Forums → WEPR → Suicide

@ Kanethebrain:

I still think healthy people shouldn't commit suicide. Even if it's not a sin, you only get one chance at life, and whatever the bad things you have going on, eventually they will pass or you will overcome them.

@Strop: Now this is something I can sink my teeth into.

In a single word: Synergy.

Since that's not satisfying to either of us, my larger point is that people can be productive members of society. I imagine both of us would accept that having healthy, productive members of our society get killed is generally bad for the community. I think we'd also agree that adding productive members to a community is good for that community. Certainly there are exceptions (if there's more people than the community has room or resources for, etc), but generally this is a true thing.

I think we'd also argue that unproductive members of a community do not help. The bum that just asks for change and lives off other's people's hard work doesn't help the community. He hurts it, but taking resources that could have been spent improving other parts of the community. Now, we could kill the bum and thereby remove the strain on society. But that doesn't seem like an acceptable solution. Rather, we'd want to turn the bum into a worker in the society, contributing to the greater good either directly or indirectly.

Suicidal people are like the bum. They may not be productive now, but given support and encouragement, they can become net earners for the society, thereby improving living conditions for all. This is not to say that this debate is black and white; a terminally ill patient with no family seems like a candidate for doctor assisted suicide, but they are going through harm and can never become productive again.

But the majority of people comtemplating suicide don't seem to be terminally ill. They are the mentally ill, depressed over some situation that they may or may not have control over. Rarely does suicide resolve this situation, and the sorrow that family and friends feel from the loss of that person only harms the community further.

Now, this was a rather utilitarian argument, and we could argue about reason for not committing suicide outside the sphere of the community, but I will save those arguments for later, if they are needed.

@ kanethebrain



Okay, I like your argument because I've used it before. However, I've been having doubts way up at the start...

I think we'd also agree that adding productive members to a community is good for that community. Certainly there are exceptions (if there's more people than the community has room or resources for, etc), but generally this is a true thing.

He hurts it, but taking resources that could have been spent improving other parts of the community. Now, we could kill the bum and thereby remove the strain on society. But that doesn't seem like an acceptable solution.

@Strop:

Hey, the ability to take the other side of an argument to explore the corner cases of your own argument is a rare thing. My hat's off to you.

Is there a way to actually justify this premise on any other basis apart from the economic 'growth is good'?

Simply speaking, it's because it feels rewarding to have somebody working as part of a productive fellowship.

What other 'outside of the community' justifications did you have? I'm interested to know.

These arguments still beg the question of the intrinsic worth of a life. Who is interested in the long term survival of mankind? I'll tell you who's not - a suicidal person!
Besides, trying to apply a maxim such as this normatively makes it somewhat inapplicable - either it is too broad in scope to be effective or to narrow to be normative.
Either way, if we assume a universal morality why is the survival of the human race such a priority? The simple fact is that it comes down to a very experiential preference for our own existence, but this is clearly something that a suicidal person cannot agree with.
Kane, I'm curious about your Kantian interpretation of individual happiness. Wouldn't Kant just operate off of certain categorical imperatives that condemn killing under any circumstance?

The worth of life is different in each persons eyes. Most people I know value life very highly.
"One man's trash is another man's treasure"
In this case, it should probably be the other way around, but you get my point.

Who is interested in the long term survival of mankind?

I'd agree with that. It is human nature to care alot about yourself, but some actually look ahead and predict future consequences. Some may also try to stop them, who knows....

suicide is not good, plainly saying. Committing suicide means that, sorry to say, that the person committing suicide has no regard for life. They arent happy that they actually live and because im Christian, i feel that doing this offends God and what he gave them to be alive. They didnt feel life would get better, but im sure God would have found a way for them to survive.

@Moe: Kant* certainly dealt with absolutes. In his view, any action you took that was not directly the action that would improve the happiness of the greatest number of people was immoral. He also believed that if an action was wrong, it was wrong in all situations (IE, lying to save a life is wrong because you're lying). Kant also agreed that killing anything was wrong. Not sure how he justified his dinner.

Anyways, I think even had Kant not believed killing was wrong, committing suicide would not be doing yourself the greatest good, and would therefore be immoral.

I could arrogantly postulate that human life is important because we improve the universe, but that's not satisfying to me (In fact, I doubt it's true). I don't really view existentialism as a valid philosophy because it falls down when you try to apply it to real life, so I would have to argue that maintaining the human race is a moral action because it is in the human race's best interests. A little circular, but if you're postulating existentialism, you'll have to deal with a few competing axioms.

*Forgot my footnote. I haven't studied ethics seriously in a few years, so feel free to correct me if I got the minutae of Kant wrong. I think my point will stand without it.

I'm not going to say how I reacted because that would be inappropriate. I'll just say I'm happy.

@ Kanethebrain:

Cheers- particularly with this topic I don't have any particular stake in it due to the nature of it. Seeing as I'm neutral, I guess I can argue anyway I fancy :P

Kanethebrain wrote:

...society can progress.

Of course, the economic "growth is good" argument is fairly sound also.

Either way, if we assume a universal morality why is the survival of the human race such a priority? The simple fact is that it comes down to a very experiential preference for our own existence

so I would have to argue that maintaining the human race is a moral action because it is in the human race's best interests

I think suicide is something that you feel of doing when you feel depressed, apathy, etc, and I think people shouldn't feel depressed because they might hurt themselves or possibly kill themselves.

@HellBlazer.

Depression is not something you can choose to have or not. Its a disease that you are born with and is incurable.

Haha, ready for everyone to think I am a horrible person? Because I know I am. ^_^

If someone wants to off themselves, let them. In the grand scheme of things it goes it does not matter one iota. Hundreds of people have been killed all at once and there was no lasting effect, so one person killing themselves should not even even make a blip on the radar.

It in fact almost seems more cruel to make someone continue living when they desire to die. Even more so in this day and age where trying to barely scrape by day-to-day is in someways worse than torture. Forcing a sentient being to barely live in a world such as this is unthinkable to me.

Now, take note everyone. All I have said applies to people who truly want to die, not people that do it just for attention or pity. I actually know people who have "tried" to kill themselves one or more times, yet failed on purpose. Just purely to get attention.
If someone really truly wants to kill themselves, there is no real reason or way to stop them. No matter what you do, they will kill themselves in one way or another.

The Greeks viewed that suicide could be a noble way to die, as displayed in the Oedipus trilogy by Sophocles.

Personally, I think the people who have committed some form of illegal act and, rather than kill themselves, choose to commit suicide can do so if they wish. But those who just want attention and frequently do such things should be stopped and put into therapy.