Are There Times and Situations In Which Suicide Should Be A Option?

[Chis]

A "certain of care"? That doesn't make grammatical sense. Fix please, so I know what you're talking about. I figured it was about help groups since you brought them up and kind of focused on them.

You clearly don't know what I'm talking about. Look it up.

Again, this sentence... isn't a sentence. What are you saying?

I can not make it any clear really.

Again, read the other posts. Some things, such as terminal illness and war situations, can't be improved by help groups, and therefore that person is not being "selfish" or "cowardly" or unwilling to get help.

You do not understand my point.

EDIT: What happened to #4? It's practically the answer to your last question.

I was almost the same as another one of your questions, so why bother.

Most of your points seem to revolve over the word 'help groups'.

 

[Palpi]

If there is no consequence for suicide what is stopping people from killing themselves? The person committing suicide doesn't think about the consequence of people in his or her family, but there is no capital punishment.

 

[KrazyGlue]

You clearly don't know what I'm talking about. Look it up.

I can not make it any clear really.

You do not understand my point.

I was almost the same as another one of your questions, so why bother.

Most of your points seem to revolve over the word 'help groups'.

It's because that was the main point of your first post. You kept saying they could just get "help" and their life would just suddenly get better. Plus my points aren't all about that one specific phrase. My points revolve around the fact that you can't always get help for depression issues, which (correct me if I'm wrong) was the entire point you were using in your first post.

You claimed that I didn't understand 3 times. Clarify please, so we can actually debate.


EDIT: In response to Palpi's post:

"If there is no consequence for suicide what is stopping people from killing themselves? The person committing suicide doesn't think about the consequence of people in his or her family, but there is no capital punishment."

Consequences wouldn't stop people from committing suicide anyway. If somebody is so depressed that they are willing to commit suicide regardless of family, then they probably aren't going to be thinking about capital punishment.

Think about illegal drugs. If someone is using illegal drugs even though they might have family support to stop, they often don't consider possible legal consequences. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that we have plenty of illegal drug users. Has capital punishment stopped them? No. Will it stop or substantially reduce the amount of suicides? Not likely.

Perhaps it could very slightly reduce the amount of suicides, but at the same time, plenty of things factor in much more. Teaching more about suicide in school health classes probably would help more than creating laws against suicide. People who know the depressed person will factor into the decision (to commit suicide) much more than any government law will.

 

[Palpi]

There is no personal consequence for suicide. People that kill themselves are not thinking straight and should get help. Obviously "help" doesn't always tend to work, but it is better than taking your life. According to the christian god (though I am an athiest) humans don't have the right to take a life. Abortion, homicide, and suicide included.

 

[Alus]

There is no personal consequence for suicide. People that kill themselves are not thinking straight and should get help. Obviously "help" doesn't always tend to work, but it is better than taking your life. According to the christian god (though I am an athiest) humans don't have the right to take a life. Abortion, homicide, and suicide included.

Why is it that humans don't have the right to take away their own lives... but have the right to take away the lives of animals and vice versa?

 

[Miggz]

Why is it that humans don't have the right to take away their own lives... but have the right to take away the lives of animals and vice versa?

These are two separate issues. Nonetheless, I feel that we humans have been a bothersome bunch to animals. We owe animals something. Perhaps to be free from exploitation and abuse by mankind. Animals are not there for us to merely eat, torture, hunt, make clothes out of their fur, ect. Animals are innocent victims in a hellish world we ourselves have built. But I digress, cause like I said earlier, these two are two different things.

Both suicide and the killings of animals fall under the umbrella of "murder." But the way I see it, a person who has murdered another living thing (humans or animals) can live on and possibly change their ways. Obviously not everyone can change, but one thing that is true is that a person who is still alive can work towards being a better person. Even if that person is to spend the rest of their life in prison, it doesn't necessarily mean they have to throw away or ignore logic.


Whereas some who kills themselves, there is no turning back, no second chances, no more reasoning with logic. The individual has decided that things simply won't change for the better and that its not even worth trying. Regardless of their reasons for their planned/scheduled/intentional suicide, one things is for sure...they have given up on themselves. But at the same time, you can't help but what wonder what happens after death. So yeah, that's my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Exce L]

You guys are thinking about things too literally. The only time you should consider suicide is during war to prevent giving any secrets. Besides that, you commit suicide if you're dying with no chance of survival. I won't go into any gory details on that, but those are the only too acceptable times when you should knowingly take a life.

I totally agree with you on this one Alex. When you enter ar you are under the conciense of knowing that you may die.. your risks of dying are much higher than a regular day in life. Suiciding under this condition in my eyes is totally honorable and acceptable.

 

[Vickey]

What was previously said earlier. Killing yourself is murder. Though I don't know if I agree with the broadness of that statement. It makes a good point. The person taking his life isn't punished. He does it through his own actions and physically can not be punished by the government. There is no consequance for what he is doing.. or so he thinks.

Killing yourself is murder of yourself, but it is referred to as suicide. Just like euthanasia is murder, and abortion is as well. You are killing a human being intentionally. American culture, and most religious cultures, do not agree with the taking of human life. Suicide is selfish, you are not taking into considerations of others around you.

"Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem"

Source: http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/mental_health/suicide.html

By living in this society we agree to live by the rules or suffer the consequences. It's all a little fabrication that we live in for mutual benefit. if someone doesn't agree, they can leave the society. If there were no consequences for "wrong" actions, than nothing would sop peoples malicious intentions.

The only places on earth that don't have "established societies" as you call them, are the Arctic, Antarctic, and uninhabited remote islands. No matter where you go, there will be rules of society you will have to follow.

Even normal people, common-sense thinking people, when thrust into some situations, collapse or act differently than normal. They won't be thinking rationally.

The societal suicide rate might theoretically be viewed as a rational behavior because it was associated in a predictable manner with measures of social stress (such as losing your job, divorce, etc).


An extra note and interesting take on suicide:

"Sometimes these are associated with the relative price of health care to the consumer price index. If this relative cost increases, they argued, then the greater cost of prolonging life should lead people to be more likely to commit suicide. "

Source: Kimenyi Shughart, Ph.D



Additional Sources:

http://www.suicideinfo.ca/

http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.suicide.html

 

[RDK]

Killing yourself is murder of yourself, but it is referred to as suicide.

What? Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Seeing as how you yourself are making the decision that solely effects you, no, it is not murder. Murder is taking the life of somebody else.

Just like euthanasia is murder, and abortion is as well. You are killing a human being intentionally. American culture, and most religious cultures, do not agree with the taking of human life.

Abortion is not murder because the organism (if you can call it that) is not a fully developed human and is not what we would generally consider a "person". Euthanasia is simply assisted suicide, so no, it's not murder either.

Suicide is selfish, you are not taking into considerations of others around you.

You're not responsible for others around you; you're responsible for yourself. Suicide is a personal decision that physically effects you.

There's a reason we have laws in place to protect people from physically harming other people. The emotional repercussions felt by others when I kill myself isn't my fault at all, and to think so is absurd.

"Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem"

Unless you've ever been in a position to consider suicide yourself, don't speak for other people. And even then, who are you to judge just how hopeless another person's situation is?

The only places on earth that don't have "established societies" as you call them, are the Arctic, Antarctic, and uninhabited remote islands. No matter where you go, there will be rules of society you will have to follow.

The point is that, for the most part, every society has a different set of rules and moral values, no matter how slight. Morals are not objective.

Oh, and let's leave the Sunday School answers at home next time.

 

[Vickey]

What? Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Seeing as how you yourself are making the decision that solely effects you, no, it is not murder. Murder is taking the life of somebody else.

So you are saying ethics plays no role in the way people should think and act in our society, when most of our laws are based on those foundations already? What one considers suicide is based on opinion purely. It is irrelevant whether or not suicide should be considered "textbook definition" of murder when discussing the morality and ethics behind it.

Abortion is not murder because the organism (if you can call it that) is not a fully developed human and is not what we would generally consider a "person". Euthanasia is simply assisted suicide, so no, it's not murder either.

This is not an abortion topic, so I will leave that part for another time. However, you youself just said "Murder is taking the life of somebody else." Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you assist someone in their death, you are taking their life.

Unless you've ever been in a position to consider suicide yourself, don't speak for other people. And even then, who are you to judge just how hopeless another person's situation is?

Then don't judge as well. You don't know my life either.

You're not responsible for others around you; you're responsible for yourself. Suicide is a personal decision that physically effects you.

There's a reason we have laws in place to protect people from physically harming other people. The emotional repercussions felt by others when I kill myself isn't my fault at all, and to think so is absurd.

Stating that my humanitarian views are worthless simply because of the influence of ethics in my post, does not discredit them. In fact, it is your opinion that causing emotional distress on others does not matter, however, there are many laws set in place that prohibit that very impact on another person. Look at laws regarding verbal assault, threats, and causing fear on people. The difference between robbery and larceny is that it states clearly that during a robbery fear must be involved. Causing emotional damage to other people in the United States is criminal.

Historically, suicide has been considered criminal in many parts of the world as well.

"Any person who, with intent to take his own life, commits upon himself any act dangerous to human life, or which if committed upon or toward another person and followed by death as a consequence would render the perpetrator chargeable with homicide, is guilty of attempting suicide." States Oklahoma Law.

"In states retaining common law crimes, attempted suicide is a criminal offense, but this is not true in most jurisdictions. In the past there was considerable sentiment for making attempted suicide an offense: the thought persisted that it was contrary to societal interest to attempt to take human life, even one's own life."

Source: http://law.jrank.org


Many places also have required hospitalization and sometimes rehabilitation for people who attempted suicide. If people should have the right to do as they please, why is there so much widespread disdain over this act? Suicide is not moral, whether you would like to admit it or not.

The point is that, for the most part, every society has a different set of rules and moral values, no matter how slight. Morals are not objective.

Oh, and let's leave the Sunday School answers at home next time.

You try to tear up my arguments with sarcasm and cynicism, yet you offer nothing to back up your replies but your opinion.







Sources:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/2180/Suicide-Legal-Aspects.html

http://en.torana/Legal_views_of_suicide

https://www.oig.lsc.gov/lscpages/pl105-12.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suicide

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?cirestriction=suicide&court=us

http://www.relentlessdefense.com/robbery.html

 

[RDK]

So you are saying ethics plays no role in the way people should think and act in our society, when most of our laws are based on those foundations already? What one considers suicide is based on opinion purely. It is irrelevant whether or not suicide should be considered "textbook definition" of murder when discussing the morality and ethics behind it.

Um, yes it should. That's the whole point. If you're arguing from a standpoint of morality, then it requires to be defined.

You say it's murder (which it clearly isn't, seeing as how murder means one person taking the life of another), I say it's not.

And no, what one considers suicide is not based on pure opinion. Unless you have a learning disability, the definition of suicide is pretty clear cut:

Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the intentional taking of one's own life.

Notice how there are no third parties involved, unless we're talking about euthanasia, which, again, isn't murder; it's assisted suicide.

This is not an abortion topic, so I will leave that part for another time. However, you youself just said "Murder is taking the life of somebody else." Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you assist someone in their death, you are taking their life.

No you're not, you're assisting in their death. They're taking their life.

Then don't judge as well. You don't know my life either.

WTF? I wasn't judging you, I was telling you not to judge other people. You're the one going around saying that suicide is "a permanent solution to a temporary problem". Seeing as how you don't comprise the entirety of humanity, there's no possible way you could know the situation of everyone who contemplates suicide at one point in their life.

Stating that my humanitarian views are worthless simply because of the influence of ethics in my post, does not discredit them. In fact, it is your opinion that causing emotional distress on others does not matter, however, there are many laws set in place that prohibit that very impact on another person. Look at laws regarding verbal assault, threats, and causing fear on people. The difference between robbery and larceny is that it states clearly that during a robbery fear must be involved. Causing emotional damage to other people in the United States is criminal.

The enormous difference between verbal assault and putting people in fearful danger is that in those situations, you're purposely doing it to harm other people. Emotional damage suffered by those who are left behind isn't really under your control; the only thing you could do to prevent it is stop from killing yourself.

But that brings us back to the whole point of this thread. It's your body, and we live in America. As long as you're not infringing upon the rights of others, you can do whatever the hell you want with it (in the privacy of your own home).

Basically, you're saying that I should refrain from taking any action that has the potential to cause emotional distress to someone else. This is ridiculous, considering the wide range of things you could do (that aren't against the law) to cause someone emotional distress.

Historically, suicide has been considered criminal in many parts of the world as well.

So what? Basically your mentality here is "We've always done it, so why not continue?" Some of the worst possible things are still in existence because of that mindset.

"Any person who, with intent to take his own life, commits upon himself any act dangerous to human life, or which if committed upon or toward another person and followed by death as a consequence would render the perpetrator chargeable with homicide, is guilty of attempting suicide." States Oklahoma Law.

All you did was state Oklahoma Law.

"In states retaining common law crimes, attempted suicide is a criminal offense, but this is not true in most jurisdictions. In the past there was considerable sentiment for making attempted suicide an offense: the thought persisted that it was contrary to societal interest to attempt to take human life, even one's own life."

This is what I've been saying all along. I don't really give a flying **** about society. In America, society isn't what's important--it's the individual. Without the individual, there is no society (society is merely a group of individuals). The whole concept of human rights stems from people, not as a group, but as a single entity.

This is why there is no such thing as "group rights".

Many places also have required hospitalization and sometimes rehabilitation for people who attempted suicide. If people should have the right to do as they please, why is there so much widespread disdain over this act?

Many people voted for George W. Bush in the preceding two elections. If people shouldn't have voted for George W. Bush, why was there so much widespread support for him as a president?

Just because something is popular (at the moment) doesn't make it right. You have a mob mentality, and a mob mentality is everything that's wrong with America right now.

Suicide is not moral, whether you would like to admit it or not.

And chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, whether you like to admit it or not.

Morals are subjective, so you stating your personal moral system adds nothing to this debate.

You try to tear up my arguments with sarcasm and cynicism, yet you offer nothing to back up your replies but your opinion.

Considering this debate is on morality, what else can be brought but opinion?

Oh the irony.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

If you sat for 40 years unable to move or feel,only talk what are your options? 1.be smart 2.see petty thing 3.talk 4.be despressing to everyone around you 5.? Could you do that could you go through watching everyone being torn up on the inside as you sit unable to stop the pain for them and could you sit there unable to help them with bills that you caused by being there?

I think at that piont I would mess with people would kill me

But that's just me and if suide is selfish in any case than call me selfish

 

[KrazyGlue]

@Vickey

One of the problems with your arguments are that you aren't considering extreme situations, such as if the person is suffering from a terminal illness and in constant pain with no chance of survival. Another example of this (I think Aesir originally brought this up) is when you are a prisoner of war and are being forced (possibly through torture) to reveal important information about your country.

Plus, we shouldn't be able to decide what one does to themselves as long as they do not harm the others around them. I'm anticipating that someone will counter this by saying "Well, they'll cause emotional harm to their family", so I'll go ahead and counter that.

Unless mental harm is accompanied by physical harm, it can't really be factored into moral decisions. If they could, then one could argue that yelling at somebody is ethically wrong, or that it is ethically wrong for rappers to use the N-word because it might offend some people. So focusing on the emotional harm factor shouldn't really be a part of this debate.

 

[Vickey]

Um, yes it should. That's the whole point. If you're arguing from a standpoint of morality, then it requires to be defined.

You're wrong. The morality on that issue does not revolve around the fact that it can or cannot be defined as murder. Taking your own life is immoral, whether or not you believe you have the right to do so. You'll tell me that everyone can do with their bodies as they please, as long as they don't harm others. Even if you bring up the argument that other people are being selfish for not allowing you to take your own life, you still can't deny that when you take your own life, other people suffer from it.

Family members get torn apart, Police officers have to work harder, filing reports, having to run investigations. People have to clean up the mess you leave behind.

You say it's murder (which it clearly isn't, seeing as how murder means one person taking the life of another), I say it's not.

And no, what one considers suicide is not based on pure opinion. Unless you have a learning disability, the definition of suicide is pretty clear cut:

I am arguing about the morality of suicide. Suicide is taking your own life, on that part we all agree on. It is irrelevant to me whether or not suicide is murder. The mere act of taking your own life is immoral.

Notice how there are no third parties involved, unless we're talking about euthanasia, which, again, isn't murder; it's assisted suicide.


No you're not, you're assisting in their death. They're taking their life.

You try to tear up my arguments with technicalities, instead of viewing the overall spectrum of my points. But if you want to get technical, then, euthanasia is not just assisted suicide, it is mercy killing. Not all euthanasia is assisted suicide, and there are times when euthanasia can be done on somebody without their consent (not legally). If you see a half-dead person, unconscious, and you shoot him, you performed euthanasia. So stating that euthanasia is not murder based on the fact that you are assisting a person in their suicide, is incorrect.

WTF? I wasn't judging you, I was telling you not to judge other people. You're the one going around saying that suicide is "a permanent solution to a temporary problem". Seeing as how you don't comprise the entirety of humanity, there's no possible way you could know the situation of everyone who contemplates suicide at one point in their life.

You're right. I also don't know the situation of everyone who contemplates robbery, murder, ****, and other acts of aggression. Who is to say they didn't rob because they were starving? Who is to say their reason for killing wasn't important enough? What about drugging yourself? Buying drugs gives funds to narcotic dealers and black market criminals who engage in many violent acts. Who is to say that buying drugs isn't immoral because you are indirectly promoting street violence?

You don't know anyone's situation entirely. Ever. Much less everyone's. That is why as human beings we should not be judging anyone. Laws are set to keep the peace amongst people, and establish order. And as I showed you before, the US has laws on suicide.

The enormous difference between verbal assault and putting people in fearful danger is that in those situations, you're purposely doing it to harm other people. Emotional damage suffered by those who are left behind isn't really under your control; the only thing you could do to prevent it is stop from killing yourself.

But that brings us back to the whole point of this thread. It's your body, and we live in America. As long as you're not infringing upon the rights of others, you can do whatever the hell you want with it (in the privacy of your own home).

Basically, you're saying that I should refrain from taking any action that has the potential to cause emotional distress to someone else. This is ridiculous, considering the wide range of things you could do (that aren't against the law) to cause someone emotional distress.

You are not wrong in your statement. Everything one does has the potential to be harmful to someone else. But each action is either morally right or wrong, and even while doing the right thing can be harmful to a person (for x reason), society has established laws to be the indicators of what we should and should not be doing. We can't obviously determine the morality of every issue based on who it can potentially harm. No matter which way you view yourself, you have to follow rules. If you follow a creed or belief, you have to follow the established rules of your religion. If you are an atheist, you still have to follow the rules of your society and government.

My point is, if there is nothing wrong with killing yourself, then why is it not allowed to be done? Because, even the foundation of the laws in the United States are based on morality, and suicide is not moral.

So what? Basically your mentality here is "We've always done it, so why not continue?" Some of the worst possible things are still in existence because of that mindset.

No, I was simply stating a historical fact. Back then it might have been different, but now a days, laws are usually enacted by the candidates based on the collective beliefs of most people in the United States, or at least their representing party.

All you did was state Oklahoma Law.

As an example. These matters are left to states. I am not going to go through the laws of every state in this country.

This is what I've been saying all along. I don't really give a flying **** about society. In America, society isn't what's important--it's the individual. Without the individual, there is no society (society is merely a group of individuals). The whole concept of human rights stems from people, not as a group, but as a single entity.

This is why there is no such thing as "group rights".

I understand the way you feel about your libertarian views, and I respect that. Because we do not share the same opinions, does not discredit my arguments. If people only matter as individuals, then there is nothing wrong with people taking advantage of the next guy for their benefit, because in the end, what matters is that individual anyway. That life becomes "survival of the fittest". Whether you like it or not, America is a society, and we have to abide by those rules. And you are wrong, there are group rights. Women were given the right to vote by the 19th Amendment. Women received a right as a "group" to be able to vote.

Many people voted for George W. Bush in the preceding two elections. If people shouldn't have voted for George W. Bush, why was there so much widespread support for him as a president?

Just because something is popular (at the moment) doesn't make it right. You have a mob mentality, and a mob mentality is everything that's wrong with America right now.

Really? Because last I remembered it wasn't popular to have conservative views in the Debate Hall (or PG). I don't have a mob mentality, I have a high regard for human life, and the structures of a society. Peace and stability do not form themselves. If people are left on their own, I would place my money on betting that the chances of chaos would be much greater.

And chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, whether you like to admit it or not.

Morals are subjective, so you stating your personal moral system adds nothing to this debate.

Then I would ask you to offer me your evidence supporting the idea that suicide is not immoral.

@Vickey

One of the problems with your arguments are that you aren't considering extreme situations, such as if the person is suffering from a terminal illness and in constant pain with no chance of survival. Another example of this (I think Aesir originally brought this up) is when you are a prisoner of war and are being forced (possibly through torture) to reveal important information about your country.

Plus, we shouldn't be able to decide what one does to themselves as long as they do not harm the others around them. I'm anticipating that someone will counter this by saying "Well, they'll cause emotional harm to their family", so I'll go ahead and counter that.

Unless mental harm is accompanied by physical harm, it can't really be factored into moral decisions. If they could, then one could argue that yelling at somebody is ethically wrong, or that it is ethically wrong for rappers to use the N-word because it might offend some people. So focusing on the emotional harm factor shouldn't really be a part of this debate.

There are certain situations where committing suicide is not immoral because you are no longer "killing yourself" but you are actually "sacrificing yourself". There is a clear difference. Given your idea about being tortured to give information that could potentially lead to harming your country and the loss of more lives, sacrificing your life for your country would not be immoral. You have the right to weigh the options, and if it means saving the lives of others, then you are allowed to make that decision. There have been many cases where people walked into their death to save others. That is not suicide, that is sacrifice. If that person took his life, he was dying for what he believed in. Religions also call this martyrdom. Governments call it patriotic.


Also, mental harm is very important. There are many psychiatric, and mental clinics in the United States from people who have suffered irreparable mental damage, and can no longer function as normal individuals.

 

[Zero Beat]

]Killing yourself is murder of yourself, but it is referred to as suicide. Just like euthanasia is murder, and abortion is as well. You are killing a human being intentionally. American culture, and most religious cultures, do not agree with the taking of human life. Suicide is selfish, you are not taking into considerations of others around you.

What's intuitively and obviously bad about murder is that it's never you who bears the full consequences of your actions. In suicide this is not the case:

What's the difference between drinking yourself stupid and forcibly poisoning someone?

Oh wait, they're the same...

Oh wait, no they're not, because one is obviously criminal and hurts others in a way that requires some kind of restitution/retribution/punishment/etc, and the other is a case where YOU are both the person who owes restitution and the person to be restituted, which is an instantly self-satisfying condition. Which means that any criminality that it has to it is instantaneously resolved.

Calling suicide murder shows no appreciation for just how terrible murder is. By a standard where suicide is murder, too much exercise can be seen as an act of overworking your slave. By a standard where it is not, too much exercise is seen as an act of overworking yourself.

Basically, it depends on the standard you're using, but a standard in which it is murder is a ****ing dumb standard. No hard feelings please.

On the whole hurting others/immoral issue:

If you're in bad enough shape that you don't care what they have to clean up after, you're better off killing yourself than doing something even more immoral to stay sane enough to keep living.

The alternative to suicide is not "Be happy!". It may be "Take it out on yourself vs take it out on others."

I think your conception of morality needs some work. There's a reason I avoid talking about morality. It's inconsistently defined and generally poorly thought about. Remember, we're dealing with atheists as well, not just theists. And sometimes, the crowd that doesn't give a ****:-p.

People like categorizing things because it makes them simpler. This is also why people are generally so stupid.(including myself sometimes)


"Blah blah blah and such is immoral, such and that is not," nonsense!

I'll ask you a question, Vickey:

If you killed yourself in the middle of the desert and nobody found your skeleton for 1000 years, is it still immoral?

 

[Vickey]

What's intuitively and obviously bad about murder is that it's never you who bears the full consequences of your actions. In suicide this is not the case:

What's the difference between drinking yourself stupid and forcibly poisoning someone?

Oh wait, they're the same...

Oh wait, no they're not, because one is obviously criminal and hurts others in a way that requires some kind of restitution/retribution/punishment/etc, and the other is a case where YOU are both the person who owes restitution and the person to be restituted, which is an instantly self-satisfying condition. Which means that any criminality that it has to it is instantaneously resolved.

Comparing murder and suicide is a little bit too much. I understand the consequences and motives of murder are much worse. Murder is in every way shape or form, much more dire than suicide. Murder of yourself and murder of another are two very different things in severity. It is the same thing as stealing. You steal a pack of gum, you're a petty thief. You rob a bank, you're a federal criminal.

I will try to be as specific as possible to avoid jumping in loops. Suicide is murder. You are murdering yourself. Murder of yourself is not nearly as bad as murder of another person.

About the instantaneous resolving of the criminality, there is something you forget. You leave assets behind, property, debts, liabilities, and such, which would normally be inherited to your family / beneficiaries, which can be affected. There are ways to punish a dead person.

Calling suicide murder shows no appreciation for just how terrible murder is. By a standard where suicide is murder, too much exercise can be seen as an act of overworking your slave. By a standard where it is not, too much exercise is seen as an act of overworking yourself.

Basically, it depends on the standard you're using, but a standard in which it is murder is a ****ing dumb standard. No hard feelings please.

No hard feelings. Also, this was explained above.

On the whole hurting others/immoral issue:

If you're in bad enough shape that you don't care what they have to clean up after, you're better off killing yourself than doing something even more immoral to stay sane enough to keep living.

The alternative to suicide is not "Be happy!". It may be "Take it out on yourself vs take it out on others."

This is true. There are many ridiculous extents to which you can push how important one's life is. You can even argue "It's right to abort people, because, with how society is today, it is likely they will grow up and live immoral lives and d*mn themselves. If you kill them off as babies, you are saving them, because you are giving them a free ticket to heaven." This is in a Christian standpoint of course.

Now, as much as I would like to say that a person can let go of their life when it seems most hopeless, if there is nothing to be gained from living, the truth is, I do not agree. If this is a morality debate, then opinions are what count. Life is too sacred, for any human being to take away. Whether or not you believe in a deity, there are social norms, laws, and codes of conduct we must follow. So as I will address your question of the desert below, in a given scenario where one kills himself, he committed an immoral act.

I think your conception of morality needs some work. There's a reason I avoid talking about morality. It's inconsistently defined and generally poorly thought about. Remember, we're dealing with atheists as well, not just theists. And sometimes, the crowd that doesn't give a ****:-p.

I was perfectly aware that I was speaking to a majority left crowd with little regards to theology. It doesn't change the fact that it is what I believe in. In a normal debate, I would be unbiased. However this is a debate based on morality and so theology, my beliefs, and religion is extremely relevant to my arguments.

People like categorizing things because it makes them simpler. This is also why people are generally so stupid.(including myself sometimes)


"Blah blah blah and such is immoral, such and that is not," nonsense!

I'll ask you a question, Vickey:

If you killed yourself in the middle of the desert and nobody found your skeleton for 1000 years, is it still immoral?

I began to answer this above. As I said:

Now, as much as I would like to say that a person can let go of their life when it seems most hopeless, if there is nothing to be gained from living, the truth is, I do not agree. If this is a morality debate, then opinions are what count. Life is too sacred, for any human being to take away. Whether or not you believe in a deity, there are social norms, laws, and codes of conduct we must follow. So as I will address your question of the desert below, in a given scenario where one kills himself, he committed an immoral act.

Suicide, whether it occurs in a society with laws against it, in the desert that you describe, in the middle of the ocean, or in a crowded street, is still suicide. As much as suicide which affects people around you negatively probably seems to be worse, suicide is always the same act. Suicide is killing yourself, and the act is what is immoral, not the situation in which you do it (albheit sacrifice, which I explained earlier, is not suicide). So yes, it is immoral to kill yourself regardless of the circumastances.

 

[Deleted member]

Vickey, you need to strengthen your arguments, namely in areas of fallacies. For example, your entire arguments beg the following questions: how do we declare, objectively, what is immoral? How do we know if death is a bad thing?

Answering these questions will undoubtedly help your case. I'm not going to say my take on the matter because that's not really what I feel I'm here to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

[Vickey]

It is nearly impossible to prove "objectively" what is and is not moral. Humans are both part rational, and part emotional. Nobody is purely objective, because everyone falls prey to their emotions to some extent when trying to think rationally.

If I were speaking to a mostly church going crowd, the question on morality would be a breeze. "Whatever the [Bible, Qoran, Torah] says.

If I were speaking to a politician, the answer would be "whatever is written into the law."

But I am speaking to a mostly atheist and agnostic group, with their own personal beliefs that usually do not have much influence from the law.

So therefore, the only thing I can do to objectively prove the immorality of something, is my opinion. In the same way, I ask you Delorted, or anybody else, to prove why it is not immoral to kill yourself.

From my point of view, morality comes from the values I was raised with and the values I adopted from outside influences that I adopted as my own. These values include a high regard for human life, and as such, I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of a human being, be it their own.


How would I define morality, when these definitions are based not on our rationality, but on our emotionality? No two people would ever agree entirely on a clear definition of what is immoral.


Morality is a concept so vague, that it can't be put into specific words, or a specific definition. At least myself, I am not able to do so any better than I have already attempted.

 

[Deleted member]

Fair enough. You have not proven, however, that killing yourself is murder. It's your body, it's your choice what you decide to do with it. Like I've said before, I can think of plenty of reasons to rationally kill yourself. This does not have to coincide with depression or other unfortunate situations - I've thought about killing myself just to see what happens next.

The law is influenced democratically. Thinking for yourself is the only way to affect laws and in turn make them better suit our civilization. Morality will never be objective, but I can state objectively that killing yourself is not murder. Quite definitively, killing yourself is called suicide. We use a separate word for a reason.

 

[kingdomofthehearts_snucas]

Fair enough. You have not proven, however, that killing yourself is murder. It's your body, it's your choice what you decide to do with it. Like I've said before, I can think of plenty of reasons to rationally kill yourself. This does not have to coincide with depression or other unfortunate situations - I've thought about killing myself just to see what happens next.

The law is influenced democratically. Thinking for yourself is the only way to affect laws and in turn make them better suit our civilization. Morality will never be objective, but I can state objectively that killing yourself is not murder. Quite definitively, killing yourself is called suicide. We use a separate word for a reason.

Sorry for just jumping in here, but as stated by RDK, murder is taking another life. Suicide is taking your own life for personal reason. Such as a loss, or wanting to escape an ailment. So to get the point across, suicide is technically not murder. On the other half of the spectrum, it is not ok to commit suicide. To refer to the title, and add my own little spin on this, killing yourself is a sin in the Bible. One of the Seven Deadly Sins is Greed. Greed can refer to money, or in this case, emotional/physical greed, as I see it. This may be contradictory to what I said just now, but you have the privilege to take your own life. To make your own decisions. My point is that I believe it is not OK to take your own life, but at the same time, no one can stop you, except yourself. For the atheists I have only touched on the Bible Followers side, please forgive me for that.

Off topic, I am a new debater, and trying to see if I can see all sides of the story, if I am missing anything, confront me with it.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

-KOTH

 

[Deleted member]

So is it not okay to commit suicide, or do you have the privilege? You've just stated both.

 

[kingdomofthehearts_snucas]

So is it not okay to commit suicide, or do you have the privilege? You've just stated both.

Personally this is a hard topic to choose an answer for that. I would say no, it is not, because I am a follower of the Bible.

-KOTH

 

[Vickey]

Edit:

Meant to edit previous post, somehow my computer fritzed on me and messed up. Will come back and edit this when I construct my arguments further.

 

[Palpi]

Suicide is taking a life. Murder is taking a life. Murder-suicide can be murdering someone and killing yourself. That is removing 2 people in essence from this world so suicide isn't any different. You are killing yourself thus making 1 less person on Earth so I could say I view it as murder of yourself.

 

[KrazyGlue]

There are certain situations where committing suicide is not immoral because you are no longer "killing yourself" but you are actually "sacrificing yourself". There is a clear difference. Given your idea about being tortured to give information that could potentially lead to harming your country and the loss of more lives, sacrificing your life for your country would not be immoral.

You have the right to weigh the options, and if it means saving the lives of others, then you are allowed to make that decision. There have been many cases where people walked into their death to save others. That is not suicide, that is sacrifice. If that person took his life, he was dying for what he believed in. Religions also call this martyrdom. Governments call it patriotic.

Then, in terms of the topic, "Are there times and situation in which committing suicide should be an option", you agree that the answer is yes.
____________________________________________

In terms of whether suicide is morally correct, it all depends on a large amount of factors, such as family involvement, whether the problem can be fixed, etc. Labeling suicide as either moral or immoral is not really possible due to the large variety of situations.

Suicide is taking a life. Murder is taking a life. Murder-suicide can be murdering someone and killing yourself. That is removing 2 people in essence from this world so suicide isn't any different. You are killing yourself thus making 1 less person on Earth so I could say I view it as murder of yourself.

Murder is defined as killing someone other than yourself: http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=murder&search=search

Suicide is not murder.

 

[kingdomofthehearts_snucas]

Then, in terms of the topic, "Are there times and situation in which committing suicide should be an option", you agree that the answer is yes.
____________________________________________

In terms of whether suicide is morally correct, it all depends on a large amount of factors, such as family involvement, whether the problem can be fixed, etc. Labeling suicide as either moral or immoral is not really possible due to the large variety of situations.




Murder is defined as killing someone other than yourself: http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=murder&search=search

Suicide is not murder.

I have to agree with all of this. Suicide is a big part in my life, this topic really hits home.

-KOTH

 

[Palpi]

It seems like I have strayed from the point of the topic. Murder or not you are removing a person from this world and there should never be a time or place where that is acceptable.

I mean, if you have nobody loving you and you are an 80 year old, deathly ill, prisonder of war (combination of previous arguements) than I could understand, but really it is absurd.

 

[RDK]

You're wrong. The morality on that issue does not revolve around the fact that it can or cannot be defined as murder. Taking your own life is immoral, whether or not you believe you have the right to do so. You'll tell me that everyone can do with their bodies as they please, as long as they don't harm others. Even if you bring up the argument that other people are being selfish for not allowing you to take your own life, you still can't deny that when you take your own life, other people suffer from it.

There are a myriad of other legal actions I could take that would cause people to suffer.

Take the job market, for example. Me getting a job over somebody else effectively pushes that person out of potentially getting that job. Or even the economy: me spending my money on one business rather than another means I'm giving my support to that business while ignoring others, possibly letting them fail.

This is what you're not understanding. Everything we do in life has an effect. We are the cause. Trying to calculate every single impact we have on other people when we make a decision is ludicrous and impractical.

That being said, I'm going to again restate my position, because you seem to be missing the point. Suicide is a personal thing involving one person. It is an individual deciding to end his life. End of story. Nobody else is a part of it; it's decision that does (and should) effect only him. If his friends were such great friends beforehand, they should have tried to talk the person out of it. If not, then they pretty much deserve to suffer.

Family members get torn apart

Appeal to emotion. Also, I would hope my family has the sense to realize I'm depressed enough to commit suicide. It would be kind of selfish to only worry about your feelings when somebody just offed themselves.

Police officers have to work harder, filing reports, having to run investigations. People have to clean up the mess you leave behind.

That's their job. They're getting paid for it. What's your point? Every time a fire breaks out, firefighters have to come and clean it up for you. Sure, it's bad thing to happen, and it's a strain on the firefighters, but it's also their job. Are you saying we should abolish all things that have the potential to start a fire? You want us to ban stoves and lighters?

I am arguing about the morality of suicide. Suicide is taking your own life, on that part we all agree on. It is irrelevant to me whether or not suicide is murder. The mere act of taking your own life is immoral.

Can you give me some reasoning? You keep repeating that suicide is immoral, but you have yet to provide compelling evidence for this claim.

You try to tear up my arguments with technicalities, instead of viewing the overall spectrum of my points. But if you want to get technical, then, euthanasia is not just assisted suicide, it is mercy killing. Not all euthanasia is assisted suicide, and there are times when euthanasia can be done on somebody without their consent (not legally). If you see a half-dead person, unconscious, and you shoot him, you performed euthanasia. So stating that euthanasia is not murder based on the fact that you are assisting a person in their suicide, is incorrect.

You're right; that was an oversight on my part. I meant to say "assisted suicide" falls under the umbrella term euthanasia, not that euthanasia itself is "assisted suicide".

In any case, the point still stands. Assisted suicide is not murder, seeing as how the decision to commit suicide was made voluntarily by the person about to die. You wouldn't consider me the main architect of your house if I merely assisted you in building it, would you?

You're right. I also don't know the situation of everyone who contemplates robbery, murder, ****, and other acts of aggression. Who is to say they didn't rob because they were starving? Who is to say their reason for killing wasn't important enough? What about drugging yourself? Buying drugs gives funds to narcotic dealers and black market criminals who engage in many violent acts. Who is to say that buying drugs isn't immoral because you are indirectly promoting street violence?

You don't know anyone's situation entirely. Ever. Much less everyone's. That is why as human beings we should not be judging anyone. Laws are set to keep the peace amongst people, and establish order. And as I showed you before, the US has laws on suicide.

And it's my opinion that those laws should be changed. Protecting the "rights of society" is counter-intuitive to individual civil rights.

You are not wrong in your statement. Everything one does has the potential to be harmful to someone else. But each action is either morally right or wrong, and even while doing the right thing can be harmful to a person (for x reason), society has established laws to be the indicators of what we should and should not be doing. We can't obviously determine the morality of every issue based on who it can potentially harm. No matter which way you view yourself, you have to follow rules. If you follow a creed or belief, you have to follow the established rules of your religion. If you are an atheist, you still have to follow the rules of your society and government.

My point is, if there is nothing wrong with killing yourself, then why is it not allowed to be done? Because, even the foundation of the laws in the United States are based on morality, and suicide is not moral.

Appeal to authority. Just because something is a law or is an established tradition does not make it right. That's why we have so much fighting in US politics to get laws like this one changed.

I understand the way you feel about your libertarian views, and I respect that. Because we do not share the same opinions, does not discredit my arguments. If people only matter as individuals, then there is nothing wrong with people taking advantage of the next guy for their benefit, because in the end, what matters is that individual anyway. That life becomes "survival of the fittest". Whether you like it or not, America is a society, and we have to abide by those rules. And you are wrong, there are group rights. Women were given the right to vote by the 19th Amendment. Women received a right as a "group" to be able to vote.

You've got the right idea, but then again, no, women (and blacks, for that matter) do not have the "group right" to vote. What essentially happened was that their civil right to do so as an individual (not based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc.) was "recognized" by the State, allowing them to participate in elections and such. The "group" of women, African Americans, etc. were not granted an "extra right" by the State; the government realized that they should have had that right all along.

TL ; DR: women don't have any rights as a group, they have rights as an individual citizen of the United States, just like anybody else. The problem was that people saw fit to not give them that right in the first place, and it needed to be corrected (Women's Rights Movemement).

Really? Because last I remembered it wasn't popular to have conservative views in the Debate Hall (or PG). I don't have a mob mentality, I have a high regard for human life, and the structures of a society. Peace and stability do not form themselves. If people are left on their own, I would place my money on betting that the chances of chaos would be much greater.

Yes, you're right; conservative viewpoints are not generally popular in any debate forum. And for that I commend you on sticking to your principles and attempting to decently support them.

Then I would ask you to offer me your evidence supporting the idea that suicide is not immoral.

I believe it's not immoral because the effect it has on other people isn't great enough to warrant making it illegal. If that person were to commit suicide in the privacy of his own home, it effects virtually nobody. If that person were to commit suicide by strapping a bomb to himself and blowing up a factory, killing hundreds of workers, then I would probably view that as immoral, considering he also harmed other people in his action.

There are certain situations where committing suicide is not immoral because you are no longer "killing yourself" but you are actually "sacrificing yourself". There is a clear difference. Given your idea about being tortured to give information that could potentially lead to harming your country and the loss of more lives, sacrificing your life for your country would not be immoral. You have the right to weigh the options, and if it means saving the lives of others, then you are allowed to make that decision. There have been many cases where people walked into their death to save others. That is not suicide, that is sacrifice. If that person took his life, he was dying for what he believed in. Religions also call this martyrdom. Governments call it patriotic.

So what you're saying is that if you're not doing it for a selfish reason, you can do it?

This is the mob mentality I was talking about, and it's the fundamental mindset of a communist culture. Everybody works for the good of everybody else, but god help you if you have a single selfish thought.

Let me ask you a question. What would happen to the economy if you had no incentive to do any work except the knowledge that the harder you worked, the more your neighbor received?

Also, mental harm is very important. There are many psychiatric, and mental clinics in the United States from people who have suffered irreparable mental damage, and can no longer function as normal individuals.

Like I said, I have no empathy for people who turn a blind eye to a potentially suicidal human being.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It seems like I have strayed from the point of the topic. Murder or not you are removing a person from this world and there should never be a time or place where that is acceptable.

I mean, if you have nobody loving you and you are an 80 year old, deathly ill, prisonder of war (combination of previous arguements) than I could understand, but really it is absurd.

First of all, you contradicted yourself (bolded text).


Second of all, a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it is not physically endangering others.

To clarify:

You are saying though you are not killing somebody else, you are still killing yourself and therefore it is wrong because you should not "remove a person from the world".

Example of this logic:

Even though domestic violence is already illegal, it should also be illegal to hit yourself because nobody deserves to get hit.

 

[Vickey]

There are a myriad of other legal actions I could take that would cause people to suffer.

Take the job market, for example. Me getting a job over somebody else effectively pushes that person out of potentially getting that job. Or even the economy: me spending my money on one business rather than another means I'm giving my support to that business while ignoring others, possibly letting them fail.

This is what you're not understanding. Everything we do in life has an effect. We are the cause. Trying to calculate every single impact we have on other people when we make a decision is ludicrous and impractical.

We can't take free will out of people either. People have the choices to make, and we just have to hope people make ethical choices always. In that scenario, your choice may benefit one person over another, but then the next person's choice would balance that out.

That being said, I'm going to again restate my position, because you seem to be missing the point. Suicide is a personal thing involving one person. It is an individual deciding to end his life. End of story. Nobody else is a part of it; it's decision that does (and should) effect only him. If his friends were such great friends beforehand, they should have tried to talk the person out of it. If not, then they pretty much deserve to suffer.[/COLOR]

Not everyone is entirely aware of another person's inner turmoils. There are many people who are very inward and cannot express themselves to others. I have known many people who have gone through long periods of suffering without anyone noticing and they had many people who cared for them. Nobody deserves to suffer, no matter how much at fault they may be for something.

Appeal to emotion. Also, I would hope my family has the sense to realize I'm depressed enough to commit suicide. It would be kind of selfish to only worry about your feelings when somebody just offed themselves.

Of course, but killing yourself often makes the family feel to blame. Parents blame themselves for not adequately raising their child, brothers for not being there, etc. Suicide should not be the last resort.

That's their job. They're getting paid for it. What's your point? Every time a fire breaks out, firefighters have to come and clean it up for you. Sure, it's bad thing to happen, and it's a strain on the firefighters, but it's also their job. Are you saying we should abolish all things that have the potential to start a fire? You want us to ban stoves and lighters?

No. However, I am pointing out that suicide can carry many other problems along with it.

Can you give me some reasoning? You keep repeating that suicide is immoral, but you have yet to provide compelling evidence for this claim.

Suicide is immoral because we do not have the right to take human life. Any human life whatsoever.

You're right; that was an oversight on my part. I meant to say "assisted suicide" falls under the umbrella term euthanasia, not that euthanasia itself is "assisted suicide".

In any case, the point still stands. Assisted suicide is not murder, seeing as how the decision to commit suicide was made voluntarily by the person about to die. You wouldn't consider me the main architect of your house if I merely assisted you in building it, would you?

It is the same thing as being an accomplice to murder. These people become criminals as well, even if they had no direct impact on the person's killing.

And it's my opinion that those laws should be changed. Protecting the "rights of society" is counter-intuitive to individual civil rights.

People function as a society, and society needs its protection as well. Thanks to societies and people working together, we have 99.9% of the commodities we live with today. You can't complain about societies if you are using everything that was developed by them, that is hypocrisy. And you my friend, I see you using the internet and a computer. Two great inventions started by people who worked together in a society to further technology.

Individuals are the most important part of a society. That I can agree with. That is true. However, a society in itself is also important, because people must learn to work together. It is like the math equation, 1 + 1 = 3. With synergy, people can create a lot more and expand, and having a society is beneficial to everyone, and this society also needs to be protected.

Yes, you're right; conservative viewpoints are not generally popular in any debate forum. And for that I commend you on sticking to your principles and attempting to decently support them.



I believe it's not immoral because the effect it has on other people isn't great enough to warrant making it illegal. If that person were to commit suicide in the privacy of his own home, it effects virtually nobody. If that person were to commit suicide by strapping a bomb to himself and blowing up a factory, killing hundreds of workers, then I would probably view that as immoral, considering he also harmed other people in his action.



So what you're saying is that if you're not doing it for a selfish reason, you can do it?

This is the mob mentality I was talking about, and it's the fundamental mindset of a communist culture. Everybody works for the good of everybody else, but god help you if you have a single selfish thought.

Let me ask you a question. What would happen to the economy if you had no incentive to do any work except the knowledge that the harder you worked, the more your neighbor received?



Like I said, I have no empathy for people who turn a blind eye to a potentially suicidal human being.

Suicidal people need help. On that I agree. However, that mentality goes hand in hand with communism, which eliminates much of the free choice belief that America was founded upon.

I have shown you how suicide will always harm someone else no matter what, and even if it did not, that person still does not have the right to take human life.

You've got the right idea, but then again, no, women (and blacks, for that matter) do not have the "group right" to vote. What essentially happened was that their civil right to do so as an individual (not based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc.) was "recognized" by the State, allowing them to participate in elections and such. The "group" of women, African Americans, etc. were not granted an "extra right" by the State; the government realized that they should have had that right all along.

You are contradicting yourself. They did recieve the group right, because they did deserve to have it all along. Women as a group were considered to not be worthy enough to vote for a long time. Giving them the right to vote is absolutely a group right.

 

[w!zard]

[/color]Suicide is immoral because we do not have the right to take human life. Any human life whatsoever.

suicide does not infringe on the rights of others, so where is the immorality?

 

[RDK]

We can't take free will out of people either. People have the choices to make, and we just have to hope people make ethical choices always. In that scenario, your choice may benefit one person over another, but then the next person's choice would balance that out.

Where's the evidence for this? It sounds like you're espousing some sort of odd karma system.

Not everyone is entirely aware of another person's inner turmoils. There are many people who are very inward and cannot express themselves to others. I have known many people who have gone through long periods of suffering without anyone noticing and they had many people who cared for them. Nobody deserves to suffer, no matter how much at fault they may be for something.

Again, this is personal opinion and is all based on an ethical and moral viewpoint, which is subjective. Asserting your views over and over again do not make them true. Try arguing from an objective standard and maybe we'll get somewhere.

Of course, but killing yourself often makes the family feel to blame. Parents blame themselves for not adequately raising their child, brothers for not being there, etc.

Uh, perhaps because all of those things contributed to that person committing suicide? It may not be the main cause, but they certainly weren't helping by standing around doing absolutely nothing.

Suicide is immoral because we do not have the right to take human life. Any human life whatsoever.

Where are you getting this from? And I've already stated why as individuals we have the right to do with our life as we please, as long as it's not explicitly harming a third party in the process.

It is the same thing as being an accomplice to murder. These people become criminals as well, even if they had no direct impact on the person's killing.

And why is this? Because the government says so. That's never a good reason to not do something (or to do something, for that matter).

People function as a society, and society needs its protection as well. Thanks to societies and people working together, we have 99.9% of the commodities we live with today. You can't complain about societies if you are using everything that was developed by them, that is hypocrisy. And you my friend, I see you using the internet and a computer. Two great inventions started by people who worked together in a society to further technology.

Wrong. Society is nothing but a bunch of individuals, and because of this the entire philosophy of human rights is founded upon the individual. Inventions such as the the internet and the computer were developed by individuals, not entities or groups.

Individuals are the most important part of a society. That I can agree with. That is true. However, a society in itself is also important, because people must learn to work together. It is like the math equation, 1 + 1 = 3. With synergy, people can create a lot more and expand, and having a society is beneficial to everyone, and this society also needs to be protected.

Yes, but what is the most reductionist form of a "society"? The individual people. You can't have a "group" without singular people.

Suicidal people need help. On that I agree. However, that mentality goes hand in hand with communism, which eliminates much of the free choice belief that America was founded upon.

You can help a suicidal person without being a communist.

I have shown you how suicide will always harm someone else no matter what, and even if it did not, that person still does not have the right to take human life.

Yes he does, if it's his life.

You are contradicting yourself. They did recieve the group right, because they did deserve to have it all along. Women as a group were considered to not be worthy enough to vote for a long time. Giving them the right to vote is absolutely a group right.

No, it's not a contradiction. Those people had the right to do so from the beginning, but they were explicitly denied the power to express those rights by sexist and racist agendas. They were not granted any rights, their rights were given back to them.

Let me make it simpler. No particular group has any more or less rights than any other group. This is where things like historical slavery stem from--the idea that this group over here has more rights than that group over there. As human beings, we all have the same exact rights imparted onto us by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Suicide is bad on so many levels. First of all your killing yourserlf and since you only live once in this world your throwing your life away forever and ever. It can also really harm those who care for you, also just because life isn't well doesnt mean you should kill yourself. So I really do't believe suicide is right even in terminally sick people, you probably want to live as long as you can so you have enough time to say goodbye and live while you can. So suicide is bad, very bad.

 

[Lovely]

If suicide is an option the the person that want to kill themselves than what motive will it accomplish? If your a powerful businessman and just kill yourself with no motive then the buisness man's company may fall, and/or rise from the ashes. No one in this world knows what happen after death, so killing yourself to find that out isn't a very good motive, a good movite of suicide is to protect someone that is in danger to you when it come's to house fires, random gun shooting etc, (I counted the dangers of doing those activities are suicide if your an amature about the events that I listed). Anyting else with out a good reason would be a twisted plan with no accomplishment but free of pain for your ownlife in this world.

 

[Nysyarc]

So I really do't believe suicide is right even in terminally sick people

From a logical stand-point, a terminally ill person will die soon, because they are terminally ill. So, prolonging their life would only be lengthening the goodbye session you mention. I think that would be more painful for a family, and wouldn't be fair to them.

If a person is suffering, physically or mentally, from a terminal illness, then it wouldn't be fair to them or their family to keep them alive any longer than necessary. I believe the sick person in that case has every right to choose for him/herself whether to end their life early.

As for the subject of morality and subjective debating that gets brought up here... this is obviously a personal issue, and although it can be looked at from a strictly objective and logical standpoint, it is inevitable that morals will interfere.

Morality is something that each individual person must define for themselves. We aren't taught about morals. We are taught about the law, and how we should behave, but morality is different. Morality decides whether people break those laws or not.

My morals tell me that suicide is only the right choice if death is imminent and inevitable, and making it come sooner will have some sort of benefit for myself or others. Suicide without benefit and without logical reason, is wrong in my opinion.

 

[L666]

Suicide should always be an option.
Note: option. The wording completely invalidates any argument against the above statement.

 

[Vickey]

Where's the evidence for this? It sounds like you're espousing some sort of odd karma system.

It's not a karma system, but that does not change the fact that you are responsible for your actions. That is why phrases like "respect for others" exist, and why we have laws to follow.

Again, this is personal opinion and is all based on an ethical and moral viewpoint, which is subjective. Asserting your views over and over again do not make them true. Try arguing from an objective standard and maybe we'll get somewhere.

Objectively, everyone has a responsibility to themselves and to society (as much as you do not like to admit it, it still remains true). We have to balance our actions so they can come to a medium where they benefit both ourselves without affecting society adversely, and the other way around as well. Helping society without harming ourselves either.

Uh, perhaps because all of those things contributed to that person committing suicide? It may not be the main cause, but they certainly weren't helping by standing around doing absolutely nothing.

It is not always the case. The blame they bring upon themselves is mostly caused by their grief, and not usually by their inability to help the person who committed suicide. More often than not, the families are not to blame.

Handsonhealth.org states that the majority of suicides occur when people go through situations that make them feel hopeless (most common are loss of a job or divorce for adults, and usually school and other pressuers for teenagers). 90% of people who commit suicide are also depressed.

What this is trying to say is often times the reason people commit suicide are not the cause but more a "trigger" to suicide. The real problem usually lies in the people's depression, and their lack of feeling they have a way out. Although you can say that the family could be at fault, often times a family could be doing absolutely everything they can to try to help the person, and he still commits suicide. So in your statement, condemning the family is incorrect. More times than not, it is not the family's fault. And if they could have done something, they still do not deserve that suffering. It is unfortunate to see a family torn apart because they failed to help their child through a depression, but unfortunately this does not make them bad people and suffering is not deserved.

Where are you getting this from? And I've already stated why as individuals we have the right to do with our life as we please, as long as it's not explicitly harming a third party in the process.

It is very uncommon for one's own self-destruction to not cause any harm to anybody whatsoever. But even in cases where people do this without affecting others, they are still affecting themselves.

Wrong. Society is nothing but a bunch of individuals, and because of this the entire philosophy of human rights is founded upon the individual. Inventions such as the the internet and the computer were developed by individuals, not entities or groups.

And as such, people have to develop a respect for the society, for themselves, and the individuals in the society. A society is important because it brings a group of people together with common interests and beliefs. We are just as responsible for a group of people as we are for every single individual in that group. If groups don't matter and it is only up to every single individual, why do problems like racism still exist? Racism is directly affecting groups of people, and if everyone was judged at an individual basis like you say, then these problems would not exist that harm specific groups of people.

Yes, but what is the most reductionist form of a "society"? The individual people. You can't have a "group" without singular people.

Correct, individuals make up societies. That does not change the fact that these groups (and societies) exist however.

No, it's not a contradiction. Those people had the right to do so from the beginning, but they were explicitly denied the power to express those rights by sexist and racist agendas. They were not granted any rights, their rights were given back to them.

Let me make it simpler. No particular group has any more or less rights than any other group. This is where things like historical slavery stem from--the idea that this group over here has more rights than that group over there. As human beings, we all have the same exact rights imparted onto us by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

These are still group rights. The problem with these is the society and group should be a large and single group of "Americans", and people broke this down into several other groups (with intentions as you stated above) like the "Whites", "Hispanics", "Blacks", "Asians", etc. The problem is those groups of people like women, and blacks, should have always been part of the larger and broader group encompassing all of the rights, called "Americans", and never part of the subgroup with less rights that they were labeled as.

If suicide is an option the the person that want to kill themselves than what motive will it accomplish? If your a powerful businessman and just kill yourself with no motive then the buisness man's company may fall, and/or rise from the ashes. No one in this world knows what happen after death, so killing yourself to find that out isn't a very good motive, a good movite of suicide is to protect someone that is in danger to you when it come's to house fires, random gun shooting etc, (I counted the dangers of doing those activities are suicide if your an amature about the events that I listed). Anyting else with out a good reason would be a twisted plan with no accomplishment but free of pain for your ownlife in this world.

Protecting someone in danger is not suicide, that is sacrifice. They are explicitly different, because you are giving your life specificly so that others can live.

From a logical stand-point, a terminally ill person will die soon, because they are terminally ill. So, prolonging their life would only be lengthening the goodbye session you mention. I think that would be more painful for a family, and wouldn't be fair to them.

Right, and how many people have been named terminally ill and made it? Everyone's situation is different and one terminally ill person's family may suffer more by his life ending sooner, and that person may also want to stay around longer for his family. Generalizing every terminally ill person makes no sense.

if a person is suffering, physically or mentally, from a terminal illness, then it wouldn't be fair to them or their family to keep them alive any longer than necessary. I believe the sick person in that case has every right to choose for him/herself whether to end their life early.

If their life is about to end, then it needs to end naturally. They can choose to discontinue their medication if they see it as a dead end with no means, then they can. But hastening their death is immoral.

the subject of morality and subjective debating that gets brought up here... this is obviously a personal issue, and although it can be looked at from a strictly objective and logical standpoint, it is inevitable that morals will interfere.

Correct.

Morality is something that each individual person must define for themselves. We aren't taught about morals. We are taught about the law, and how we should behave, but morality is different. Morality decides whether people break those laws or not.

Of course we are taught about morals. That is what "being raised" is all about. Our parents raise us telling us "Hitting your little brother is wrong" and such others are all values with a foundation of morality we are taught as we grow up.

 

[Nysyarc]

Right, and how many people have been named terminally ill and made it? Everyone's situation is different and one terminally ill person's family may suffer more by his life ending sooner, and that person may also want to stay around longer for his family. Generalizing every terminally ill person makes no sense.

I am simply saying that it should be the person in question's choice on the matter. I don't see how a family would suffer more if a loved one died sooner rather than later if it was by that person's own decision. If one of my family members was suffering from a terminal illness, I would not want them to be in pain just so that I could see them alive for a longer time. If they elected to end it early, I would understand their decision and know that they are no longer suffering.

If they wanted to remain alive as long as possible, then obviously I would not have a problem with that either. However, a drawn out death would seem to be more stressful for everyone involved than a quick one in my opinion.

If their life is about to end, then it needs to end naturally. They can choose to discontinue their medication if they see it as a dead end with no means, then they can. But hastening their death is immoral.

Ah but keeping someone alive with medication and/or life support machines is not natural is it? If everyone were to be left to die naturally, the terminal illness part of this debate would be left out entirely because in all cases, they would not have the choice of being kept alive.

Here is a scenario: you see a bird lying beside a path in the forest as you are walking by. When you approach the bird, you notice that it is injured beyond recovery, but not quite dead (we're assuming that you know how to identify a fatal injury). If left alive, it will suffer in pain for several long hours until it dies naturally; however, if you quickly snap it's neck, it will die instantly with no pain. In this case, would hastening the bird's death be immoral? Would the bird want you to end it's life sooner?

Of course we are taught about morals. That is what "being raised" is all about. Our parents raise us telling us "Hitting your little brother is wrong" and such others are all values with a foundation of morality we are taught as we grow up.

Yes but as we get older we realize that those morals are not laws, but choices we must make for ourselves. Sure, hitting someone can be considered assault, and so technically is a law, but whether or not we actually hit someone depends on our personal set of morals. Parents try to push their own personal morals on their children, but a serial killer can be born from humble, honest parents.

Don't get my wrong, I understand that parents do make a big impression on their children in terms of morals. However, the morals that are taught to us by our parents are more like guidelines, and it is up to the individual to decide whether those guidelines are the right ones.

 

[crynts]

I am simply saying that it should be the person in question's choice on the matter. I don't see how a family would suffer more if a loved one died sooner rather than later if it was by that person's own decision. If one of my family members was suffering from a terminal illness, I would not want them to be in pain just so that I could see them alive for a longer time. If they elected to end it early, I would understand their decision and know that they are no longer suffering.

That may be true in theory, but it's hardly true in practice. If your loving parents were dying, woudn't you want to make sure everything is being done to save them? Most people (not neccesarily you) are selfish and know that their family members might be in a great deal of pain just to survive a couple hours yet will still want them to be alive.

Anyway, I think that this isn't really what the debate is about. Any suicide under conditions where the person is healthy enough to walk is wrong. From the athiest point of view, why end this life early if it's the only life you've got? Maybe it is painful, but your not going to remember it later. And from the spiritual point of view, shouldn't God determine when you die? Who's really in control of your life?

 

[Nysyarc]

That may be true in theory, but it's hardly true in practice. If your loving parents were dying, wouldn't you want to make sure everything is being done to save them?

I'm not saying that most people want their family members to pass away sooner in those cases, I'm saying that the decision should be up to the person who is terminally ill, not the family or anyone else.

Anyway, I think that this isn't really what the debate is about.

Yes it is.

Any suicide under conditions where the person is healthy enough to walk is wrong.

'Healthy enough to walk' is too large of a generalization. If I got shot in the stomach and could not get to a hospital or do anything about it, I would die from external and internal bleeding after a few hours. I would still be capable of walking, though it would probably increase my pain. So then, would I be unjustified in taking my own life early to avoid further agony just because I could walk?