Suicide - Morally permissible?

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Sorry, I do not know that phrase can some one please explain?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/what-is-this-i-dont-even

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

A.) We make it immoral because of the fact that if you attempt suicide and you fail at it, you're going to get fined or whatever.

In the United States is suicide still listed as a crime? Correct me if I'm wrong, but euthanasia for the terminally ill is legal in the State of Oregon under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act. Therefore if you don't get "fined" or "whatever", does that make suicide morally a-okay? If legal fines determine morality, then I guess its morally wrong every time I break the speed limit a little on an empty road.

What that doesn't help is their depression or their urges to commit suicide. It's not a proper deterrent because often times emotions cause people to be irrational and make dumb decisions so moral deterrents are worth more in that situation.

Eschemat you're insinuating that suicide is irrational and dumb. Yet you don't know how much these people are suffering or what they have gone through. If a patient has a serious tumor and have half their body organs replaced by machines and their whole existence is in pain, then by what means is this "irrational" or "dumb" to request for euthanasia. In addition if a person has been depressed all his life and has been denied meaning every step of the road, then what means is it "irrational" or dumb" to simply stop living life? Simply because you haven't felt similar emotions doesn't invalidate their feelings and the solutions they have decided to come across. These people didn't ask to be born into this world. Don't you think they should at least have the option to determine whether or not they want to continue? Also their emotions will always plague them every step of the way. It's not as if they can say, "Hey I'm going to ignore my painful emotions and start listening to only morals." If people could do this, then don't you think that we would be moral individuals.

B.) Being productive in itself it a big reason. We have to give them the option of actually being productive, and if they are, they then can in turn help other people. We always have to give them the option to productive instead of taking that option out entirely.

Eschemat. You've used the term "productivity" yet you haven't defined it. If you died today eschemat, would you have benefited humanity in any noticeable way or form? Would the world miss you when you died or be aggrieved by the lack of your contributions to society? I hope that productivity isn't the glue-on macaroni art you made at fifth grade. One would argue that people who commit suicide are being productive. They put less of a strain on the environment and will not contribute to the overbearing population boom.

C.) The difference is that death is not actually a solution for everybody. When you die, you solve your problem for yourself, but the problem that there already was for your friends and family fester.

If someone dies, then they might aggrieve their friends and family. There could be the potential that their friends and family commit suicide thus aggrieving more people resulting in them committing suicide. If a suicide-pandemic spread then this would hopefully regulate population control to reasonable limits that resources are no longer strained and thus benefit everyone else who is not linked to those people in contention.

Also, like I said, emotions can make people irrational so they can't make their own decisions for themselves properly. Their agency (AKA their freedoms etc. like how children have to let their parent's give them permission for whatever) are held by the doctors partially in that case.

Are psychiatric doctors the ones who should determine how individuals should deal with their emotions and live their lives?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

They should make suicide look immoral so people will think of it last.

What guarantee does this have that people will consider morals at all? Don't you think that people always burden themselves with the morality of suicide even before they decide to pull the trigger, overdose on pills, or consume hemlock / cyanide.

Suicide should be an extreme last resort. Making it illegal is odd as you can't punish the crime if they succeed (That has confused me for a long time now) but by making it seem immoral parents and friends of a person thinking about suicide, for those that actuarially care about a fellow family member they seeing suicide as immoral will try to do there best to talk him or her out of it.

Isn't is true that this might ostracize the individual? It's not like someone who is always emotionally in pain can suddenly be spoken a few words and then go, "Yep. No longer interesting in off-ing myself. Going to go and be happy today." Having people who tell you what you're doing is wrong might make it seem even more justified to kill yourself as it cements the belief that the individual never belonged in that type of society in the first place.

Teen or below would be possibly productive. As for adult if they are skilled in any thing they have a possibility of productiveness. It all really depends but a job is a sure sign of productiveness.

Again what is productiveness. Is productiveness how many people I can kill? Is productiveness how many people I can save? Is productiveness how many license plates I can make? This is still only speculation and not a justified reason for why people shouldn't be able to commit suicide.

Normally yes however as long as there is some hope of recovery (I.E. there is medication for the mentally ill and depressed.) they should not be so quick to use a solution that last forever to (possibly) temporary problems.

If there is no hope of recovery (antidepressants of all kinds and varieties don't work) or treatments are no longer effective, then does that make it morally justifiable to kill yourself?

A cancer patent who has no hope of recover and does not have a family that wants/needs him is one example in which I would not consider suicide a crime.

Why does the presence of a family necessitate whether or not something constitutes as a crime? Is it because you're hurting other people besides yourself if you commit suicide? Isn't it true that spending time on the internet has the side-effect of you wasting time from helping your parents, benefiting yourself, and getting ahead in life? It's almost as if you're committing a form of ritualistic suicide by wasting your life on the internet and burdening those around you by not living up to your full potential.

Tyrannical governments only if there imprisoned and there more or less going to die soon then I would not hold it against them. However Euthanasia is immoral it has to be voluntary for it to be moral. Suicide should be the last solution Normally I can understand people using it is cases in which there is truly no hope of recovery or survival and they are making the choice to end it with a rational mind.

People who want to commit suicide probably feel that there is no hope of recovery or survival and are making the choice to end it as a rational decision. You have to explain why their decision is irrational and why they don't have the right to end their own life when they never asked to be born in the first place or conscientiously chose to suffer out of their own volition.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/what-is-this-i-dont-even

Thanks Dark Horse

That was slightly rude of him/her though .

What guarantee does this have that people will consider morals at all? Don't you think that people always burden themselves with the morality of suicide even before they decide to pull the trigger, overdose on pills, or consume hemlock / cyanide.

No, there is no perfect solution but hopefully that will save as many lives as possible.

Isn't is true that this might ostracize the individual? It's not like someone who is always emotionally in pain can suddenly be spoken a few words and then go, "Yep. No longer interesting in off-ing myself. Going to go and be happy today."

Yes it is true and no one is mono-emotional.

Having people who tell you what you're doing is wrong might make it seem even more justified to kill yourself as it cements the belief that the individual never belonged in that type of society in the first place.

Yes and no, truly I can only pull from my personal experience on the subject of why. Yes, I can see why being isolated will increase the likely hood of suicide, especially if you have always been socially isolated (Because you will start to justify killing yourself by believing that your death will not make a single thing different.), however I have come to realize that when you start existing in this world you are part of a group called humans no one has a completely individual identity and even if you are an unique oddity you still exist among a group, and possibly change the course of history for this group. Now on to the no part, if you are raised to think that suicide is wrong you might think as to why and some of the people might realize the people they will leave behind (I am mostly referring to family.) Even if they are an out cast to the ultimate degree as long as they notice the complete conscience of what they leave behind some of the people might be saved. Though once again it is only a handful of people however a few lives saved is better than no lives saved.

Again what is productiveness. Is productiveness how many people I can kill? Is productiveness how many people I can save? Is productiveness how many license plates I can make? This is still only speculation and not a justified reason for why people shouldn't be able to commit suicide.

Fair enough let us define productiveness here and now. Productive/Productiveness: To support or contribute to the government, economy, education, culture, technology, or any or the above directly or a thin line of indirect support or contribution.

If there is no hope of recovery (antidepressants of all kinds and varieties don't work) or treatments are no longer effective, then does that make it morally justifiable to kill yourself?

It depends is the person in theory still useful?

1) Why does the presence of a family necessitate whether or not something constitutes as a crime? Is it because you're hurting other people besides yourself if you commit suicide?

2) Isn't it true that spending time on the internet has the side-effect of you wasting time from helping your parents, benefiting yourself, and getting ahead in life?

3) It's almost as if you're committing a form of ritualistic suicide by wasting your life on the internet and burdening those around you by not living up to your full potential.

1) Yes.

2) It depends on what you use the internet for.

3) Me? No. (I know let me justify my answer.) I right now am using the internet to practice debating skills. The career I am looking into going in requires good debating skills. I do not think I have good debating skills. So I am preparing my self for the future and there for is not a waste of time.

People who want to commit suicide probably feel that there is no hope of recovery or survival and are making the choice to end it as a rational decision. You have to explain why their decision is irrational and why they don't have the right to end their own life when they never asked to be born in the first place or conscientiously chose to suffer out of their own volition.

What seems hopeless from one perspective may not be hopeless from a different perspective. For an example some one who has been jailed in a prison camp would have a rather bleak life and probably would not consider the possibility of a rescue (Which is still possible!) When deciding to end it.

P.S. Can you please not change my name like that I found it rude.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@dragoon

It's a habit of acrostic, he did that to me in the DH.

 

[eschemat]

OK, first of all, I'd like to apologize to Dragoon I didn't mean it offensively, I just say it when I disagree with something now... lol. I'm glad to see we're on the same page! Could you please elaborate on point D.) a bit though?

In the United States is suicide still listed as a crime? Correct me if I'm wrong, but euthanasia for the terminally ill is legal in the State of Oregon under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act. Therefore if you don't get "fined" or "whatever", does that make suicide morally a-okay? If legal fines determine morality, then I guess its morally wrong every time I break the speed limit a little on an empty road.



Eschemat you're insinuating that suicide is irrational and dumb. Yet you don't know how much these people are suffering or what they have gone through. If a patient has a serious tumor and have half their body organs replaced by machines and their whole existence is in pain, then by what means is this "irrational" or "dumb" to request for euthanasia. In addition if a person has been depressed all his life and has been denied meaning every step of the road, then what means is it "irrational" or dumb" to simply stop living life? Simply because you haven't felt similar emotions doesn't invalidate their feelings and the solutions they have decided to come across. These people didn't ask to be born into this world. Don't you think they should at least have the option to determine whether or not they want to continue? Also their emotions will always plague them every step of the way. It's not as if they can say, "Hey I'm going to ignore my painful emotions and start listening to only morals." If people could do this, then don't you think that we would be moral individuals.



Eschemat. You've used the term "productivity" yet you haven't defined it. If you died today eschemat, would you have benefited humanity in any noticeable way or form? Would the world miss you when you died or be aggrieved by the lack of your contributions to society? I hope that productivity isn't the glue-on macaroni art you made at fifth grade. One would argue that people who commit suicide are being productive. They put less of a strain on the environment and will not contribute to the overbearing population boom.



If someone dies, then they might aggrieve their friends and family. There could be the potential that their friends and family commit suicide thus aggrieving more people resulting in them committing suicide. If a suicide-pandemic spread then this would hopefully regulate population control to reasonable limits that resources are no longer strained and thus benefit everyone else who is not linked to those people in contention.



Are psychiatric doctors the ones who should determine how individuals should deal with their emotions and live their lives?

You miss the point. First of all, morality is not when you get fined. It's rather the other way around. They fine you because what you're doing is morally wrong so they want to deter you from doing such act. For example, the government taxes cigarettes because it hurts you and others. They call that negative consumer externality when something you purchase has a negative side effect, and we can guarantee saying that in our society, the death of someone is bad because it hurts the family, it hurts the employers etc. it hurts many people. Apart from that, the Convention of Rights states that everyone has the right to live and assisted suicide such as euthanasia puts part of the decision in another person's hands. I can't believe you can honestly say people dying is a good thing.

I feel like in our society everybody has a societal debt put on them. What I mean by that is that their forefathers put in their time to create infrastructure, and people make these people's lives better. It's selfish to think that these people not live through this pain and try and help as many people as possible before they die. Even though you feel pain, if you can do something good with the rest of your life and make the day of one person better, you should. Suicide is also irrational because as a society a majority of us think that suicide is a stupid choice... when suicide is something accepted by the majority of our suicide, it's irrational. The people who are dying should have the decency of making the world even better before they leave this world.

Productivity is something that is really hard to describe. Productivity, is however, when you benefit the society in some way. You always have the chance of making someone happy, or you always have the chance of making a wonderful invention. Telling people about your depression insures other people won't commit suicide. Every person has a potential of doing something great and that potential should be reached.

GREAT! I love killing my family and friends to have population controlled. Say that to anyone you know. Do you think they'll agree? The fact is, everyone is linked to each other someway. It's just how it is. I know hundreds of people, who in turn all know hundreds of people etc.

Yeah, because when someone is irrational they obviously can't make decisions for themselves so psychiatric doctors help them make smart decisions. Psychiatric doctors know what they're doing.

 

[BUSH]

My debate would be this:

1.) As human beings and a members of society I believe that we all have a purpose in life. Nobody can know when the opportunity to fulfill that purpose would be. Thus my argument would be no, I do not think that it is morally permissible to commit suicide. Think, if Martin Luther King Junior had committed suicide in his teenage years the world would be an entirely different place. That said, the same goes for his dad, his dads dad, his dad's dad's mother, and so on. Anyone in that family line committing suicide would have altered the course of history and civil rights may never have been brought up. You JUST DONT KNOW. Suicide is taking your destiny into your own hands, throwing away your purpose. What if you committed suicide, but if you hadn't, your son's son would have been the president to bring prosperity and peace to the world. YOU DONT KNOW.

2.) On the flip side of that subject, yes, there is a negative to that. If hitler's mother that committed suicide so many Jewish people would not have died. But another way to look at would be if hitler hadn't been born we would have never learned from it. We may have never made those allies, we may have a WORSE world today if there was no WWII. YOU DONT KNOW, how could you?

3.) If you kill yourself, you could be killing the next MLK Jr., or the next great inventor, it is almost murder, but I wouldn't take it that far. Its more depriving an un-thought-of organism's chance to be the next great human.


This is my first debate, I hope I am not ripped completely to shreds.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

My debate would be this:

I just have some questions for you after reading your thoughts.

1.) As human beings and a members of society I believe that we all have a purpose in life. Nobody can know when the opportunity to fulfill that purpose would be. Thus my argument would be no, I do not think that it is morally permissible to commit suicide. Think, if Martin Luther King Junior had committed suicide in his teenage years the world would be an entirely different place. That said, the same goes for his dad, his dads dad, his dad's dad's mother, and so on. Anyone in that family line committing suicide would have altered the course of history and civil rights may never have been brought up. You JUST DONT KNOW. Suicide is taking your destiny into your own hands, throwing away your purpose. What if you committed suicide, but if you hadn't, your son's son would have been the president to bring prosperity and peace to the world. YOU DONT KNOW.

1) Would not the pressure of the times given birth to a leader even if Martian Luther King Jr. died? (Although admittedly an alternate could be very different than MLK but a leader none the less.)

2) Why does everyone in your opinion need a purpose?

2.) On the flip side of that subject, yes, there is a negative to that. If hitler's mother that committed suicide so many Jewish people would not have died. But another way to look at would be if hitler hadn't been born we would have never learned from it. We may have never made those allies, we may have a WORSE world today if there was no WWII. YOU DONT KNOW, how could you?

Sound logical enough, but there were wars before WW2 that shows such lessons. Why would Hitler committing suicide early in his life be a bad thing other than depriving us of a history lesson? (I know you stated the world could be worse, worse how?)

This is my first debate, I hope I am not ripped completely to shreds.

I do not think anyone here is going to tear you apart right off the bat, no need for you to worry about that .

 

[BUSH]

I just have some questions for you after reading your thoughts.



1) Would not the pressure of the times given birth to a leader even if Martian Luther King Jr. died? (Although admittedly an alternate could be very different than MLK but a leader none the less.)

2) Why does everyone in your opinion need a purpose?



Sound logical enough, but there were wars before WW2 that shows such lessons. Why would Hitler committing suicide early in his life be a bad thing other than depriving us of a history lesson? (I know you stated the world could be worse, worse how?)



I do not think anyone here is going to tear you apart right off the bat, no need for you to worry about that .

1.) That nobody can say. If MLK was never born, maybe there would be nobody else to step up for the African American Society, and even if they did, we can't say that the same rights would be in place today.

2.) Because I was raised to believe that everyone has a purpose. Its part of my faith.

3.) I say the world could be worse in this way: Suppose Hitler had not existed. There will always be a radical person who wants everything to be perfect and will do anything to achieve that goal, am I correct? Well what if that person was against, say, African Americans and Mexicans, instead of having Hitler's views. And SUPPOSE that this person became the leader of America because we had not learned this lesson yet. Do you see where I am going with that point?

4.) And thank you, I love to have good clean arguments so I am glad the DH is that kind of place.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

1.) That nobody can say. If MLK was never born, maybe there would be nobody else to step up for the African American Society, and even if they did, we can't say that the same rights would be in place today.

True enough.

3.) I say the world could be worse in this way: Suppose Hitler had not existed. There will always be a radical person who wants everything to be perfect and will do anything to achieve that goal, am I correct? Well what if that person was against, say, African Americans and Mexicans, instead of having Hitler's views. And SUPPOSE that this person became the leader of America because we had not learned this lesson yet. Do you see where I am going with that point?

That nobody can say. If Hitler was never born, maybe there would be nobody else to step up to fill the megalomaniac void.

Edit: I mean for Germany as Russia and Italy already had their megalomaniacs.

Outside note: (Not part of the debate): Hitler is over rated, Stalin killed a lot more people.
Sources:
Stalin's Biography
Hitler's Holocaust

Also (This is part of the side note, again not part of the debate) even though Stalin and Hitler are both evil *******s I think Hitler is focused upon more because Stalin was on our (I am presuming that you come from a country on the allies side if not, I am sorry for jumping to conclusions.) side during the second half of the WW2.

 

[BUSH]

That nobody can say. If Hitler was never born, maybe there would be nobody else to step up to fill the megalomaniac void.

What I mean is, rather, there will always be some radical person who wants to change the world unto his own sick visions. And if its not a person, its a group (i.e. the Taliban). Hitler's Genocide was that of his thought process and his own "religion" or "belief" that the Jews are imperfect. The Taliban believe that the U.S. is sick for letting our criminals live, so they decide to kill our teachers that are stationed over there, for one example.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

What I mean is, rather, there will always be some radical person who wants to change the world unto his own sick visions. And if its not a person, its a group (i.e. the Taliban). Hitler's Genocide was that of his thought process and his own "religion" or "belief" that the Jews are imperfect. The Taliban believe that the U.S. is sick for letting our criminals live, so they decide to kill our teachers that are stationed over there, for one example.

For the underlined I would like a link to the article. (Not that I doubt you it does sound like the Taliban, but I would like a source.)

Other than that you are probably right, however could the same be said about the possible MLK Jr. void as mentioned earlier? I am almost certain Malcolm X would of had more followers if MLK Jr. did not exist.

 

[BUSH]

For the underlined I would like a link to the article. (Not that I doubt you it does sound like the Taliban, but I would like a source.)

Other than that you are probably right, however could the same be said about the possible MLK Jr. void as mentioned earlier? I am almost certain Malcolm X would of had more followers if MLK Jr. did not exist.

Here are their rules when it comes to teachers
http://boards.askmen.com/showthread.php?59161-Taliban-guides-followers-on-when-to-kill-teachers

This is just 1 of many articles all over
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\11\05\story_5-11-2009_pg1_6

As for MLK, Malcom X would have had more followers yes, but he would have the same amount as MLK did. See Malcom X was OK with any violence that the African Americans could muster, but MLK was about peace, that no matter what the whites do you cant show that it hurts you, like the Sit In Movement. If the government see's violence, they will be more less likely to want to change their ways because the African Americans are causing a bunch of problems. With MLK the govt. saw the beating they were taking, not the beating they were dealing back.

 

[eschemat]

You guys are going into a butterfly effect argument. The whole premise of your argument is about butterfly, and if you can't prove butterfly effect is true, you're not going to win this debate. Simple as that. Malcolm X was non-violent in his final year before his assassination after his trip to the holy city of Mecca by the way.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

You guys are going into a butterfly effect argument. The whole premise of your argument is about butterfly, and if you can't prove butterfly effect is true, you're not going to win this debate. Simple as that.

Yes, you are right my bad.

Malcolm X was non-violent in his final year before his assassination after his trip to the holy city of Mecca by the way.

I remember reading about that some were now that you mention it, I can not find the source though. Regardless, what you say is true.

 

[BUSH]

. Malcolm X was non-violent in his final year before his assassination after his trip to the holy city of Mecca by the way.

I never said he was violent, I said that he accepted violence, he let his followers believe that it would help if they used it, but he didn't say it directly. ANYWAYS, back to topic

 

[Sage JoWii]

Yeah, because when someone is irrational they obviously can't make decisions for themselves so psychiatric doctors help them make smart decisions. Psychiatric doctors know what they're doing.

Psychiatrist are paid to diagnose many, many individual patients w/ memorized knowledge of mental illnesses and a wealth of 'clues'; this doesn't mean they're infallible.

My debate would be this:

1.) As human beings and a members of society I believe that we all have a purpose in life. Nobody can know when the opportunity to fulfill that purpose would be. Thus my argument would be no, I do not think that it is morally permissible to commit suicide...Suicide is taking your destiny into your own hands, throwing away your purpose. What if you committed suicide, but if you hadn't, your son's son would have been the president to bring prosperity and peace to the world. YOU DONT KNOW.

You guys are going into a butterfly effect argument.

^^This.

They call that negative consumer externality when something you purchase has a negative side effect, and we can guarantee saying that in our society, the death of someone is bad because it hurts the family, it hurts the employers etc. it hurts many people.

So you can knowingly harm yourself via smoking because it's socially acceptable? Or because it's at an unnoticeable rate? Even if it can results in lung cancer and an eventual slow death?

My stance is this:

Our society in America, on the base level of interaction (interaction between the people who live around you, in your town, in your family, etc.), has a policy of not letting anyone fall off to the side and be forgotten. If a person is having suicidal thoughts everyone and their mother, that interacts with said person, feels the need to intervene because a suicide would affect the people who interact w/ said individual. This kind of intervention isn't one of morality, it's of comfort; it'd mess w/ the happiness status quo. Suicidal people in this group should be treated w/ the same generalization and red tape that smokers and drinkers are treated; if you're older than 18 you can decide for yourself if you don't wanna continue living (Feel like tying up loose ends? You can smoke and maybe you'll die eventually, or if you want the express lane just suicide)

The hospitalized group and euthanasia? I'm all for it. Morals are there for people who AREN'T about to die to follow because the living still have to interact w/ the society they live in; the dead are dead, what do they care if people don't feel they made a good moral decision and ended their pain on their own terms? They don't.

 

[A1lion835]

As someone who used to be suicidal, I've read up a lot on it, and what I'm noticing is that it's not common to view depression as a disease in this thread. Someone who dies of suicide dies like someone who dies of cancer. The body can't handle what it's going through: either physically or mentally. However, when the end comes is more of a choice for suicide victims than other diseases.

I'm reading "Ishmael," by Daniel Quinn right now. It's a philosophical book which talks about how the human race is destroying itself. What does this have to do with suicide? One of the main things it points out is this: we won't let children in Africa starve, we won't let people die "before their time comes." We believe we have the power to decide who lives and who dies. For brevity's sake, I won't detail the arguments that show the flaw in this way of life, but this is what many people think about suicide. Personally, I believe that most teen suicides shouldn't happen (teens could and probably will have a great life ahead of them), but it's not my choice whether or not they should die. If I know someone who's depressed, I'll try to comfort them and keep them alive, both personally (I'd feel better if they were alive) and because I believe they'll be glad about once they've overcome it.

As to whether or not I would stop someone from committing suicide, I think I would do it for purely selfish reasons. I believe it's illegal not to prevent it, and I could potentially change my views later in life and feel guilty.

I have no problem with euthanasia.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

As someone who used to be suicidal, I've read up a lot on it, and what I'm noticing is that it's not common to view depression as a disease in this thread. Someone who dies of suicide dies like someone who dies of cancer. The body can't handle what it's going through: either physically or mentally. However, when the end comes is more of a choice for suicide victims than other diseases.

I know why you think of it as cancer but different people will commit suicide for different reasons. For example the Samurai.

I'm reading "Ishmael," by Daniel Quinn right now. It's a philosophical book which talks about how the human race is destroying itself. What does this have to do with suicide? One of the main things it points out is this: we won't let children in Africa starve, we won't let people die "before their time comes." We believe we have the power to decide who lives and who dies. For brevity's sake, I won't detail the arguments that show the flaw in this way of life, but this is what many people think about suicide.

1) Personally, I believe that most teen suicides shouldn't happen (teens could and probably will have a great life ahead of them),

2) but it's not my choice whether or not they should die.

If I know someone who's depressed, I'll try to comfort them and keep them alive, both personally (I'd feel better if they were alive) and because I believe they'll be glad about once they've overcome it.

1) I agree.

2) I sort of agree with the point that yes we do not dictate that, however I do not believe it is moral to kill ones self while there are still things to be done in this world. As to the point of the debate in terms of morality, I only believe it to be moral in certain and rare circumstance. From a strictly legal (and not my opinion) preservative we can not enforce a law like "It is against the law to commit suicide." as there is no one to punish after the criminal commits the act.

As to whether or not I would stop someone from committing suicide, I think I would do it for purely selfish reasons. I believe it's illegal not to prevent it, and I could potentially change my views later in life and feel guilty.

If it was ok to make the choice would you save him/her from death? Even if I had the choice I would stop them, unless they had a clear logical strong argument as to why they should kill them selfs.

P.S. Sorry about the colors I messed up upon editing my response .

 

[Thino]

I believe that forbidding someone to end his or her own life just because that person dont have a "rational" reason to do it would be fair and objective if humans were thinking rationally and logically all the time

that is not the case , so using this argument would mean we give rationality more importance than the way someone judges his/her whole life to be

commiting suicide may or may not have direct consequences on the society the person that committed suicide lived in , but of course everything has to be done to persuade and convince that person not to do it , by acquaintances ,relative and persons that know him/her in general because that person is important to them

rationality may be needed to live in most of nowadays societies but how far can we take it?

 

[eschemat]

Okay, let's do this. First, just to address JoWiiCide, did I ever say smoking was good? No. I don't agree with smoking. Smoking is harmful to society.

Just at an overall level, because some people have contentions with my fact of rationality, dying is bad. We can all agree. When someone is in the minority in this case that is committing suicide, they are irrational. We try and prevent them from dying because things do get better. We don't want to put their fate in their own hands; there's a reason minors can't vote and such and it's because minors are unusually emotional. Depressed people have these same traits. If we make suicide legal, we should make underage drinking, smoking etc. legal.

 

[Sage JoWii]

@ eschemat- I apologized, I took your earlier words for the wrong meaning.

So people that want to suicide are irrational because rational people think death is bad irregardless of the size of this supposed 'minority'? The reason it's an issue is because there's a large enough group of people both supporting and opposing suicide. That many people who see that death isn't always bad are irrational?

Why can't suicide be legal like age limitations on alcohol and smoking or medicinal smokes in certain states? It's not necessary for everything to be legal just so that suicide can be legal when you can make suicide as legal as drinking or smoking.

 

[A1lion835]

I'm late to be bumping this topic, but I believe there's still much to be said.

2) I sort of agree with the point that yes we do not dictate that, however I do not believe it is moral to kill ones self while there are still things to be done in this world. As to the point of the debate in terms of morality, I only believe it to be moral in certain and rare circumstance. From a strictly legal (and not my opinion) preservative we can not enforce a law like "It is against the law to commit suicide." as there is no one to punish after the criminal commits the act.

It's easily seen that enforcing a law/trying to prevent suicide is impractical. I won't present the argument here, since I think it's fairly obvious, but I'd gladly do it if asked.

If there were no consequences either way, I'm not sure what I would do. I'd like to say I wouldn't save them, but I can't be sure that'd be the reality.

@ "Suicidal people are irrational" argument: the problem is, your definition of rational seems to be "what I think." Different cultural influences, stereotypical gender roles (i.e. "men don't show 'weakness' ") can shape different people's perception of what is rational differently. In addition, current circumstances (depression) can change whether a person considers it rational to kill themselves.

Suppose there's a man who is paralyzed has been confined to a wheelchair for 20 years. The day he got the injury, he was walking up his 1000-stair staircase to his bedroom, when the bed falls out the door with his wife and another man in it. The bed crushes most of the man's body, and he falls down the 1000 stairs, until the bed explodes as it hits the bottom of the staircase and destroys his house, which contains all his worldly possessions. He has just recently begun moving. Is it rational for him to finally put himself out of his misery? No one else knows the pain of what he's been through; it should be up to him to decide if suicide is a rational idea.

The story is a little far-fetched in places, but it brings the point across.

Many of my arguments are based around ideas in Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, so I tend not to elaborate on some of them: I apologize in advance, and ask me if I haven't been clear enough.

@eschemat: I disagree with your opinion that dying is, fundamentally, bad for our species. Something I'm sure we've all been through is a science teacher talking about natural selection. If we humans would stop pretending that we're not animals, we'd see that natural selection should still apply to us. NS is all about genes which lead to reproduction are favored by evolution. So nature could very well, over a long of time, weed out the individuals of our race who are susceptible to depression and transform humans into an emotionless warrior race, all the better to stay in competition with our ever-changing environment. From this point of view (which, I confess, I'm not particularly fond of), suicidal people killing themselves isn't bad.

“Suicide was against the law. Johnny had wondered why. It meant that if you missed, or the gas ran out, or the rope broke, you could get locked up in prison to show you that life was really very jolly and thoroughly worth living.”

--Just a quote I find meaningful.