Suicide: An Ethical Delimna

[bennyboy]

That's ridiculous. By your standards the family of someone who is killed would be victims of the murder victim. Suicide is a victimless crime.

No. The murder victim didn't perpetrate the act of murder. The person who committed suicide did perpetrate the act of suicide. Not only that, unless they accidentally jumped out a window, or accidentally ingested a bottle of sleeping pills and a quarter of Jack Daniels, they made a conscious decision to end their own life. What they did NOT do is include the suffering of others in their calculus of whether to go through with the act. That's selfish and unethical.

[Losty]

That's ridiculous. By your standards the family of someone who is killed would be victims of the murder victim. Suicide is a victimless crime.

No. The murder victim didn't perpetrate the act of murder. The person who committed suicide did perpetrate the act of suicide. Not only that, unless they accidentally jumped out a window, or accidentally ingested a bottle of sleeping pills and a quarter of Jack Daniels, they made a conscious decision to end their own life. What they did NOT do is include the suffering of others in their calculus of whether to go through with the act. That's selfish and unethical.

Maybe it unethical for others to suffer over someone else's death. Other people's comfort should always come after your own needs, unless that person depends on you to survive. Being selfish to an extent is a basic human instinct. I don't always consider other people's feelings with every decision I make. I do what's right for me and if possible I do it in a way that eases any suffering caused to others, but if it's not possible to ease the suffering I still do what's best for me. I don't ask other people to make decisions in their own life based on my feelings. Who's to say being selfish is unethical? Who's to say the people who care about the suicide person don't already suffer immensely because of this person's depression and anxiety?

---

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.

I'm not. My point is that the actions we consider harmful to the self or others are ALL mediated by brain chemistry. They all involve influences beyond the direct agency of a consious person.

Yes, but none of them are unethical in and of themselves. They may be "sins" but no one cares about that.

[Faith No More]

I've been wracking my brain to have some insightful input into this thread, because I've got experience with suicide. I've been trying compose my ideas as to how I feel on the issue. Every thought I have has a counter, and the debate in my head gets extremely messy, especially when I try to apply my belief that terminally ill people should be allowed to kill themselves to other situations(Because who is to say what pain is and isn't justifiable). It's like I don't even feel right stating an opinion on when a person is ethically allowed to kill themselves, because the whole issue is just too fucking messy and comes with too much emotional baggage.

[comet]

we should let 1/2 of them do it. save money and helps the natural selection process.

[bennyboy]

Who's to say being selfish is unethical? Who's to say the people who care about the suicide person don't already suffer immensely because of this person's depression and anxiety?

As I said in a previous post, if being selfish when your actions cause harm to others isn't unethical, then what is? What about theft? Pedophilia? Murder? Enraged assaults?

Why is it that one other-harm-causing, instinct-driven act is forgiven or even supported as an act of liberty, while the others are seen as monstrous? What is so special about suicide that the dysfunction and its subsequent act should be supported, defended, and sympathised with, but not all those other dysfunctions and their acts?

I'm not. My point is that the actions we consider harmful to the self or others are ALL mediated by brain chemistry. They all involve influences beyond the direct agency of a consious person.

Yes, but none of them are unethical in and of themselves. They may be "sins" but no one cares about that.

Without animal instincts, we would be unlikely to act unethically. If you didn't have the instinct to fight, why would you kill? If you didn't have the instinct for lust, why would you cheat on your wife? If you didn't have the instinct to avoid pain, why would you kill yourself?

Instincts aren't unethical. But behaviors are, and they are all mediated by instincts. Having a brain tumor or chemical inbalance isn't unethical. But behaviors caused by them are often highly unethical. Despite a person not having real free-will agency, the acts are still selfish, harmful, and unethical.

[Losty]

Did you seriously compare suicide to pedophilia and murder? One causes real harm and the other causes hurt feelings. Hurting someone's feelings is only unethical if you do it intentionally. Not if it happens as a side effect of something you did to save yourself.

Hey, do you think it's unethical to commit suicide if you have a disease that causes excruciating pain and have been given 5 years to live in pain?

[bennyboy]

Did you seriously compare suicide to pedophilia and murder? One causes real harm and the other causes hurt feelings.

Yes, I compare them, because they are bad actions that are mediated by brain chemistry and personal experiences. And don't demean the "hurt feelings" of survivors-- we're not talking poopie-pants, we're talking about a lifetime of deep regret and sorrow.

Hurting someone's feelings is only unethical if you do it intentionally. Not if it happens as a side effect of something you did to save yourself.

Knowingly bringing harm to others as a predictable side effect of selfish actions is unethical. It's not like suicidal people aren't aware that their actions are going to harm others.

Hey, do you think it's unethical to commit suicide if you have a disease that causes excruciating pain and have been given 5 years to live in pain?

That depends on the circumstances. Ethics as I see it is the willingness to include others in your behavioral calculus. Part of that equation is the effect on the family of watching your inevitable suffering, with no hope at all of improvement.

[Losty]

Did you seriously compare suicide to pedophilia and murder? One causes real harm and the other causes hurt feelings.

Yes, I compare them, because they are bad actions that are mediated by brain chemistry and personal experiences. And don't demean the "hurt feelings" of survivors-- we're not talking poopie-pants, we're talking about a lifetime of deep regret and sorrow.

No, one is a bad action and the other is a desperate action. Who are you to say that the sadness and regret of the "survivors" outweighs the suffering of the suicidal person? Who are you to declare yourself the decider of whose suffering is more important?

Hurting someone's feelings is only unethical if you do it intentionally. Not if it happens as a side effect of something you did to save yourself.

Knowingly bringing harm to others as a predictable side effect of selfish actions is unethical. It's not like suicidal people aren't aware that their actions are going to harm others.

Ok fine, suicide is just as immoral as asking a person not to commit suicide. Knowing that your asking them to stay alive will bring them great amounts of suffering.

Hey, do you think it's unethical to commit suicide if you have a disease that causes excruciating pain and have been given 5 years to live in pain?

That depends on the circumstances. Ethics as I see it is the willingness to include others in your behavioral calculus. Part of that equation is the effect on the family of watching your inevitable suffering, with no hope at all of improvement.

Why do you think you have any business deciding who suffers more and/or who does or does not deserve to have their suffering considered when a decision is made?

[Ryantology]

No. The murder victim didn't perpetrate the act of murder. The person who committed suicide did perpetrate the act of suicide. Not only that, unless they accidentally jumped out a window, or accidentally ingested a bottle of sleeping pills and a quarter of Jack Daniels, they made a conscious decision to end their own life. What they did NOT do is include the suffering of others in their calculus of whether to go through with the act. That's selfish and unethical.

Or, they did include the suffering of others in their calculus and decided that their own suffering was too overwhelming, and that the suffering of others would be lesser than their own. And, this is not always an incorrect assessment.

How many people end their own lives because, in large part, they feel that nobody else cares about them being alive? If you make the assessment based upon the honestly-held conviction (whether or not it is actually true) that your death would go unnoticed or unlamented (or worse, would be cheered), your perspective of the ethics of suicide is going to be entirely different from that which you're suggesting.

[bennyboy]

No, one is a bad action and the other is a desperate action. Who are you to say that the sadness and regret of the "survivors" outweighs the suffering of the suicidal person? Who are you to declare yourself the decider of whose suffering is more important?

I don't think ethics is a balance between the self and others. If that were so, then any act would be justified if I cared more about my own feelings than those of others. Maybe a pedophile has an over-arching, burning desire raging in him, and he sees some child's suffering as "a few minutes of discomfort." Would you accept his act? Who are you to say his suffering, relative to the suffering of the child, doesn't matter?

Ok fine, suicide is just as immoral as asking a person not to commit suicide. Knowing that your asking them to stay alive will bring them great amounts of suffering.

I didn't ask anyone to stay alive. I'm not talking about whether responses to suicide are ethical-- only the act itself.

Why do you think you have any business deciding who suffers more and/or who does or does not deserve to have their suffering considered when a decision is made?

You keep asking "who are you," but that's a red herring. I didn't invent ethics-- I am, however, aware that it's a social institution. Without people to interact with, ethics would have very little (if any) meaning, since you would have no capacity to do any social harm or good with your actions.

Why don't we stop with the irrational, emotion-driven arguments on both sides of the fence, and start going through the pros and cons here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_suicide

---

How many people end their own lives because, in large part, they feel that nobody else cares about them being alive? If you make the assessment based upon the honestly-held conviction (whether or not it is actually true) that your death would go unnoticed or unlamented (or worse, would be cheered), your perspective of the ethics of suicide is going to be entirely different from that which you're suggesting.

That's why I've said already that in a deterministic view, a person is not sensibly called "unethical," but rather the act is unethical.

There are many reasons why someone might be suicidal, but I'd say either chronic or strong bipolar depression is the most common cause. We're talking about people whose brain chemistry distorts their world view, and this causes them to lean toward an act that a normally-functioning person wouldn't consider.

It may be that such a person has no real agency-- if the psychological pain is strong enough for any person, then suicide is probably inevitable. HOWEVER, since the psychological pain skews the weight of value away from the wellbeing of others, and since ethics is very much defined by weighing the importance of others, then the act is STILL unethical.