Suicide: An Ethical Delimna

[bennyboy]

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.

If ethics were the field of showing things to be intrinsically wrong, there would be no ethics.

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.

Right. In many cases, forcing others to act in a way you think is ethical is also unethical, since it deprives them of their liberty, and makes them bystanders in their own lives. But we're not talking about how to treat suicidal people. We're talking about whether suicide is ethical-- and I don't see many contexts in which it would be.

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.

The point is that they are behaviors considered unethical by others, and that both behaviors are mediated by brain chemistry and life experience. And yet in the former, we are more willing to see the behavior as unavoidable (Who could stand all that psychological pain), while in the latter, we are more likely to see the behaviors as demonic (How could that fucking bastard do that to those innocent little kids?). The reality is either that people are expected to have free will and to be accountable for their actions, or they are believed to be complex machines with only the illusion of free agency, in which case the accountability is piling social torment onto stunted development.

As for talking someone else out of suicide, I wouldn't. I'd tell them they weren't alone, and that everyone has those feelings, and that they are cared about. I'd tell them I felt I had a lot in common with them, and ask them to delay the act for now so I could have someone to drink coffee with and share my feelings with.

[robvalue]

If you're going to do a full ethical evaluation, you need to weigh up every aspect. If you hypothetically coerce someone into not killing themselves, the suffering they would have caused to others has been avoided. But is that greater than (worth the trade for) the suffering the person now has to live with?

I don't think that's a question simple enough to make a blanket ethical decision over.

[Aractus]

Why would depictions of reality be exempt from classification?

I just re-watched the film and I stand by my comments. 11'09"01 shows far more people diving to their deaths and it was only rated AU- M and UK- 12, and besides the suicide footage the film is just a discussion about suicide - including someone who jumped from the bridge and survived (supposedly because a seal kept him afloat).

It's evidence of clear bias - if you show terrorism they don't give a shit, but try and discuss suicide and they think that it's an adult-only subject matter. Like I said a complete fucking joke, but at least it was only an AU- MA when it was UK 18 and NZ R81+.

[bennyboy]

If you're going to do a full ethical evaluation, you need to weigh up every aspect. If you hypothetically coerce someone into not killing themselves, the suffering they would have caused to others has been avoided. But is that greater than (worth the trade for) the suffering the person now has to live with?

I don't think that's a question simple enough to make a blanket ethical decision over.

One normally doesn't make ethical decisions with regard to oneself in this way. Ethics, it seems to me, is more about the effect one has on society. So it may be unethical to force someone to live who does not want to. It may even be unethical to make someone feel bad for feeling bad.

But suicide, with a few exceptions (like being captured by terrorists looking for information), is unethical at its core, as it disregards the suffering inflicted on others in one's pursuit to end self-suffering.

[Chas]

But suicide, with a few exceptions (like being captured by terrorists looking for information), is unethical at its core, as it disregards the suffering inflicted on others in one's pursuit to end self-suffering.

I can't agree that it is unethical at its core. Since you seem to agree that sometimes it is ethical and sometimes not, that means it is neutral and situational.

[robvalue]

Why would you ignore the suffering of the would-be-suicider? How is that a balanced evaluation? Isn't that expecting them to be a martyr of sorts, as a matter of course?

[Cato]

But suicide, with a few exceptions (like being captured by terrorists looking for information), is unethical at its core, as it disregards the suffering inflicted on others in one's pursuit to end self-suffering.

Assuming the role of someone contemplating suicide and also assuming there is no other alternative to relieve my suffering, why is someone else not suffering more important than me not suffering? Wouldn't empathetic consideration for others only serve to worsen my personal suffering? Besides, consideration for another's condition disappears the moment I'm dead so it is perhaps just another problem solved from the perspective of someone committing suicide. It also seems fair to conclude that consequences for others has already been considered in the pros and cons of committing suicide or it is of absolutely no consequence.

I don't find appeals to the condition of others very convincing when considering suicide, even in cases where its easy to demonstrate a duty of care; e.g., having minor children. Someone seriously considering suicide is probably going to have issues being a caregiver, not to mention the somewhat frequent accounts of children becoming victims in murder-suicides.

Far better to help someone with his/her struggles as I'm not sure how receptive that person would be to an ethical argument regarding the merits of suicide, even if it were unethical by consensus.

[bennyboy]

Why would you ignore the suffering of the would-be-suicider? How is that a balanced evaluation? Isn't that expecting them to be a martyr of sorts, as a matter of course?

When making ethical considerations, one doesn't normally balance one's own needs against a stranger's. I wouldn't, for example, decide that I need money more than Mr. Smith does, and that it is therefore ethical for me to steal his money. Even if I were hungry, it wouldn't really be ethical for me to steal from Mr. Smith, unless he's doing something to prevent others from attaining food or the wealth to buy it.

Think of what our moral world would look like if we could all balance the strength of our desires against those of others. What about rape? If I want sex badly enough, and suffer greatly from the lack of it, is it therefore ethical for me to rape someone? Can I cite my own relief from suffering as a fair trade for the suffering inflicted on an unwilling victim?

No. The calculus of ethical decisions is meant to temper acts of the self so that they don't negatively impact others, not to use one's own more-than-yours suffering to justify doing what is wrong.

---

Assuming the role of someone contemplating suicide and also assuming there is no other alternative to relieve my suffering, why is someone else not suffering more important than me not suffering? Wouldn't empathetic consideration for others only serve to worsen my personal suffering?

There's no sensible ethic that requires one to balance one's own hedonic state against others. If you are willing to suffer so that someone else will not have to, then you are behaving ethically.

I don't find appeals to the condition of others very convincing when considering suicide, even in cases where its easy to demonstrate a duty of care; e.g., having minor children. Someone seriously considering suicide is probably going to have issues being a caregiver, not to mention the somewhat frequent accounts of children becoming victims in murder-suicides.

None of this makes suicide ethical.

Far better to help someone with his/her struggles as I'm not sure how receptive that person would be to an ethical argument regarding the merits of suicide, even if it were unethical by consensus.

That's right. But I'm not talking about how best to deal with an actual case of suicide contemplation. I'm talking about whether it is or is not ethical for one to kill oneself. And, by the normal standards of ethical consideration-- i.e. a check to make sure one's actions are not seriously inconvenciencing or harming others-- suicide is clearly unethical.

[robvalue]

OK, I've stated my position so I think I'll leave it at that. We have different ideas about evaluating ethics, which is fine.

[Losty]

---

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?

---

I'm sorry, lust, gluttony, laziness? I didn't realize you were religious. We will never come to an agreement on this because I think you have a skewed sense of morality and you probably think I do too.

---

When making ethical considerations, one doesn't normally balance one's own needs against a stranger's. I wouldn't, for example, decide that I need money more than Mr. Smith does, and that it is therefore ethical for me to steal his money.

You're right and if I needed to live I wouldn't kill Mr. Smith in order to stay alive. If I needed to die I wouldn't force Mr. Smith to kill me. My life is my own. Regardless of how it may or may not affect other people, no one else has any right to claim ownership of my life. So killing myself doesn't fit with your analogy at all.