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

[Vickey]

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.

Many terminally ill people want to stay alive as long as possible to live that time with their family. I have worked with many of them and seen this occurring often, and it is also common sense for people not to want to die and try to live as long as possible. Technically we are all start dying the day we are born. There are many people that know their time is about to come and do not want to die.

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.

Your opinion is not necessarily shared by every terminally ill person and that respective person's family in the world.

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.

Right, and using cell phones and being online is not natural either. With that rationale we might as well go back to being cavepeople.

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?

That is entirely subjective. My personal view on the matter would mean nothing, because I simply would be incapable of killing it (whether or not it was right, wrong, and whether or not the bird wanted to die). Comparing the importance of a bird's life to that of a human's life is also a big distortion when relating this to morality.

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.

Parents have a huge influence on their children. More chances than not, a child is influenced by his home more than anything. Granted, if a serial killer came from a caring and good family, he could have been influenced negatively by school, the media, or something else. The parents could have been too overbearing and caused extreme stress for him, etc.

 

[RDK]

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.

My point was that there is no possible way to know exactly what consequences all of your actions will cause. If you look hard enough, literally everything you do, no matter how microscopic, has some sort of consequence. Worrying about one of them without worrying about all of them is arbitrary and counter-intuitive.

Objectively, everyone has a responsibility to themselves and to society (as much as you do not like to admit it, it still remains true).

Once again, you assert your points on the basis of...nothing. Show me how there is such a thing as objective morality and then we'll get somewhere.

In the event that your search comes up empty, let me spare you the time and frustration: there are no objective morals. Ethical codes are an invention of mankind (despite the fact that morality is not exclusively human), and without them it would be nigh impossible for any society, group, or civilization to advance.

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.

Again, I ask: why?

I am the sole proprietor of my body. I am also responsible for my actions and their direct consequences on other people, as long as I consent to be a functioning part of society. This limitation does not extend to my personal self; I.E., I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't adversely effect somebody else.

Offing myself does not directly harm anybody else, unless what you truly mean when you say that is that I wouldn't be around anymore to serve other people. In which case, let's do away with the facade and just put it into the open that you're a communist.

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.

The fact that families that had the chance to help suicidal individuals but did not is an obvious indicator that they effect the individual in some shape or form. I agree that they're not 100% to blame, but they're also not completely abdicated of responsibility.

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.

My point is that the family in some way contributed to the child's depression.

But then again, everybody is responsible for his or herself, so unless the family is directly harming said individual, it doesn't necessarily have to be any of their concern (I'm assuming we're not talking about children; in which case it would be the family's responsibility, being that they're the caretaker of the child). Which brings us back around to my original point.

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.

...and there's something wrong with that how?

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.

No we're not. I've already explained to you why a group is nothing but individuals. You can't care for a disembodied entity; you can only care for people.

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.

The reason we have racism is because people like you put too much emphasis on groups. What you're failing to understand is that I'm advocating the exact opposite; emphasis on the individual.

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

For the millionth time, a society is a describing word for a group of individuals. Just like a pod describes a group of whales, or a flock describes a group of birds. They are not singular units themselves, they are a collection of singular units.

Groups are not sentient. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer without bursting a blood vessel.

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.

...so only "American" rights count? So as soon as I leave the country I should have no rights? Whatever happened to human rights?

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.

You're still making the decision to actively end your own life. Why is it okay in once circumstance but not okay in another?

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.

Not everybody is raised with the same moral code.

Many terminally ill people want to stay alive as long as possible to live that time with their family. I have worked with many of them and seen this occurring often, and it is also common sense for people not to want to die and try to live as long as possible. Technically we are all start dying the day we are born. There are many people that know their time is about to come and do not want to die.

It's very true that we all start dying when we're born. So logically every decision we make either lengthens or shortens our lifespan. Why is eating unhealthy food (such as me downing a Snickers bar instead of a salad at lunchtime) any different than ending my life when I'm terminally ill? Both are contributing to the deterioration of my body.

I'm still effectively "killing" myself if I smoke cigarettes every day; just not as quickly as if I were to slit my wrists or put a bullet in my brain.

Right, and using cell phones and being online is not natural either. With that rationale we might as well go back to being cavepeople.

Well technically cell phones, computers, and other technology are natural, seeing as how they came from humans, and humans are part of nature. You wouldn't call a beaver dam "unnatural", would you?

But of course this all depends on your definition of "natural", which you should probably state if this tangent is going to go anywhere.

That is entirely subjective. My personal view on the matter would mean nothing, because I simply would be incapable of killing it (whether or not it was right, wrong, and whether or not the bird wanted to die). Comparing the importance of a bird's life to that of a human's life is also a big distortion when relating this to morality.

Why? Objectively speaking, how is a bird's life of less importance than a human's life?

And important to who?

 

[crynts]

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.

Fair enough, though a person who is terminally ill might not be able to make that decision in the first place

Yes it is.

I thought this debate was about suicide, like jumping of buildings suicide, not enthuansia.

'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?

Sure, why not, your dead anyways. However, in that situation you were mudered, not commiting suicide. Also, if you cannot "do anything about it," then how are you supposed to take your own life?

Situations like the one you described will usually kill you regardless of what you do. I don't think justifying "suicide" in those situations would justify something like suicide after losing your job. They are completely different situations.

 

[Nysyarc]

Fair enough, though a person who is terminally ill might not be able to make that decision in the first place.

Touché. In that case though, suicide contemplation is out of the question entirely.

I thought this debate was about suicide, like jumping of buildings suicide, not enthuansia.

*Euthanasia; I wouldn't call it that if the patient in question consciously makes the decision to pull the plug though. And even if it can be called that, it can also be called suicide. Anyways, the thread title implies that any scenario can be used in argument.

Sure, why not, your dead anyways. However, in that situation you were mudered, not commiting suicide. Also, if you cannot "do anything about it," then how are you supposed to take your own life?

I am not dead yet, only dying. Who's to say I was shot by someone else? Perhaps my gun misfired and I shot myself accidentally. Even if I was shot by someone else, and I then decided to shoot myself in the head to end it quickly, it would be suicide, since technically I was not yet dead.

By 'do anything about it' I meant positively; there is nothing you can do to save your life, but you have a gun or a knife with which you can end your suffering early.

Situations like the one you described will usually kill you regardless of what you do. I don't think justifying "suicide" in those situations would justify something like suicide after losing your job. They are completely different situations.

I agree, but that is what this debate is about. Are there situations in which suicide should be an option? And I say yes, there are.

 

[Vickey]

My point was that there is no possible way to know exactly what consequences all of your actions will cause. If you look hard enough, literally everything you do, no matter how microscopic, has some sort of consequence. Worrying about one of them without worrying about all of them is arbitrary and counter-intuitive.

Right, and that kind of cynical mentality would basically make you do absolutely nothing. In that case you could even walk down the street and be faced with an ethical decision of "should I be polite to the old lady next to me" because there is a fraction of a possibility she could be offended from her perception of a false kindness, heck, it could even lead to her suicide.

But no, we weigh the consequences of our actions and decide which cause greater good, and greater harm. Generally, ethical decisions (things that are generally considered to be right, or "correct") tend to cause little harm to people.

It is true that you cannot measure absolutely every act that you do because of the potential harm it could cause, but there are certain actions that clearly cause more harm than others. Walking down the street will generally cause less harm than battering someone with a blunt object.

Once again, you assert your points on the basis of...nothing. Show me how there is such a thing as objective morality and then we'll get somewhere.

In the event that your search comes up empty, let me spare you the time and frustration: there are no objective morals. Ethical codes are an invention of mankind (despite the fact that morality is not exclusively human), and without them it would be nigh impossible for any society, group, or civilization to advance.

Exactly, that is in fact correct, assuming the absence of a deity and greater power. But to humor that idea as well (since this is not a debate on the existence or lack of existence of one), in a situation where humans are not under the influence of a God, then yes your statement is correct.

However, the clear points remain.

- Humans do not like to die.

- Humans do not like to be taken advantage of.

- Humans do not like to be hurt by others (physically, emotionally, mentally, etc)

- Humans have a natural tendency for revenge.

Putting these things together (assuming no society) we have a group of people who will understand that there are two basic rules that control their behavior:

"An eye for an eye"

and

"Do onto others as you would like them to do onto you"


Why?

Because if you hurt, you will be hurt. If you take advantage, you will be taken advantage of. And in the same sense, if you help, you will be helped. If you support, you will be supported.

Now, you can throw out and say, "People will not help each other, they will stay to themselves"

We still have the "I'll stay out of your way so you can stay out of mine" principle.

Therefore morals and ethics DO have objective reasoning because they form the idea of "I will not hurt you because I wouldn't want you to hurt me back."

Of course there would be people who wouldn't care enough, would get desperate enough, or would mess up. That is why these people would form together to create a society with these "established" rules that everyone has now to follow.

We have now created a society based on objective morals.

Again, I ask: why?

I am the sole proprietor of my body. I am also responsible for my actions and their direct consequences on other people, as long as I consent to be a functioning part of society. This limitation does not extend to my personal self; I.E., I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't adversely effect somebody else.

Offing myself does not directly harm anybody else, unless what you truly mean when you say that is that I wouldn't be around anymore to serve other people. In which case, let's do away with the facade and just put it into the open that you're a communist.

As much as pure communism is a dream for many people, it is not something I endorse either. If anything, my perception of a perfect society is more centered around the "utopian anarchy" where there is no order because there needs to be no order (people naturally respect and help each other, there is no need for law).

That aside, your body is not property. Your body is a body. I believe that we cannot go farther into this debate without going into a theist debate.

In order to prove if it is moral or immoral to commit suicide we would have to prove whether or not there is the existence of a God.

Because I believe we have come to the absolute conclusion that.

A- If there is no God, there is nothing wrong with committing suicide if you are not harming anyone.

B- If there is a God, then your body is not your property and you have to respect it, and killing yourself is immoral.


I would assume that you agree.

The reason we have racism is because people like you put too much emphasis on groups. What you're failing to understand is that I'm advocating the exact opposite; emphasis on the individual.

You don't understand that I actually follow your belief on this. However, I believe you can't be blind to the existence of groups either.

You believe groups do not exist.

I believe groups do exist, but they are harmful. Eliminating these groups to what you are stating, is what would be the "end goal" of the "perfect utopia" that we can all pretty much agree would never happen anyway.

For the millionth time, a society is a describing word for a group of individuals. Just like a pod describes a group of whales, or a flock describes a group of birds. They are not singular units themselves, they are a collection of singular units.

Key word: You just said group.

You can have a million singular units, put them together you have a singular group.

Groups are not sentient. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer without bursting a blood vessel.

You are almost correct, groups are for the most part not sentient.

Go to our basics however, and you start realizing how close to sentient groups actually start becoming. Look at the kingdom Archaea.

These tiny microorganisms do not have cell walls, or nucleus of any form. However, they manage to bond with other groups of Archaea and survive, forming a larger organism.

If groups do not exist, and groups are not sentient, then explain this to me.

Every cell in our bodily is essentially alive

We know unicellular organisms do exist. Look at bacteria.

Now, just to make it even easier for you, you throw the supposition (or I assume) that we were not created by a higher being and therefore must have come from the original life on earth universally believed to be unicellular microorganisms.

Okay, so now, we have a tiny one celled organism.

Now, look at our bodies, one cell is just that, one cell. Now we put a group of cells together, we now have tissue. Now we put groups of tissue together, we have an organ. Now we put a group of organs together, we have an organ system (IE digestive system, respiratory system, etc). Now we put a group of organ systems together, and we have an organism. Now we put a group of organisms together, we have a society.

Well technically cell phones, computers, and other technology are natural, seeing as how they came from humans, and humans are part of nature. You wouldn't call a beaver dam "unnatural", would you?

But of course this all depends on your definition of "natural", which you should probably state if this tangent is going to go anywhere.

I was cutting down this debate because of the amount of loops we were having but I could not ignore this argument you made because it was in fact, pretty amazing.

Throwing in animals (specifically beavers) and their creations as unnatural does in fact, push things beyond logic.

I can admit that point was a dead end. That would have to mean I am either Amish and do not support the use of technology, or a hypocrite. I am neither.

 

[Nysyarc]

Now, look at our bodies, one cell is just that, one cell. Now we put a group of cells together, we now have tissue. Now we put groups of tissue together, we have an organ. Now we put a group of organs together, we have an organ system (IE digestive system, respiratory system, etc). Now we put a group of organ systems together, and we have an organism. Now we put a group of organisms together, we have a society.

I will let RDK respond to the bulk of your arguments since they were directed at him, however I cannot ignore this one.

Yes, combining a group of cells in a certain fashion under certain circumstances does eventually create an organism after a long chain of events, and thus it would seem that the group is sentient. However, it is not the group that is sentient, it is the individual cells that compose the group that are alive.

A multicellular organism is sentient, but it is not grouped with it's cells, it is composed of a group of cells which are individually alive. A group, by definition of the word, cannot be sentient, because a group cannot be alive.

Think of the word 'group' as a means of classifying a number of similar objects, not as the objects themselves. In that sense, it is not a tangible noun, and something that is not tangible cannot be alive.

Edit: My bad about the sig... didn't have one until now.

 

[Vickey]

So you're saying that a human isn't sentient, since it is actually composed of billions (trillions?) of individual living cells?

If you remove a few from a group, the group stays alive. Why does a human die if you remove one of it's organs, from it's group of organs?

Lets see, because, people just might be sentient.


Obviously a society isn't sentient, nor a group of people. But I am explaining that there are such things as groups that are sentient. We are living proof.

 

[Nysyarc]

So you're saying that a human isn't sentient, since it is actually composed of billions (trillions?) of individual living cells?

If you remove a few from a group, the group stays alive. Why does a human die if you remove one of it's organs, from it's group of organs?

Lets see, because, people just might be sentient.


Obviously a society isn't sentient, nor a group of people. But I am explaining that there are such things as groups that are sentient. We are living proof.

It is not the group itself that is sentient, it is the organism. If you just molded together a group of random cells, they would not be any more alive together as a human's cells are. They are alive individually, and we are alive because of their unique grouping, but the group is not alive.

It really depends on how you look at the word 'group', which makes this a useless tangent. If the word group is used as a tangible noun to describe the cells that compose the human body all together (as the human body), then yes, it is sentient. But if by the word group, you refer to the concept of a large quantity of cells together, it is not tangible, and thus cannot be alive.

But no, we weigh the consequences of our actions and decide which cause greater good, and greater harm. Generally, ethical decisions (things that are generally considered to be right, or "correct") tend to cause little harm to people.

It is true that you cannot measure absolutely every act that you do because of the potential harm it could cause, but there are certain actions that clearly cause more harm than others. Walking down the street will generally cause less harm than battering someone with a blunt object.

You could say that, and it seems to make logical sense, and yet it is not proven. Even walking down the street could have far-reaching consequences in a world with freedom of choice. You could be seen by someone who knew you in high school, and maybe you bullied them, so they attack you. I can't say whether or not that's likely, but it's possible. Any decision we make, no matter how ethical we feel that it is, could have negative repercussions that are potentially worse than the positive ones.

"I will not hurt you because I wouldn't want you to hurt me back."

Tell me what is objective about this statement. It seems to me that if someone doesn't want another person to hurt them, that is a feeling, a personal thing. Some people enjoy pain (why else would we have the word masochist?).

B- If there is a God, then your body is not your property and you have to respect it, and killing yourself is immoral.

Who's 'property' is your body then? Like I've said before, it's only immoral if you personally think that it is. Morals are subjective and everybody has different ones. And anyways if you're theory is the case, then this debate won't go any further because a god's existence cannot be proved or disproved.

 

[BluePeachy100]

As this is my first post I will state my opinion on the matter.

I don't believe it is right to take your life, in any situation, or case. Taking your life, just like taking the life of another affects more than the person who's life was lost. Certainly if you do love others, and care about how they feel, you wouldn't take your life, saddening them in the process. Furthermore, it could even lead to them wishing to take their own lives, which is something I'm sure nobody would want if they have loved ones. Think about it from another's prospective:

Them taking their lives would sadden you, make you depressed, and in some case, even make you want to die.

I'm certain it is likewise for you as well, others who care about you wouldn't want you to take your life.

People tend to jump to conclusions, if someone were to do something so drastic as to take their own life, without warning, or reason(known reason that is) others tend to jump to conclusions. If you had a lover perhaps, they may feel it was their fault, they weren't making you happy enough, or they did somethign ti drive you to this point.

I think it all goes under how you care for others. Anybody who care about someone, and doesn't want to hurt anyone wouldn't do somethign such as killing themselves.

Now, on another matter, I have clinical depression, and I more often than not tend to want to die, or commit suicide. I feel horrible, and don't want to go on in life at times. In that, I can understand, relate, and know why someone would want to die. Even in situational matters, I can understand hwo horrible people feel. Understanding, yes, but I do not condone suicide.

 

[professor mgw]

Hello, my fellow debaters. My name is Miguel, but a lot of people know me as "Miggz." I'm a smasher from Bermuda with a pretty interesting debate topic for all of you. This topic actually came up in a psychology class a few nights ago.

Ok so as the title asks, "are there times and situations in which suicide should be an option?" In your eyes, do people have the right to take their own lives? Obviously, this is a very difficult question to answer, especially if the individual considering it is terminally ill and wishes to end his or her suffering.

In my opinion, I don't think its right for humans to decide when they die. Despite the pain or suffering an individual is going through, more often then not, the sufferer will be surrounded by loved ones. Wouldn't it be selfish to kill yourself knowing full well you are surrounded by people who still love your dearly? Just imagine the impact your scheduled death could have on them. What if your actions lead to the suicide of family member? These are questions I think some people don't ask themselves.

Furthermore, the act of suicide appears to violate a lot of the values and rules we have been taught about the sanctity of life. Its also considered a sin in the canonical law of Catholic Church. In most countries, suicide is considered illegal, but go figure, the person isn't around for the law to get them.

Life is extremely precious, and each and every one of us is privileged to have one. Despite the many religious point of views, the truth is none of us know what will happen to us when we die. Sure, suicide may help solve troubles in this world. But does the person committing suicide assume they will simply cease to exist or live another life?

To sum up my point, I'll end with this. What occurs after death is unknown. Killing one's self would simply be like running in a pitch black cave with no source of light.

Keep in mind this is simply my opinion on the topic. This doesn't make my point of view more significant or inferior to anyone else's. I invite you to speak your feelings and thoughts on the topic.

Let us debate!

Well I strongly disagree.
Life is a gift, not a right. The suffing you'll cause to love ones is overwhelming.

 

[Miggz]

I find it funny that you "strongly" disagree, yet you have such a "weak" explanation. This isn't debating. Please elaborate on your point.

 

[Purple]

Whether it's selfish or not, it's your choice. In the end it's your life. Whether someone takes your decision to heart is their decision. Not yours. Choosing your time to die is a viable option.

Now this is me taking all religious views out of it. There's no particular reason not to do it.

In the situation where you are terminally ill, you should be allowed to not go through that pain. Your family should understand where you're coming from, and be okay with it. While someone will grieve (you can't make everyone happy). There will be a medium of understand.

In the situation where emotional stress makes you want to commit suicide. Is completely unacceptable. If anything you should have sense to check in with a psychiatrist, talk to an old friend, express feelings that are eating you from the inside out.

@professor mgw - since your message is so short I'll respond to it now. You'll never make everyone happy, trying to this will only stress you. Understand that you're going to make someone mad, but in the end, it's what's best for yourself that should be done, after all it is YOUR life.