Is Suicide right or wrong?

[LazyLemonLucas]

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Nobody can possibly tell anybody else whether their suicide is right or wrong. It's not a question of right and wrong; it's a question of being able or unable to tolerate one's life. Entirely subjective. 

Let us hope that the people who do contemplate suicide do not miscalculate their misfortune. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

Let us hope that the people who do contemplate suicide do not miscalculate their misfortune. 

Bugger, there's always a but...

[Peterkin]

12 minutes ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

Let us hope that the people who do contemplate suicide do not miscalculate their misfortune. 

Just as we hope that the generals who send soldiers into battle, the judges who sent offenders to death row, the legislators who condemn defective babies to life, the families who refuse permission to turn off ventilators, etc.  do not miscalculate. People live; people make decisions; people die. As a species, we don't exactly have a pristine record of correct decisions. 

[Intoscience]

On 5/6/2022 at 4:06 PM, LazyLemonLucas said:

Let us hope that the people who do contemplate suicide do not miscalculate their misfortune. 

Again, the difficulty being how do you calculate one's misfortunes? How do you compare them? What may seem like a rather small misfortune to one could well be a great misfortune to another. 

On 5/6/2022 at 4:22 PM, Peterkin said:

Just as we hope that the generals who send soldiers into battle, the judges who sent offenders to death row, the legislators who condemn defective babies to life, the families who refuse permission to turn off ventilators, etc.  do not miscalculate. People live; people make decisions; people die. As a species, we don't exactly have a pristine record of correct decisions. 

Yes, people make mistakes, especially when there is no one right answer. 

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, people make mistakes, especially when there is no one right answer. 

So, on the whole, I would rather be allowed to make my own mistakes than have someone else's mistaken notion forced upon me - especially if their idea of what's righteous condemns me to years of helpless suffering.  And I'm equally willing to trust other people with their own lives.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, people make mistakes, especially when there is no one right answer. 

So, on the whole, I would rather be allowed to make my own mistakes than have someone else's mistaken notion forced upon me - especially if their idea of what's righteous condemns me to years of helpless suffering. 

And I'm equally willing to let other people make their own decisions about their own lives.

[LazyLemonLucas]

18 hours ago, Intoscience said:

What may seem like a rather small misfortune to one could well be a great misfortune to another. 

Good point.

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So, on the whole, I would rather be allowed to make my own mistakes than have someone else's mistaken notion forced upon me - especially if their idea of what's righteous condemns me to years of helpless suffering.  And I'm equally willing to trust other people with their own lives.

I agree with you.

I think rather than condemning a person for committing suicide, maybe we should look at each individual case and assess the reasons why.

In modern western society there seems to be a growing trend of younger people taking their own lives (I think it was MigL who touched on this) Why is this so? Is it peer pressure, social media, the pressure of modern living? 

Rather than concerning over whether its morally wrong to commit suicide, maybe we should concern ourselves more with the reasons anyone does it in the first place and what we as a society should try and do about it.

There is a big difference between a person terminally ill and suffering with incurable pain and a teenager who feels their life is worthless. For one its most likely kinder to let go, for the other all attempts should be made to save them.      

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In modern western society there seems to be a growing trend of younger people taking their own lives (I think it was MigL who touched on this) Why is this so? Is it peer pressure, social media, the pressure of modern living? 

It's not quite unique to this generation. But as to the why, I can see several reasons. {just brainstorming: not an expert!} Social media, and how they're increasingly dependent on a small, conformist, judgmental social structure for their sense of self-worth; unable to gain any kind of recognition or status, or even achieve anything, in the real world; being surplus to requirements in the economy, increasingly bereft of a future for themselves and their world... I can see why the young might be looking for escape - or causes - and how either of those may lead some of them to the extreme of self-destruction or self-sacrifice.

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Rather than concerning over whether its morally wrong to commit suicide, maybe we should concern ourselves more with the reasons anyone does it in the first place and what we as a society should try and do about it.

Not all societies have the same attitude. The suicide as a mortal sin idea is distinctly Christian (nothing to do with Jesus, BTW; much later). When you persuade large numbers of people to obey you with the promise of heaven after death, and then make their lives miserable, you have to find some way to keep them from seeking the reward before you've wrung all the work out of them. In the OT, suicide is no problem: Job's friends counselled him to seek relief from from his suffering: "Why do you not curse god and die?", the assumption being that Jehovah would co-operate. It was honourable in Japanese culture, as well as Roman and Hindu. 

Morality is largely a question of world-views. What the society considers to be the role of an individual in relation to the rulership, the society and the supernatural. It's a question of who owns whose ass. And what each one is worth.

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There is a big difference between a person terminally ill and suffering with incurable pain and a teenager who feels their life is worthless. For one its most likely kinder to let go, for the other all attempts should be made to save them. 

Yes. But it's like the abortion issue. The young are precious; we shouldn't kill them. But are we prepared to make the necessary effort to make their lives worthwhile?

Edited May 10, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

14 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In modern western society there seems to be a growing trend of younger people taking their own lives (I think it was MigL who touched on this) Why is this so? Is it peer pressure, social media, the pressure of modern living?      

Bullying?? Particularly with kids and teenagers. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by beecee

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's not quite unique to this generation. But as to the why, I can see several reasons. {just brainstorming: not an expert!} Social media, and how they're increasingly dependent on a small, conformist, judgmental social structure for their sense of self-worth; unable to gain any kind of recognition or status, or even achieve anything, in the real world; being surplus to requirements in the economy, increasingly bereft of a future for themselves and their world... I can see why the young might be looking for escape - or causes - and how either of those may lead some of them to the extreme of self-destruction or self-sacrifice

I'm also a non expert, but share the same view. There seems to be so much judgemental pressure on the younger generation through social media. 

 

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Bullying?? Particularly with kids and teenagers

Yeah I think this is certainly plays a part in it, especially since bullying can be easily done over social media these days. 

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not all societies have the same attitude. The suicide as a mortal sin idea is distinctly Christian (nothing to do with Jesus, BTW; much later).

Thanks, I never considered this. So do you think that the morality of suicide being a crime originally stems mainly from Christianity?    

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yeah I think this is certainly plays a part in it, especially since bullying can be easily done over social media these days.    

We have sadly had a couple of young pre-teen and teenage girls commit suicide over the last few months because of bullying. 

I have experienced bullying three times in my life, (stories relayed in the punsihment/torture thread from memory) once concerning my young Son. One thing I learnt is mostly bullies are cowards and hate pain inflicted on their person!😉 That generally straightens them out, one way or the other.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Thanks, I never considered this. So do you think that the morality of suicide being a crime originally stems mainly from Christianity?    

As a lapsed Catholic, yes suicide is a mortal sin, deserved of Hell for all eternity! Unless of course, one (after for example jumping off the Sydney Harbour Bridge) regrets what he has done half way down and makes an act of perfect contrition. 

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Thanks, I never considered this. So do you think that the morality of suicide being a crime originally stems mainly from Christianity?    

As far as I know. We've all heard of the Inuit practice of old people "going out on the ice" in times of famine. I've read about other pre-civilized societies wherein the severely injured and mortally ill were eased out of their pain (assisted suicide) - alongside susbsitance-level societies that nurtured and cared for their damaged members. We know about the honourable Roman who falls on his sword, rather than bring disgrace upon his family, etc. Even Christians celebrate religious martyrdom - just as Muslims do, and Christian nations all award posthumous medals to soldiers who sacrifice their own life for their comrades... and while condemning private murder, have no quibble with institutional murder.

Christians can't quite wrap their morality around the value of human life, or decide who owns it - God, man or the state.    

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, beecee said:

As a lapsed Catholic, yes suicide is a mortal sin, deserved of Hell for all eternity! Unless of course, one (after for example jumping off the Sydney Harbour Bridge) regrets what he has done half way down and makes an act of perfect contrition. 

You can also hope that on the way down a plenary indulgence is being granted on your behalf! (12 years of Catholic School)

[AlexanderSamualDunnett]

I think each being should die at the time of greatest contribution to the total well-being rating of all beings. So if someone has no quality of experience left that would be the ideal time to die, whether that is suicide or euthanasia (assisted-suicide) or homocide.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, AlexanderSamualDunnett said:

I think each being should die at the time of greatest contribution to the total well-being rating of all beings. So if someone has no quality of experience left that would be the ideal time to die, whether that is suicide or euthanasia (assisted-suicide) or homocide.

So... Let's say my newborn baby has chronic issues and will be a drain on the well-being rating of all beings for her entire life. Will you be willing to be the person who kills her?

[Peterkin]

56 minutes ago, AlexanderSamualDunnett said:

I think each being should die at the time of greatest contribution to the total well-being rating of all beings.

Is there a prescient 'contribution to the well-being or all beings' meter that rings a bell in each person's head when they have reached that moment and can reach no higher? If so, how does it measure the overall contribution to all beings when some beings - say foxes -  depend on the elimination of some  other being - say rabbits - for their well-being?   

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, AlexanderSamualDunnett said:

I think each being should die at the time of greatest contribution to the total well-being rating of all beings.

On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the greatest contribution:

Joe is a solid 1 for the first 80 years of his life, and at the age of 81 reaches his greatest contribution to the total well-being of all beings. At 82 his contribution diminishes and a sniper picks him off on the way to the park.

Jan reaches greatest contribution at the age of 20 with a score of 100. Best score of anyone ever! Ages from 21 to 99 would have only seen a contribution score of 99 for the 78 years before her natural death, a healthy contribution to mankind for sure, but since she hit her greatest contribution at age 21, Off with her head, to hell with her last 78 years.

[Genady]

8 hours ago, AlexanderSamualDunnett said:

I think each being should die at the time of greatest contribution to the total well-being rating of all beings. So if someone has no quality of experience left that would be the ideal time to die, whether that is suicide or euthanasia (assisted-suicide) or homocide.

The quoted post was the @AlexanderSamualDunnett's greatest contribution to the total well-being rating of all beings...

[mistermack]

I'm sure someone's already said this but right or wrong is simply a matter for the individual, and their own priorities. You may have had those priorities instilled into you by others as you developed from babyhood, but once they are accepted in your brain, they are then your priorities. 

What is good, for one person, can be bad, for another. 

For Adolf HItler, killing all the Jews was good. (even though he was fully aware that others would deplore it) It was good for him, and the more it happened, the more pleased he was. 

Obviously most of the world disagreed to various extents. Even most people who were prejudiced against Jews would disagree with killing them all. But there were still plenty of people who thought the same as Hitler. 

Suicide being right or wrong is similarly dependant on the individual's personal priorities. And you get most of those instilled in you as you grow from babyhood, so some societies abhor suicide more than others. 

At the end of the day, the right and wrong isn't absolute, it's what exists at the moment, inside your head. And of course, there's a collective opinion in society, composed of the sum of all of the heads, and influenced by the writings of people no longer living.   

[TheVat]

In normative ethics, it is possible to look for standards of behavior, of what is right or wrong, that have some objective foundation...for example, the surviving and thriving of one's species, or the integrity a society.  So a normative ethics could begin with suicide in terms of asking what is the effect on society, i.e. is there some verifiable effect, as from social science research, that it has on our lives generally.  Many data sets and ways to analyze your data....e.g. what is the effect of someone with young children committing suicide?  In that case, you could look at life outcomes for the spouse and children, for starters.  Maybe compare such events with suicides by older persons (and those more along the lines of the ceremonial cliff in "Midsommar," say).  I honestly don't know what could be learned, but it seems like it could maybe give us a glimpse beyond "personal priorities" given that our actions ripple out and effect others.  And maybe answer toughies like "who do we become, if we decide we are okay with this, or against that?"

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, AlexanderSamualDunnett said:

I think each being should die at the time of greatest contribution to the total well-being rating of all beings. So if someone has no quality of experience left that would be the ideal time to die, whether that is suicide or euthanasia (assisted-suicide) or homocide.

 

[mistermack]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

In normative ethics, it is possible to look for standards of behavior, of what is right or wrong, that have some objective foundation...for example, the surviving and thriving of one's species, or the integrity a society.

I'm not sure that objective is the right word for that. A consensus may exist for those standards of behaviour, but that's all. Some people may not aspire to those ideals. And even if it's unanimous up to now, that doesn't make it objective, because someone could easily be born who doesn't share those ideals. And of course, other species might well disagree. 

Practically the whole of humanity would view it as wrong, to kill and eat a defenceless child. But a lion would have no problem with it. And a lot of our closest cousins, the chimps, would have no problem there either. And back in our history, there was a lot of cannibalism, so they wouldn't agree either. 

I don't think you can have degrees of objectiveness. Something either is, or is not objective. So I don't think that right/wrong questions can ever have an objective answer. 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

I'm not sure that objective is the right word for that. A consensus may exist for those standards of behaviour, but that's all. Some people may not aspire to those ideals. And even if it's unanimous up to now, that doesn't make it objective, because someone could easily be born who doesn't share those ideals. And of course, other species might well disagree. 

Practically the whole of humanity would view it as wrong, to kill and eat a defenceless child. But a lion would have no problem with it. And a lot of our closest cousins, the chimps, would have no problem there either. And back in our history, there was a lot of cannibalism, so they wouldn't agree either. 

I don't think you can have degrees of objectiveness. Something either is, or is not objective. So I don't think that right/wrong questions can ever have an objective answer. 

I think you may be misunderstanding my context in using "objective."

I am referring to facts about how a certain moral valuation would impact the viability of a species or society.  No one is suggesting that those valuations have objective existence, rather that a certain moral rule could have a measurable consequence in terms of survival.   

For example, "eating your children is bad," is subjective, but the result of widespread adoption of the principle could conceivably have a measurable outcome which could be objectively stated.  ("Tribes B, K, and X, which forbade infantiphagia, grew and prospered, while tribes A and M, which served them up with fava beans and a nice Chianti, died out...")

IOW do our standards for the rightness or wrongness of actions have some grounding in external measurable facts about the human condition?  So "objectivity" here only referred to an external state of affairs, not some numinous inner goodness.  Does that help clarify?

[mistermack]

24 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Does that help clarify?

Well, as usual it's down to word definition. Of course I see what you're getting at, but a lot of people make huge 'spiritual' claims using the word 'objective' as their launching pad. 

You are making an assumption that the individual "should" want his tribe to prosper, but that may be a widely held view, but my point is that it's a subjective view. You're just kicking off with subjective assuptions, and arguing that what you build on top is objectively right or wrong. 

As in, given that we all want x, then it's objectively right to do y and z because that will achieve x. 

That doesn't make y and z objectively right, it makes them right,  if  you want x. 

While it's even remotely possible that sombody will not want x, no matter what the crazy or perverse reason, I don't think you can call y and z objectively right. 

Objectivity (philosophy), the property of being independent from perception

• Objectivity (science), the goal of eliminating personal biases in the practice of science

[TheVat]

If your survival depends on the welfare of your tribe (which is a reality I would suggest is demonstrable), then you can say there is an observable value to the ethics of a social contract.  I wasn't actually saying "should." It is an objective fact that humans, the vast majority of individuals, desire to live and thrive.  It can then be objectively measured that a social contract of mutual cooperation has benefits to everyone's survival.  Benefits that Hobbes' "war of all against all"* does not.  I won't quibble semantics.  If you prefer to call this intersubjective agreement, that will work, too.  But that agreement has powerful objective markers (if one can zoom back from one's life and realize all the benefits and privileges that we subjectively take for granted).

*(Hobbes actually used the Latin phrase, bellum omnium contra omnes)

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by TheVat
Cpwjtod