I can attest to the fact that there are situations where "considering suicide" is no longer an accurate description. I've been at the point, more than once, of begging to die in any way possible. I begged my wife to let me kill myself. I've spent every waking moment longing for the sweet release of death, to the point where I can barely consider anything else. This went on for some considerable time, and I still don't know how I ever got through it.

For someone who doesn't improve even after several years, I couldn't imagine them holding on if they had any chance to escape. I had just enough of a grip on myself to still care how it would affect those around me. And once, I've been over that edge. I would have done it, if I had the chance. At such a point, rational thought is completely gone.

(November 29, 2015 at 7:46 am)Judi Lynn Wrote:

(November 28, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: But as Benny points out, and rightly, in my opinion, the fact that one cannot see the moral dimensions of one's act doesn't not mean it isn't there.

Maybe so, but you'll never convince a suicidal person of any of that. They are not thinking about that. They are thinking about ending THEIR pain and THEIR suffering in THAT moment. Unless you've walked that walk, it's a hard concept to grasp.

Well, we neither have killed ourselves, so truth be told, you and I equally haven't walked that walk, and you know as little about it as I do.

Your answer, too, ignores the point I'm making. Ironically, I'll say that just because you're ignoring my point doesn't mean it isn't there. It only means you're ignoring it.

Simply because the suicide doesn't think that the moral dimension of their act is worthy of consideration, due to their own pain, that does not mean that that moral dimension doesn't exist. It only means that they cannot or will not address it.

I'm not trying to convince a suicidal person. I'm trying to have a conversation with you.

There is one more aspect to suicide:

No one asked to be born. Even if you choose not to create links with anyone, you've likely got your parents to consider. You are put in a very difficult situation not of your choosing, just by being born, should you end up feeling suicidal.

(November 28, 2015 at 9:29 am)Judi Lynn Wrote: I don't believe that a person who is suicidal intentionally sets out to cause others harm. The person is in so much pain and feels desperate to find a way to end that pain. Life becomes so unbearable that all other forms of relief are no longer an option. They just want relief at that moment.

Yes, but I think there's a double standard.  If I'm overwhelmed by uncontrollable anger and cause harm to someone, I will be demonized and thrown in jail.  I will be sued for everything I have, and all because I have uncontrollable feelings.  The same would go for serial killers, pedophiles, and all those considered the worst of society-- they will all be demonized and thought of only with disgust and horror.  Nobody feels sorry for them-- sorry that the pedophile has to live with confusion and guilt, for example, or that the serial killer is so tortured by his bloodlust that he finally snaps and gives in to it.

Out of all these people, with all their complex issues and uncontrollable urges, why is it that the suicide gets the moral pass?  Why should destructive chemical sadness be seen as any better than any other brain or chemical imbalance that causes people to behave extremely badly?

Those who have the capacity to turn their lives around should, and their failure to do so should be thought of as a moral failure.  Those who do not have that capacity should be identified and treated, by force if necessary; and failure for this to happen is on the family, friends, and society which doesn't take their threats and comments seriously until too late.

(November 29, 2015 at 9:21 am)robvalue Wrote: There is one more aspect to suicide:

No one asked to be born. Even if you choose not to create links with anyone, you've likely got your parents to consider. You are put in a very difficult situation not of your choosing, just by being born, should you end up feeling suicidal.

The same goes for all part of the social contract.  I never asked to be put in a situation where I couldn't rape, or kill, or steal, or do any of the activities prohibited by our culture and its laws.

Suicide gets a moral pass because the proverbial knife you are sticking in the proverbial back, is your own back and knife.
People who commit suicide aren't doing so to cause others harm. They are doing it to end their own personal pain and suffering.

Someone who decides to murder someone else isn't doing it for the same reasons as someone who is harming themselves because they are hurting. So I should point out that you didn't speak on the subject of mercy killing. Just misplaced anger and harming another vs suicide.

That is the difference.

(November 29, 2015 at 1:48 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: Suicide gets a moral pass because the proverbial knife you are sticking in the proverbial back, is your own back and knife.
People who commit suicide aren't doing so to cause others harm. They are doing it to end their own personal pain and suffering.

Someone who decides to murder someone else isn't doing it for the same reasons as someone who is harming themselves because they are hurting. So I should point out that you didn't speak on the subject of mercy killing. Just misplaced anger and harming another vs suicide.

I disagree with your assessment.  I think many murderers have no foreknowledge of what they will do, and when they lash out, it's not so much at an identified person as at a world that seems infinitely hostile-- due to bad chemistry, out of control hormones, drug use, etc. I think very, very few people "decide to murder."

(November 29, 2015 at 8:41 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, we neither have killed ourselves, so truth be told, you and I equally haven't walked that walk, and you know as little about it as I do.

Your answer, too, ignores the point I'm making. Ironically, I'll say that just because you're ignoring my point doesn't mean it isn't there. It only means you're ignoring it.

Simply because the suicide doesn't think that the moral dimension of their act is worthy of consideration, due to their own pain, that does not mean that that moral dimension doesn't exist.  It only means that they cannot or will not address it.

I'm not trying to convince a suicidal person.  I'm trying to have a conversation with you.

If a person cannot comprehend the morality of their actions, that relieves them of responsibility.  That's why we let people plead not guilty by reason of mental defect in our court systems.

Judi is absolutely right that the pain that may be caused by a suicide doesn't register to the person contemplating it.  I'm as close as you can get to being a living suicide.  I made an 100% serious attempt that landed me involuntarily hospitalized by the courts.  What I felt after I woke up alive was bitter anger and disappointment, but I also felt a lot of guilt.  It wasn't until my girlfriend came over to my house and I realized she could have been the one to find me dead that the guilt over the pain I could have caused sunk in.

All I could see was my own pain, and I was consumed with trying to escape it.  It clouded my mind to the point where even death was preferrable, and I all I could think about was making my suffering end.  When I finally came to the conclusion that I had to die to end the pain, the consequences of that choice never crossed my mind.  I was so blinded my depression that all I couldn't even contemplate the pain my death my cause.  It didn't register in my mind at all.  

Sure, suicide causes as much if not more pain as it can end, but to call it an immoral act because of that fails to take into account the mindset of the person contemplating taking their life.  A person can reach the point that the pain doesn't allow them to think straight, and I think that means that suicide not an inherently immoral act.

(November 29, 2015 at 1:44 pm)bennyboy Wrote: qYes, but I think there's a double standard.  If I'm overwhelmed by uncontrollable anger and cause harm to someone, I will be demonized and thrown in jail.  I will be sued for everything I have, and all because I have uncontrollable feelings.  The same would go for serial killers, pedophiles, and all those considered the worst of society-- they will all be demonized and thought of only with disgust and horror.  Nobody feels sorry for them-- sorry that the pedophile has to live with confusion and guilt, for example, or that the serial killer is so tortured by his bloodlust that he finally snaps and gives in to it.

Out of all these people, with all their complex issues and uncontrollable urges, why is it that the suicide gets the moral pass?  Why should destructive chemical sadness be seen as any better than any other brain or chemical imbalance that causes people to behave extremely badly?

Those who have the capacity to turn their lives around should, and their failure to do so should be thought of as a moral failure.  Those who do not have that capacity should be identified and treated, by force if necessary; and failure for this to happen is on the family, friends, and society which doesn't take their threats and comments seriously until too late.

See my post above. Suicide has more in common with pleading not guilty by reason of mental defect than it does with being convicted for murder. We let murderers get treatment instead of punishment if it turns out they were mentally impaired, because we recognize a person can reach a state where they are not culpable for their actions. Suicide is quite often done in a state where the consequences cannot be truly appreciated.

(November 29, 2015 at 3:35 pm)Faith No More Wrote: See my post above.  Suicide has more in common with pleading not guilty by reason of mental defect than it does with being convicted for murder.  We let murderers get treatment instead of punishment if it turns out they were mentally impaired, because we recognize a person can reach a state where they are not culpable for their actions.  Suicide is quite often done in a state where the consequences cannot be truly appreciated.

You are arguing that a suicidal person's condition is deterministic, while that of a murderer is an act of free will. Who says a murderer can, generally speaking, "truly appreciate" consequences? You talk about having a "clouded mind." I think this is exactly the same thing a homicidal person would say, "He did ____ to me, and then I just saw red. I didn't really have any ability to think about what I was doing."

In a deterministic view, it should be said that ALL wrong behavior is a product of defect, for a right-functioning person should not be capable of wrong behavior, since in determinism, right-functioning is equivalent to right behavior. So it seems to me that some in this thread, yourself included, are attempting to apply different philosophies to different cases: in case X, one should be thought of as a free agent, and in case Y, one should not. However, this is special pleading: if in ANY case, philosophical determinism may be appealed to to excuse wrong behavior, then nothing but a completely arbitrary division of categories prevents ALL cases from appealing to the problem of determinism.

This arbitrary asymmetry also shows an unwillingness to engage with those other people I mentioned: murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. because I guarantee if you talked to ANY of them, they'd tell you they hated what they did but couldn't control themselves.