have been more wrong.
Thankfully, my cousin was able to cope in the long run. He left school and got an apprenticeship. He is now living in England as a successful chef. Others may not have the determination and strength that he did, I know that I wouldn't have been able to handle everything how he has.


To suggest that killing yourself is the best, most "respectable" or kind option is incredibly insensitive. Suicide is a violation of rights. It doesn't just end with the death that person, it impacts everyone who that person was connected to, and can have devastating results on those closest.
'Dum spiro, spero.' It is never the 'rational option'.

[Sun Countess]

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems that the OP is almost challenging atheists to "put their money where their mouths are" by engaging in behaviors that they don't see as sinful.

Originally Posted by tojohndillonesq

If you don't believe the moral stricture that suicide is a sin, what is stopping you?

Well, as an atheist, I don't see anything as a sin, but I have moral reasons for not engaging in them. I don't see child molestation, rape, murder, slavery, oppression, or arson as sins against god either, but I do find them all morally reprehensible.

Quote:

<snip> I would further suggest that it should be a socially respected alternative. Regardless of the type of burden you have become - financial, emotional, or whatever - the willingness to remove yourself should be lauded rather than reviled.

I know many people who are currently bearing the burden of caring for an elderly relative. I've done it and will possibly have to do it again for my own parents. No matter how burdensome things get, I don't know of a single person who has thought, "I wish so-and-so would just DIE already." I further don't know of anybody who would be thankful that their relative decided to off themselves rather than continue to be a burden. Usually, you just need a little help in sharing the load.

(Many have already addressed the reasons why temporary conditions or medical conditions such as depression should not result in a "rational" suicide, and I have nothing to add.)

Quote:

OK folks... anyone have a rational argument against it? (Religious/moral reasons are, by definition, irrational.) Or are we all charter members of the "Right to Die" club?

Why are moral reasons irrational? I'm glad to live in a moral society where I treat people the same way I wish to be treated. I hope I'm never too much a burden on my own children and their families that they would wish my self-sacrificial death before they'd wish another day of caring for me should I ever become unable to care for myself.

[INRM]

Well, I myself cannot see myself committing suicide. First of all, I don't believe in an afterlife, and second of all, I care way too much about myself to do so -- I know that sounds egotistical, but it *is* true.

INRM

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by geneeee

It is never the 'rational option'.

I wouldn't go that far. I support assisted suicide measures where the person has had enough counseling to know it's not a rash decision made in response to fleeting pain.

I think there are some circumstances where suicide, or something awfully close (like extremely aggressive pain management, DNR orders, etc.) is reasonable.

FWIW, one of my brothers committed suicide, and I've personally known two other suicides and more suicide attempts than I care to think about. However, none of them fit this rational or reasonable circumstance that I'm talking about.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

Why are moral reasons irrational?

Excellent point! I automatically translated the question to being about a decision made on supernatural beliefs vs. rational thought. The moral reasons not to commit suicide (in most circumstances) go far beyond "because God said it's a sin".

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

Why are moral reasons irrational?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

Quote:

Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. Other philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either desire-based instrumental principles of rationality or based on sui generis rational intuitions. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason will reveal only the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle) and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant's moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions.

For Kant, we can only be moral beings because we have both free will AND the capacity to be rational.

[Kernel Hapablap]

This is a heavy thread. The more I read the OP and the responses, the more I worry that tojohndillonesq is trying to rationalize something he's considering. Tojohn, Please post to let us know this is purely academic.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Is this a cunning plan to speed up the JREF forum server?

Okay, I LOL'd.

Then I hung my head in shame.

[Lonewulf]

This question is ultimately a very difficult one, and the answers often given to it are usually based on a number of presumptions (I.E., there's loved ones to harm, under otherwise okay conditions, able to cope and survive ultimately).

In some situations, though, I think everyone agrees with suicide as an option. For instance, what about Jews that were about to be taken to Nazi death camps? There are real cases of suicide -- one case is listed in the graphic novel Maus, where a woman poisoned herself and two children to avoid all the pain and torture of the death camps. Was her decision rational? Can one agree with it? Personally, I think so.

[Starthinker]

I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience the biggest factor in the decision to end my life was that the future was a black hole. I litterally could not see past that moment. I couldn't see my kids growing up, I couldn't see problems ending, I couldn't see any change whatsoever. I was lonely, depressed, stressed, broken, and there just was nothing past that point in time. It's easy for someone standing outside to say "that's rediculous" but on the inside it's a completely logical situation - a faulted, twisted, broken logic. I've said this before, please don't tell people how they should feel. Sometimes it's just a matter of being there and keeping them going long enough to sort things out for themselves. No, it wasn't a cry for attention, no one even knew I was stressed, it was a complete fluke that I was found in time, but many times it is a cry for attention. After all, it's probably lack of attention that drove a person there to begin with.

And yes, suicide is illegal in most states but it's mostly meant as a deterrant. You can face fines, civil penalties, and even jail time for an unsuccessful suicide attempt. If you stand on ledge and threaton to jump there will be people who will try to save you, you are putting them at risk. If the situation calls for it there can also be the financial burden of blocking streets, closing a bridge, or other actions that will cost people time and money.

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by Kernel Hapablap

This is a heavy thread. The more I read the OP and the responses, the more I worry that tojohndillonesq is trying to rationalize something he's considering. Tojohn, Please post to let us know this is purely academic.

Ditto.

[Ekinodum]

There is not enough discussion about legitimate end-of-life suicide in this thread. I live in Washington, which recently enacted the "Death with Dignity" act (I think that's what it is called) which allows some people to legally commit suicide in some situations. Now I am moving back to California to help my mother, who is reaching the end of her life rapidly. If she were to live in WA or OR, she could legally be considering suicide as one of her options. At this point, she has lost her sense of smell and taste (advanced age), is losing her vision (macular degeneration), is unable to hold or manipulate anything (rheumatoid arthritis), and is unable to stand or walk (Parkinson's). Additionally she has continual non-psychotic hallucinations and is unable to raise her voice enough to be heard. She is also constantly in pain, but has been for the last 30 years or so, so she is used to that.
Other than that, she is lucid and aware, but isolated from the things she needs to do to be engaged in the world, such as reading, watching television, eating, communicating. She is almost certainly depressed, but there is nothing transitory about her condition, and she will not recover or even improve.
I don't know if she would ever consider suicide (I doubt it for many reasons, most of them based on stoicism, inertia, and religious upbringing), but she has expressed skepticism in the past about why "anyone would want to live longer", so it is clear that she is no longer embracing life in the manner in which many of the posters here believe is the appropriate alternative to suicide.
Even if she were living somewhere where suicide was legal, there will come a time when there would no longer be an option for her for the simple reason that her condition will progress to the point that she will be unable to express her desire, she will be unable to personally reach out and pick up and swallow the pill (which apparently is one of the requirements of the Washington law), and so forth.
I'm not sure where I am going with this, except to point out that there is a big difference between suicide at the age of 21 when life is not progressing per your innermost fantasy, and suicide near the end of your natural life when suicide could be a rational option.