Suicide: An Ethical Delimna

[Ryantology]

People are not obliged to behave ethically. But I think having received help from others, but not to be willing to stick around and at least do as much good as one has received, is unethical in my view.

That sounds like an obligation to me, though.

No it's not. If you've made a conscious decision to die, your life is disposable. There are a great many things that you could do in that state, including a less-than-zero impact lifestyle.

We're all going to die. Is it less immoral to commit suicide and not make these changes, than it is to live 90 years and not make these changes?

Who said I'm offended? I'm making the argument that suicide is intrinsically selfish, and that intrinsically selfish actions, when they negatively affect the greater good, are unethical.

But, you're not demonstrating that there is a negative effect on the greater good. The basis of your argument is completely hypothetical, and it seems like it's the impact of person's living behavior that's much more of a sticking point with you than the suicide.

Now, if someone no longer CAN contribute to the greater good (say they are lying in bed with terminal cancer), that's a very different issue. Then you're just talking about unnecessary suffering.

That's a weird analogy on at least two levels: first of all I didn't say I hate people who want to kill themselves, or that my reason for taking a position against suicide was because I don't like it. Second, what the hell does homosexuality have to do with a behavior which is intrinsically selfish?

1. I explicitly did not accuse you of formulating your opinion on a basis of hatred. But, it's clear that you have a distaste for acts of suicide outside of the realm of euthanasia. I do, too. But, I can't judge anybody else for what they do, because you don't know what's running through their heads and you don't know what they are thinking. If you can't even motivate yourself to wake up tomorrow, how do you possibly motivate yourself to make a radical change to your lifestyle and keep going? How do you care about the rest of the world when you can't even care about your own?
2. It is a behavior a lot of people hate, even though it has virtually zero impact on anybody other than those directly involved in its practice, and it's not our place to tell them they are wrong, or bad, for wanting to do it.

[bennyboy]

But, you're not demonstrating that there is a negative effect on the greater good. The basis of your argument is completely hypothetical, and it seems like it's the impact of person's living behavior that's much more of a sticking point with you than the suicide.

I think the majority of suicides are probably due to chemical imbalances. But so are fits of rage, the lusts that lead to infidelity, the incessant hunger of gluttony, etc.

Are we to accept all counterproductive behaviors under the umbrella of understanding, because we understand brain chemistry better now, or are we still going to see ethics as a relevant field of philosophy?

The relevance of ethics is ITSELF hypothetical. But it is apparently at least relevant enough to merit a thread and to talk about it. So you tell me-- on what basis would you judge an act as being ethical or unethical?

1. I explicitly did not accuse you of formulating your opinion on a basis of hatred. But, it's clear that you have a distaste for acts of suicide outside of the realm of euthanasia. I do, too. But, I can't judge anybody else for what they do, because you don't know what's running through their heads and you don't know what they are thinking. If you can't even motivate yourself to wake up tomorrow, how do you possibly motivate yourself to make a radical change to your lifestyle and keep going? How do you care about the rest of the world when you can't even care about your own?

If we are going to mix arguments about free will and determinism with arguments about what is ethical, we're going to have a problem. Is it "unethical" for a pedophile to assault children, if his brain chemistry inevitably leads to that act, without any real possibility of acting otherwise?

There's hypocrisy in the selectivity of applying determinism to some behaviors and not to others. I believe we either have to stand strong in applying ethical ideas to all, or we have to abandon the field altogether, and end the discussion with "Fuck it. Do what you want, and if it brings pain and suffering to others, tough. Determinism means never having to say you're sorry."

2. It is a behavior a lot of people hate, even though it has virtually zero impact on anybody other than those directly involved in its practice, and it's not our place to tell them they are wrong, or bad, for wanting to do it.

Why not? Why shouldn't people hold views, and express them? Are humans not a social species?

[Losty]

I don't know....when I read benny's comment I thought it sounded pretty hateful.

I don't really hate people who want to kill themselves-- I hate the quality of weakness or despair that allows people with a chance at a good life to throw it away because they are feeling depressed or thinking irrationally. My mother was suicidal-- should I have, at the age of 4 or 5, supported her "right" to end her life? I myself have contemplated suicide. Should I disregard my childrens' best interests if I decide I've had enough of this world?

It sounded hateful. Doesn't mean you are but it sounded that way. Wanting to die, for me, is admitting I'm not strong enough to deal with the horrors of my past and the painful memories that still haunt me. My children are the only reason I didn't off myself years ago. Choosing to live is a testament of my love for them. It doesn't make me stronger or better than those who can't make that choice. It just makes me different. The worst thing to say to a suicidal person is you're so weak and selfish. That just makes them want to die more I think.

[bennyboy]

I don't really hate people who want to kill themselves-- I hate the quality of weakness or despair that allows people with a chance at a good life to throw it away because they are feeling depressed or thinking irrationally. My mother was suicidal-- should I have, at the age of 4 or 5, supported her "right" to end her life? I myself have contemplated suicide. Should I disregard my childrens' best interests if I decide I've had enough of this world?

It sounded hateful. Doesn't mean you are but it sounded that way. Wanting to die, for me, is admitting I'm not strong enough to deal with the horrors of my past and the painful memories that still haunt me. My children are the only reason I didn't off myself years ago. Choosing to live is a testament of my love for them. It doesn't make me stronger or better than those who can't make that choice. It just makes me different. The worst thing to say to a suicidal person is you're so weak and selfish. That just makes them want to die more I think.

Calling suicides selfish pricks does sound hateful, and I should have used different words. I apologize.

I'm not currently counseling a suicidal person. I'm debating whether it is ethical for one to kill oneself. I don't accept the argument that since someone feels deeply depressed or has a chemical imbalance, that it is therefore okay for them to commit suicide. A condition or feeling, no matter how severe, that underlies an unethical act doesn't make it less unethical. If a woman is on medication and drowns a perfectly healthy baby in the ocean, her condition makes the act somewhat more understandable. However, it does not change the fact that she's committed a horrible act, or that this act is unethical. The same goes for you: if you had committed suicide, your experiences and feelings would have made your act more understandable. . . but not more ethical.

[Minimalist]

A person's parents have invested very much time and effort in raising the person.

Not all parents are stars.

Some parents flat out suck.

[bennyboy]

A person's parents have invested very much time and effort in raising the person.

Not all parents are stars.
Some parents flat out suck.

Yes, and that's because they have their own problems with brain chemistry, bad life history, etc. I don't think, however, that the unethical behavior of anyone justifies the unethical acts of others.

[Minimalist]

I don't know man.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/...hild-porn/

A Tennessee couple made their first appearance in court Friday to face allegations that they sold their daughters — ages 5, 12, 15 and 17 — to create child pornography.

Connie Sue McCall, 40, and her husband Ronnie Lee McCall, 61, were charged with the unspeakable crimes by a federal grand jury.

Investigators said paperwork shows they were selling their children to take part in sex films and that the young girls were forced to perform sexual acts in a number of different places. The parents were also strung out on bath salts at the time, according to WATE-TV.

Some of them really SUCK.

[Ryantology]

I think the majority of suicides are probably due to chemical imbalances. But so are fits of rage, the lusts that lead to infidelity, the incessant hunger of gluttony, etc.

Are we to accept all counterproductive behaviors under the umbrella of understanding, because we understand brain chemistry better now, or are we still going to see ethics as a relevant field of philosophy?

No, because I don't really go for slippery slope arguments.

The relevance of ethics is ITSELF hypothetical. But it is apparently at least relevant enough to merit a thread and to talk about it. So you tell me-- on what basis would you judge an act as being ethical or unethical?

There is no single basis. Regarding this specific act, the ethics of it are as internal as an ethical situation can be. It is ethical to decide that I want to shut my biological substrate off, because it is my own. It is ethical to want a person to live, even if they don't want to live. But, to force them to live, or to shame them into it, is not ethical.

Of course, there are exceptions to this; when a person is clearly not in their right mind, irrational, mentally-ill. There is no single basis.

If we are going to mix arguments about free will and determinism with arguments about what is ethical, we're going to have a problem. Is it "unethical" for a pedophile to assault children, if his brain chemistry inevitably leads to that act, without any real possibility of acting otherwise?

There's hypocrisy in the selectivity of applying determinism to some behaviors and not to others. I believe we either have to stand strong in applying ethical ideas to all, or we have to abandon the field altogether, and end the discussion with "Fuck it. Do what you want, and if it brings pain and suffering to others, tough. Determinism means never having to say you're sorry."

I'm confused by this passage, because if my argument contained any framework for a debate between free will and determinism, it was not my intent to do so.

When you say "Fuck it. Do what you want, and if it brings pain and suffering to others, tough", what I hear from your argument is "Fuck it. Do what I want, and if it brings pain and suffering to you, tough".

Why not? Why shouldn't people hold views, and express them? Are humans not a social species?

I'm not suggesting either of these things. I'm saying that it's not cool to shame or guilt trip a suicidal person. Not only is it selfish on your part, but they are likely feeling plenty enough shame and guilt already.

[bennyboy]

I don't know man.

Some of them really SUCK.

Yep. And their brains are sucking in info, processing it, and leading to their behaviors. Their DNA, their hormones, their neurotransmitters, their brain structures. Am I missing any contributor to human agency, as you see it? Are we going to reintroduce abstracts like the soul, or are we going to accept that all behavior, no matter how monstrous, is a result of all these factors, none of which is within a person's control?

It seems to me we dismiss the idea of agency in people who elicit sympathy in us, and are perfectly willing to demonize those who elicit antipathy, and to hold them to account completely for their actions, over which they ultimatley have a similar lack of control. What about a wife beater? He sucks. He was probably abused as a child, too. Where should we stand in his case?

---

Are we to accept all counterproductive behaviors under the umbrella of understanding, because we understand brain chemistry better now, or are we still going to see ethics as a relevant field of philosophy?

No, because I don't really go for slippery slope arguments.

Slippery slope or cherry picking. Either people should be held accountable for their wrong actions, or they cannot be.

There is no single basis. Regarding this specific act, the ethics of it are as internal as an ethical situation can be. It is ethical to decide that I want to shut my biological substrate off, because it is my own.

There's no such thing as an ethics of one. Ethics IS the field of considering the effects of the actions of the self on the experiences of others.

I'm not suggesting either of these things. I'm saying that it's not cool to shame or guilt trip a suicidal person. Not only is it selfish on your part, but they are likely feeling plenty enough shame and guilt already.

Have I guilted or shamed a suicidal person? Show me.

[Ryantology]

Slippery slope or cherry picking. Either people should be held accountable for their wrong actions, or they cannot be.

I don't dispute that. I dispute that suicide is intrinsically wrong.

There's no such thing as an ethics of one. Ethics IS the field of considering the effects of the actions of the self on the experiences of others.

I understand that. And, in this case, as in few, if any, others, the self deserves the ultimate say in the matter. There may very well be negative consequences for others, but that doesn't justify--in my understanding of ethics--forcing a person to live against their will.

That's not to say that it is wrong to want to coax someone away from this, or to try to offer positive alternatives. That's not what I'm saying at all. But, if those don't work, all that's left is to abrogate that person's will.

Have I guilted or shamed a suicidal person? Show me.

I should hope not, directly. But, to compare the desire to end one's life to the desire to sexually molest children, even to make a point, is very unfair and unkind. I would hope that you wouldn't actually try to talk someone out of suicide by telling them how selfish it is, either.