Acceptable Suicide?

[fuzzykoala]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

Ok, I'm gonna go off on a tangent here because it's something that's been on my mind lately. If you don't agree with the assumptions that I'm making here (I don't think they're controversial), just go with it and judge my line of reasoning on its own merits. Also there's a bunch of factors involved so bear with me here.

Everything that we comes out of nature. It is easiest to think about in terms of energy. To simplify, globally we consume about 30% more than the Earth can regenerate a year. Everywhere in the world, people are consuming more and more energy per capita while the population increases. Unless there is a technological miracle that happens, ultimately not only will there not be enough energy for everyone, but the environment will have degraded to the point where it is not possible to support a population even near to the
achieved maximum.

The two factors involved with this problem are the size of the population and the amount of resources/energy consumed per capita.

I am also going to assume that people should have a reasonably equal chance to advance themselves in life and be able to achieve a respectable and relatively existence. I personally don't think that it's fair that I should have the chance to do anything I want with my life if it means that some kid in x number of countries has to work 16 hours a day in a sweatshop without any hope of doing anything else.

Ok. Now the question is what to do if I want to consider myself a moral person.

The most obvious answer that we as western society is overtly pursuing is to bring all those other people up to our standard of living. The problem with this is that consumption will continue to increase unabated, resulting in the problem described above - and the ugly ugly deaths of billions of people.

Another possible solution is to reduce the amount that we consume. By we, I mean the wealthy developed world. If we want to be fair about it, some people that have calculated the maximum possible amount of productive land have estimated that there's enough space for everyone to use 2.2 hectares. People in the developed world tend to use about 10. That represents a significant drop in standard of living. Is there a point when lowering the level of consumption makes life no longer worth living?

If we answer yes to that question, that leads us to the problem of lowering the population. Now, the methods for this are either controlling the population by limiting how many kids people can have, or straight up killing them. Since the population of the first world is declining, it stands to reason that it makes sense to control places where the population is increasing. However, since these people are living in places where they generally consume much less per person, and therefore killing one person in the first world would have more of an effect than a bunch of poor people.

Therefore, should I kill myself in the interest of giving someone else the chance to use the resources I would otherwise consume more effectively and sustainably? How can I justify destroying the futures of untold generations of children and the hopes of the developing world by shortsightedly destroying the environment by maintaining a lifestyle that I think is worth living? If I am the only one who kills myself is it a pointless gesture?

I'm sorry that this isn't directly related to the topic, but I'd like to know what someone else thinks about all this.

[dore]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

If I am the only one who kills myself is it a pointless gesture?

Yes, which pretty much makes the entire point moot.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

Ok, I'm gonna go off on a tangent here because it's something that's been on my mind lately. If you don't agree with the assumptions that I'm making here (I don't think they're controversial), just go with it and judge my line of reasoning on its own merits. Also there's a bunch of factors involved so bear with me here.

Everything that we comes out of nature. It is easiest to think about in terms of energy. To simplify, globally we consume about 30% more than the Earth can regenerate a year. Everywhere in the world, people are consuming more and more energy per capita while the population increases. Unless there is a technological miracle that happens, ultimately not only will there not be enough energy for everyone, but the environment will have degraded to the point where it is not possible to support a population even near to the
achieved maximum.

The two factors involved with this problem are the size of the population and the amount of resources/energy consumed per capita.

I am also going to assume that people should have a reasonably equal chance to advance themselves in life and be able to achieve a respectable and relatively existence. I personally don't think that it's fair that I should have the chance to do anything I want with my life if it means that some kid in x number of countries has to work 16 hours a day in a sweatshop without any hope of doing anything else.

Ok. Now the question is what to do if I want to consider myself a moral person.

The most obvious answer that we as western society is overtly pursuing is to bring all those other people up to our standard of living. The problem with this is that consumption will continue to increase unabated, resulting in the problem described above - and the ugly ugly deaths of billions of people.

Another possible solution is to reduce the amount that we consume. By we, I mean the wealthy developed world. If we want to be fair about it, some people that have calculated the maximum possible amount of productive land have estimated that there's enough space for everyone to use 2.2 hectares. People in the developed world tend to use about 10. That represents a significant drop in standard of living. Is there a point when lowering the level of consumption makes life no longer worth living?

If we answer yes to that question, that leads us to the problem of lowering the population. Now, the methods for this are either controlling the population by limiting how many kids people can have, or straight up killing them. Since the population of the first world is declining, it stands to reason that it makes sense to control places where the population is increasing. However, since these people are living in places where they generally consume much less per person, and therefore killing one person in the first world would have more of an effect than a bunch of poor people.

Therefore, should I kill myself in the interest of giving someone else the chance to use the resources I would otherwise consume more effectively and sustainably? How can I justify destroying the futures of untold generations of children and the hopes of the developing world by shortsightedly destroying the environment by maintaining a lifestyle that I think is worth living? If I am the only one who kills myself is it a pointless gesture?

I'm sorry that this isn't directly related to the topic, but I'd like to know what someone else thinks about all this.

If you are the only one who kills yourself, yes, it is a waste. After all, animals and humans use resources that are overused or not. But animals don't kill themselves over it. So why should we? Who says that you can't give back and help improve the quality of living for all? The only way we can improve the quality of life for others and possibly help create or promote new ways of generating energy is by living, in turn using energy.

Yes, many areas of the world are using more resources than can be replenished. Yes, we have severe issues with overbuilding in many areas of the world. But considering we are a sentient, intelligent race that goes through periods of growth and intellectual Renaissances, we are bound to eventually take up more than can be used. However, we are also discovering new methods of using energy, and possibly even new energy sources. It takes time for this to be developed, and if the people who researched this killed themselves to stop using energy, we would end up being far worse off with them dead then them being alive.

Have you ever heard of a Dyson Sphere? It is a spherical object that would encompass an entire star to harness it for energy. This is highly theoretical, but maybe possible in a few hundred years from now given the rate of technological advancement. And what about colonies in near-space? They can run off of 100% solar energy, which is virtually unlimited. And don't forget about using antimatter as a possible energy source. The technology for it is very far off, but it may be available within the next 30-50 years. The only way to do this is to go through years and years of building, research, and energy expenditure.

My point is, is that we cannot harness energy without using it. You can't make money without spending money. And you can't make friends without being one. All the same principles apply here. Killing yourself because you use energy is a WASTE. Animals have to use energy to live. So do we. While you may have noble intentions, you won't do a single d*** thing for humanity. Now if billions of people decided to do the act, then you'll make an impact. But until you can influence a billion people to do so, that is not a viable topic. If you go, you'll save 1/7000000000th of the energy used by humans. That will make no difference. So live your life, do good, and be part of the solution, not the problem. Then, you will have made more of an effect in life then you ever could in death.


~Bynary Fission

[KlingPosnot]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

I personally don't think that suicide is acceptable in most situations normally thought as associated with the act (depression related suicides). I feel there are situations in which it is forced upon people, or chosen by them as a means to save a life, as stated in prior posts, that can be counted as a justified act...The main thing that anyone thinking about going through with it needs to know, is that others will be hurt no matter how trivial your life may seem...I can say right now I have known 7 friends who have committed suicide...all of them with their own reasons (2 of them were just because they got themselves into a situation in which their death ultimately came out as a byproduct)...It really gets to me when my friends decide living in this world isn't worth it (and many times it has made me ask the question of whether or not it truly is)...I would say that fuzzykoala's example of the Inuits sacrificing themselves so that others may live describes the only way I could accept someone's reasoning for suicide.

[fuzzykoala]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

Well Bynary, you're a lot more optimistic when it comes to the future of the species than I am, but that's neither here nor there. All I'll say in response is that pretty much every great civilization has fallen apart and that we're on pretty thin ice at the moment.
You definitely make a good point when it comes to suicide though and (upon reflection) the problem I present is really an impersonal one.
This is reaching a little bit to illustrate my point, but I remember reading somewhere that when the Nazis were moving Jews to the death camps, they sometimes threw loaves of bread into the train cars where the prisoners would fight and kill each other over them because they were so hungry.
What if I find myself in a situation where I either can kill someone else to survive or let them have what I need? Should I let my animal nature assert itself or rather abstain in order to keep from doing moral wrong? Obviously whoever survives in the end will be able to say that they were in the right, but is it morally acceptable? How can we choose who lives and who dies?

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

What if I find myself in a situation where I either can kill someone else to survive or let them have what I need?

Well...if that person has a future ahead of him, and you've gotten to live at least half of your life, let him live. Say, if you were 45 and the guy next to you was 21. You both were starving, and if you didn't eat soon you would die. If someone was to die, let him live. You got to live a good amount of your life, and it was time for you to go. But he didn't get that opportunity. He deserves to live and experience life. He deserves to marry, to experience love, to experience sadness and death, and to see so much. You have gotten to do all that, but that man didn't. Let him live, let him have a future. Then, even in death, you will have made so much of a difference. Who knows, that person could become the next great civil rights leader.

Should I let my animal nature assert itself or rather abstain in order to keep from doing moral wrong?

Well...if you are deeply religious, then you feel the obligation that God does not want you to kill yourself. But otherwise, if certain death is imminent, then perhaps killing yourself would be the best option. But consider it carefully. You might be rescued at the last moment, a la Titanic survivors. But if you are suffering, and you have no chance to live (e.g The Jews in the death camps), then yes. Relieve your suffering, for a person should not have to endure the psychological torture of waiting for your death, and the physical torture of starvation, etc. This is one of the two exceptions I mentioned earlier on acceptable suicide.

Obviously whoever survives in the end will be able to say that they were in the right, but is it morally acceptable? How can we choose who lives and who dies?

Like I stated earlier, the person who has the most of a future ahead of him would deserve to live. Do you know what happened when Mao Zedong came to power? He ordered that China's best and brightest slaughtered, to purge China of the 'old order'. This left the country in shambles. But those who would not have made any difference lived. Did it help? No. If you feel that you have nothing to live for, but your fellow man does, then it would be noble to sacrifice yourself for the greater good.

And concerning the ethics of suicide...if you are obligated to do it, by religion, your code of honor, or other such ethics, then you would probably do so. It is hard to say whether it is right or wrong. This is different from person to person. I don't perceive it as 'wrong', but I don't look at it in a positive light either. With the exceptions of some form of torture, and religion/codes of honor, then suicide is for the weak and the cowardly. Others would probably look down upon you if you committed suicide, thus, in a sense, making it "wrong". But it is up to you concerning the ethics of suicide. If it is wrong to you, don't do it. If not, then do so under the conditions you believe warrant suicide.


~Bynary Fission

[fuzzykoala]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

Thanks man. That takes a weight off my shoulders. The only questions I have left are what is an acceptable level of consumption and where is the best place to spend my energy but I don't think those answers are so easy to come by. Thinking about this so much is starting to make me wonder why I'm so concerned with being moral in the first place. Reciprocity and hope I guess. Oh well.
Thanks again!

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

Thanks man. That takes a weight off my shoulders. The only questions I have left are what is an acceptable level of consumption and where is the best place to spend my energy but I don't think those answers are so easy to come by. Thinking about this so much is starting to make me wonder why I'm so concerned with being moral in the first place. Reciprocity and hope I guess. Oh well.
Thanks again!

No problem. It's my pleasure to help solve issues you may have.

Well, consumption is inevitable. We live, therefore we consume to exist. But acceptable levels can vary. If you are a tree-hugging vegan hippie who is a senior member of PETA (No offense PETA members), then you'll be living in the forest. But other than that, it's really up to you to decide an acceptable level of resource consumption. If you consume a lot, help out. Plant some trees. Get a low-flush toilet. And recycle.

Personally, as long as you aren't wasteful, then you are consuming an acceptable amount of resources. After all, what isn't wasted is not depleted, and can be used by others who need it. If you really want to help, do what I mentioned previously, and find ways to conserve and recycle. With any luck, you'll almost break even. But don't feel guilty if you consume more than you think is acceptable, because we all have to consume resources to live. If you don't waste materials, then they will get time to replenish. Then, you will have broken even, and you will not have destroyed anything. Nature is built to take some pretty nasty stuff. Using a few sheets of paper, or taking a bath is fine. Just as long as you don't waste.


~Bynary Fission

EDIT: Being moral is fine. In fact, it can give you a reason to live, thus preventing suicide in the first place. Those who are moral can be a true blessing to those around you. They conserve, they are kind, and treat others with the respect they deserve. And that is a truly redeeming person, don't you think? Your morals are good and true, from what I see. Just don't think extremes, like if you kill yourself, you'll be helping others. Then you end up harming others.

P.S 100th post, wewt.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

You truly believe suicide has no effect on anyone else the person may have known or been close to?

It doesn't have to have such an effect.

Do you not see anything selfish with it, or do you not truly care about those you speak and converse with every day in your life?

This sentence presumes its own conclusion.

Did you even bother to take into consideration what it does to those closest to the person?

As does this one.

Did you even bother to think of what it might do to you if someone you were really close with committed this act, or do you not seem to care at all about anyone in your life?

You're bad at arguing

Suppose a family is raising a three-year old child who has decided not to live any longer because of trivial reasons. (like not getting to watch his favorite TV show) The family is looking forward to raising a successful, hardworking man. If suicide is always acceptable, then the kid presumably has the right to decide to die, even at age 3. Yet at his age, he has very few rights compared to adults. Why should he have the right to end his own life at that age when his understanding of life itself is so remedial? Wouldn't this child's suicide interfere with the rights of the parents to raise their child the way they want to?

The parents have no such right. The child has a right to end their life because, quite tritely, it's theirs.

Excuse me, just because we have different opinions than you doesn't make us "worthless liberal scum".

Maybe it does to me!

That is a stupid, ignorant statement. After all, if we didn't agree with you, could we say you were a right-wing extremist zealot if you had conservative views we didn't agree with? I think not.

You think wrong then. A tongue in cheek insult tacked on to the end of a valid argument does not make the argument invalid.

And I disagree with your statement. Suicide does affect other people. If you killed yourself, would your family and friends be indifferent to your death?

How should I know? I addressed this in my initial post, by the way. It always amazes me how I do that, yet no one catches it.

Would people take it the same way if their favorite TV show got canceled?

Some would!

Suicide leaves deep scars in those who love you and embrace you.

Maybe they leave deep scars in themselves.

They would wonder where they went wrong, why you killed yourself, and wonder if it was somehow their fault.

And is wonder somehow beyond their control?

It is a person's choice, yes. But that doesn't mean it is without consequence.

The consequence would seem to be death. The consequence of death would seem to be to make individuals associated with the dead aware of the death. From there, things would seem to get less deterministic.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

It doesn't have to have such an effect.



This sentence presumes its own conclusion.



As does this one.



You're bad at arguing



The parents have no such right. The child has a right to end their life because, quite tritely, it's theirs.



Maybe it does to me!



You think wrong then. A tongue in cheek insult tacked on to the end of a valid argument does not make the argument invalid.



How should I know? I addressed this in my initial post, by the way. It always amazes me how I do that, yet no one catches it.



Some would!



Maybe they leave deep scars in themselves.



And is wonder somehow beyond their control?



The consequence would seem to be death. The consequence of death would seem to be to make individuals associated with the dead aware of the death. From there, things would seem to get less deterministic.

From what I'm getting, you are saying suicide has no consequences, and that if you wanna do it, do it, regardless of who it hurts. You also seem to say that people can't influence suicide, and that people can hurt whoever they ant through suicide. Frankly, you have some flawed reasoning.

You're bad at arguing

If you say people are bad at arguing when they rebut what you say, then you shouldn't be in the CT forum.


~Bynary Fission

[Revolversaid]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

Well...to put it philosophically who are you trying to get acceptance from? Why should someones acceptance effect your own personal choice and control over your own life? If your suicide is acceptable to one person it may not be acceptable to another. Suicide is truly acceptable however if the person who engages in the act accepts it. After all suicide is one of the choices that does not requires anybody else's acceptance.

"The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die, and you to live. Which to the better fate is known only to God." Socrates

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

From what I'm getting, you are saying suicide has no consequences, and that if you wanna do it, do it, regardless of who it hurts. You also seem to say that people can't influence suicide, and that people can hurt whoever they ant through suicide. Frankly, you have some flawed reasoning.

No, I'm saying this

"But Kilroy! It effects loved ones by making them sad!"

It's not the responsibility of any one party to predict the feelings of others. Furthermore, shouldn't they be presumed to have control over them? If a families sadness is a deterministic effect of someones suicide, then plausibly suicide is a deterministic effect of something else. So you either have a crime without a victim or a crime without a criminal.

If you say people are bad at arguing when they rebut what you say, then you shouldn't be in the CT forum.

The rebuttals given were "How do you account for that being false?" Those aren't actual rebuttals, because they presume their own conclusion.

[Tarrik]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

From what i can read, most people are saying that suicide is selfish, it hurts the ones around you etc, etc. Well here's my opinion.

Suicide is ALWAYS acceptable. The people who actually kill themselves are not just "taking the easy way out" they are escaping their problems, usually these problems are big and are not small things like..Too much homework..no friends..you know, small things. These people who kill themselves actually have problems and for everyone to say its selfish and stuff don't know what the hell they're talking about. Me, i have a pretty severe case of depression, yes I've thought of killing myself, yes it's on my mind now..do i have problems? YES, not small ones either. I'm getting kicked out of home if i don't "get over it" parents don't care much about anything to do with me anymore, siblings couldn't give two ****'s, failed school, and pushed all my friends away..yeah i know stupid things..but think hard about all i've said. May not seem like much to you, but it's not happening to you, so think hard before your next post.

P.S I gave up on the FFR community, because i was actually going to go get help so i don't kill myself (thats directed to you Denovin, so don't just assume I'd come back if you don't know why I'm leaving).

And that everyone is what i think.

~Tarrik~

[[TeRa]]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

I've considered suicide multiple times, after dropping out, and thinking of the future, I know mine's going to suck, and I don't see any reason to stick around, but I talk myself out of it within a week. I never really attempted suicide, yet at least.

I feel if you believe your life is horrible enough to the point where you dont want to live anymore, whatever. But as ledwix said, a 3 year old doing it due to not being able to watch TV, thats adds a challenege to this topic.

So, here is how I see it. As a teen, I think this is the age where most people consider suicide. I can't even think of anyone 12 and below considering it, and I people consider it around the older age's due to stress from work, or stress from not having a job and being a falure, such as the road I see myself going down. I can't explain how I feel on the topic of suicide to much, being I've considered it, but I know I can't push myself to ever do it, no matter how bad things are, and from thinking of where my future is going because I dropped out of school, gets me in that depressed state where I start to consider suicide. I don't see it really being other peoples business as to wether or not someone does commit suicide or not, but I guess it all depends on the situation, something silly such as a 3 year not being able to watch a TV is just a flat out stupid reason, but something such as a 20 year old that dropped out and is heading toward living on the streets with severe depression and is being rejected has a more understandable reason.

[tha Guardians]

Re: Acceptable Suicide?

In most cases, suicide is for the weak. For example, if a junkie gets AIDS from using a tainted needle when getting a hit of smack, then it's his fault. If somebody embezzles people and steals, yet bad fortune befalls him and he goes broke, and possibly caught, it's his fault. Those who commit suicide are cowards. They cannot face up to what they have done, and want an easy way out. The world would be better off without them.

But there is an exception, at least in my eyes. Have you ever heard of Huntington's Disease? It is characterized by a slow slip into dementia, it causes speech impairments, and extreme, shooting pain all across the body constantly. You linger for 10-15 years before you finally die. I once saw a moving documentary on a mother who lost her sons and father to this disease. Her father died after 15 years of developing the disease. She killed two of her sons after they screamed and begged for mercy, for her to kill them after suffering for years with this disease. She eventually did it. It was ruled assisted suicide, and she got 5 years, but served a 1/3 of it. She was not looked upon as a monster for what she did, in fact it caused a stir, and people went outside the courthouse protesting her punishment.

To be honest, that is a fate worse than death. Somebody with such a disease would rather die than live, as characterized by what I just said. Somebody who wants to commit suicide is not a coward when such extreme circumstances surround the situation and the individual. Now Huntington's disease is not the only exception, but suffering to an extreme like that is torture to the person. If you were being tortured, would you want to live or die? Exactly my point.

Also, not to exclude an important facet: Ritualistic or religious suicide. People who do such an act, such as seppuku, don't do it out of cowardice or because they couldn't handle life. They do it for honor, or religious reasons, and those people are exonerated, and possibly looked upon as heroes when they die. Samurai who committed seppuku were freed of any dishonor they got upon losing a battle. If their daimyos died, they also committed seppuku.

So in both cases, I do not see a person killing themselves a coward. They died because it was their obligation (Though others may not agree with it, but if they must do so by their code of honor or religion, so be it). And for the first reason...it's hard to comment on that. I nor you will ever understand unless you or somebody close to us was tangled in such a sad state. But really, other than the aforementioned exceptions, suicide is for cowards. Even if they were family, it would be a dishonorable way to go, and they would not be remembered well, even if their death is sad. (Or at least I wouldn't remember them well, I cannot speak for others).

This is largely an opinion, so please don't take all of what I said in verbatim.


~Bynary Fission

Yes, but what if someone wishes not to live for reasons that are not their fault, or for carelessness. What if some teenage girl's parents beat her, and she's never once been happy in her life. Now would that be impatience or exhaustion?

Or what if someone never really cared about life? What if they saw it as a waste of time, and didn't think it was worth it? Then what would you thing?