• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Should suicide be considered an acceptable choice for any reason?

kvsouth69 said:
I believe there are times when it is absolutely acceptable--when you know 100% you are going to die and want to avoid the suffering (ex POW, disease). Some people are so mentally ill they do not realize their act until it is too late. And I do NOT believe suicides go to hell. I believe that whatever made you decide suicide in life (except for health reasons, or POW stuff), you are still going to go throught the mental and emotional agony until you can get beyond it. So, no matter what, it still is NEVER a good choice.
Click to expand...

Well to bring religion into this, I have no idea what would happen to a suicidal person in the afterlife; because I do not claim to know the character of god.
As for whether it's good or bad, I rationalize it like this. If a person thought suicide is right, then it's right. I try not to call anything bad unless it directly harms another person. I think stepping on another persons shoes is worse than all the suicides in the world put together.
 
You seem to be a big proponent of moral relativism, I am curious what kind of reasoning you use to arrive at this position?

I think suicide can be justified in certain circumstances, but not in most. The main problem with your way of thinking is that most people who want to kill themselves are not in a clear frame of mind, and acting on those suicidal desires goes against their rational self-interest. It doesn't make much sense to me to allow an impaired mind to decide on suicide when that person is capable of recovery, and if they were in their right frame of mind that is what they would pursue.

The fact is that suicide does affect other people. Most people would agree it is wrong to punch someone in the face because they annoy you, but most people would also much rather be punched in the face than have their mother/brother/child/etc. end their life. I don't understand how you could argue suicide doesn't directly harm other people.

What about if the person who wants to kill themselves is in serious debt? Should they be obligated to pay off that debt before they can kill themselves? Surely killing yourself before paying off debt is just as harmful to the creditor as theft is.
 
drug_mentor said:
I think suicide can be justified in certain circumstances, but not in most. The main problem with your way of thinking is that most people who want to kill themselves are not in a clear frame of mind, and acting on those suicidal desires goes against their rational self-interest. It doesn't make much sense to me to allow an impaired mind to decide on suicide when that person is capable of recovery, and if they were in their right frame of mind that is what they would pursue.
Click to expand...

The reason why I don't think it matters if they're in their right mind or not, is because suicide is an effective solution for all their problems. Their mental illness, their sorrow, their pain? gone... they're actually in a better position that we are.
Plus, sane or insane, we are the only ones who bring worth to our own lives. If someone decides that their life is worthless, then it is worthless. Objectively all of us are worthless. It's simply our individuality that gives us some subjective worth.


The fact is that suicide does affect other people. Most people would agree it is wrong to punch someone in the face because they annoy you, but most people would also much rather be punched in the face than have their mother/brother/child/etc. end their life. I don't understand how you could argue suicide doesn't directly harm other people.
Click to expand...

It harms them by hurting them emotionally. However, whats more valuable. The persons individuality, or their loved ones feelings? Let's say they had no loved ones, and the majority of people hated them? Would they then be obligated to commit suicide to satisfy those around them? I don't think so, because I think we alone determine what our life is worth

What about if the person who wants to kill themselves is in serious debt? Should they be obligated to pay off that debt before they can kill themselves? Surely killing yourself before paying off debt is just as harmful to the creditor as theft is.
Click to expand...

Okay, I agree with you. Odds are however, that the person would commit suicide in that position because they're in debt. So the fact that they created that debt in the first place was far worse than their choice to commit suicide.
That's why I feel that the creditors should be given rights to their will and estate as well as whatever is in their bank account until their debt is complete. However, if the person is totally broke and has no spouse... then well, it doesn't matter. Because if they didn't commit suicide, they'd simply be in prison.
 
Why did you ignore this question?

drug_mentor said:
You seem to be a big proponent of moral relativism, I am curious what kind of reasoning you use to arrive at this position?
Click to expand...

I am not going to engage you any further until you address it.

Your entire argument is predicated on moral relativism, yet you have done no work to establish the validity of that perspective. Your argument simply does not work on anyone who does not subscribe to your relativist perspective. You have to make a convincing argument why moral relativism is true, otherwise everything else you have said is redundant.
 
drug_mentor said:
Why did you ignore this question?

I am not going to engage you any further until you address it.

Your entire argument is predicated on moral relativism, yet you have done no work to establish the validity of that perspective. Your argument simply does not work on anyone who does not subscribe to your relativist perspective. You have to make a convincing argument why moral relativism is true, otherwise everything else you have said is redundant.
Click to expand...

Simple... Until God comes from heaven and pulls out a written code of objective morality, then morality will be subjective.

However, I do believe in one form of objective morality. Anything you do to take the freedom away from another, directly harm another, or hurt another directly is wrong.

For example... It's okay for me to say homophobic things, because that's not directly hurting someone. (And I don't count hurting peoples feelings as hurting them). However, it's from to beat them up.
If a pastors sermon caused someone else to beat up a homosexual, then the pastor indirectly harmed them. However, only the person who beat them should be held accountable.

And since suicide isn't done to another person. It's always okay for any reason. Committing suicide over spilled milk is okay because there's no victim.
 
psychedelicsoul said:
For example... It's okay for me to say homophobic things, because that's not directly hurting someone. (And I don't count hurting peoples feelings as hurting them).
Click to expand...
When you are posting on bluelight, it is not ok to say homophobic things.
Read the Bluelight User Agreement.
 
Anything you do to take the freedom away from another, directly harm another, or hurt another directly is wrong.
Click to expand...

Taking away certain freedoms, prohibits other people's freedoms.
Your argument about Christian businesses is: they should be free to serve who they want.
But, shouldn't the customers also be free to shop where they want?

Everybody can't be free.
We need to chose one of the freedoms.

Most people believe the "correct" choice is not to discriminate.
You think the "correct" choice is to allow people to be free to discriminate.
But, where do we draw the line?

Why is the Christian community so significant that the world should cater to them (at the expense of others)?
Whether or not homosexuality is disgusting for you, has no bearing on whether or not it is disgusting for others.
For most of us, race and sexuality are comparable (in terms of human rights).

You seem to think, because of your personal issues with your own homosexual urges, that it's okay to not treat gay people with the same respect and consideration that you might treat an Asian person... Unless I've missed something?

Is it okay not to serve Asian people? Or disabled people?
What about the elderly? Or blondes, maybe?

Since private transportation has been privatized where I live, is it okay for bus drivers (and/or the owner of bus companies) to refuse service to Sudanese refugees or people that look Vietnamese?

And I don't count hurting peoples feelings as hurting them
Click to expand...

So, what's your take on emotional abuse (generally)?

I think there is a widespread issue in society, with emotional abuse not being recognized as (particularly) harmful.
Physical violence is - often - less harmful, I think... (Scars heal. Bruises go away.)

I personally am not homophobic.
Click to expand...

You've repeatedly described homosexual acts as disgusting and wrong.
And you encouraged people to torture the gay out of themselves.
Maybe you should check your dictionary...
 
spacejunk said:
That is a highly dubious assertion.
Click to expand...

Not really. I pretty much have the same views towards gays as I do towards humanity. For example, I don't think religion should be covered by discrimination laws. Therefore, that must mean I'm an anti-religious bigot right?
My views towards suicide are also the same for everyone. The only exceptions are enemy POW's that we need information from, and people who are in debt. Other than that, I feel we have no right to intervene in anyones suicide.
 
ForEverAfter said:
Taking away certain freedoms, prohibits other people's freedoms.
Your argument about Christian businesses is: they should be free to serve who they want.
But, shouldn't the customers also be free to shop where they want?

Everybody can't be free.
We need to chose one of the freedoms.

Most people believe the "correct" choice is not to discriminate.
You think the "correct" choice is to allow people to be free to discriminate.
But, where do we draw the line?

Why is the Christian community so significant that the world should cater to them (at the expense of others)?
Whether or not homosexuality is disgusting for you, has no bearing on whether or not it is disgusting for others.
For most of us, race and sexuality are comparable (in terms of human rights).

You seem to think, because of your personal issues with your own homosexual urges, that it's okay to not treat gay people with the same respect and consideration that you might treat an Asian person... Unless I've missed something?

Is it okay not to serve Asian people? Or disabled people?
What about the elderly? Or blondes, maybe?

Since private transportation has been privatized where I live, is it okay for bus drivers (and/or the owner of bus companies) to refuse service to Sudanese refugees or people that look Vietnamese?
Click to expand...

I don't think religion or homosexuality should be covered. For the same reason pot smoking and tattoo's shouldn't be. It's a lifestlye choice. Gays choose to be together, choose to get married, and choose to have sex.

I know being gay is not a choice. But liking anything is not a choice. If I choose to get a pair of tits tattoo'd on my forehead, then it was a choice to do it. However, I didn't choose to like having them there. Nobody chooses to like anything. To give gay people a minority status because they don't choose to like the same sex means we should give a minority status to all lifestyle choices. People with tattoos, pot smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, and everyone else should have a minority status.

The only reason I support anti-discrimination laws for race, sex, and national origin is because those people don't choose any lifestyle.
 
The only reason I support anti-discrimination laws for race, sex, and national origin is because those people don't choose any lifestyle.
Click to expand...

I know being gay is not a choice.
Click to expand...

Um, I'm confused...
How is homosexuality any different to heterosexuality?

People don't choose to be straight, either.
But they do choose "to be together, get married, and have sex"?
So, should shops be allowed to discriminate against heterosexuals?
 
psychedelicsoul said:
Simple... Until God comes from heaven and pulls out a written code of objective morality, then morality will be subjective.
Click to expand...

This is nothing more than a reformulation of your claim that morality is subjective, it is not an argument. You need to establish why the claim is true, not just reformulate and repeat it.

psychedelicsoul said:
However, I do believe in one form of objective morality. Anything you do to take the freedom away from another, directly harm another, or hurt another directly is wrong.
Click to expand...

Once again you are employing invalid logic. If morality is subjective, how would one establish this as an objective truth? If this can be established via rationality or other means, then why can't other moral principles?
 
drug_mentor said:
This is nothing more than a reformulation of your claim that morality is subjective, it is not an argument. You need to establish why the claim is true, not just reformulate and repeat it.
Click to expand...

How is morality objective? Simply because the majority of people can agree on what's they think is right? Morality is an idea. Ideas are subjective.

Here's a question? Why is suicide objectively wrong? If it's wrong because of the pain the family feels, then who is more important, the individuals or the people around them?
If a kid is gay, and wants to die because of it, then why is it objectively better for him to accept himself than commit suicide? Either one will stop him from feeling bad. However, suicide would be faster.
Why is religion objectively wrong if you don't behave if you don't go out and bring harm upon another?

Once again you are employing invalid logic. If morality is subjective, how would one establish this as an objective truth? If this can be established via rationality or other means, then why can't other moral principles?
Click to expand...

Well you're right. What I said is subjective. It's my religious belief. I believe in the human soul and the individuality within it. I believe it's wrong to deprieve others of their rights, freedoms, and to directly hurt or kill them. The reason why is because I do not believe we should do something that hinders anothers individuality.

Also, my beliefs are different from other moral principles because it shows full respect to all other moral principles. It's a non-interventialist idea that allows people as much freedom as possible to decide their own morality without getting in the way of others.
 
The vast majority of subjective / objective discussion is fluff.

This is nothing more than a reformulation of your claim that morality is subjective, it is not an argument. You need to establish why the claim is true, not just reformulate and repeat it.
Click to expand...

I don't see how anybody could possibly establish it as being true.
Are you intentionally asking an unanswerable question to make your opposition look foolish?
 
psychedelicsoul said:
How is morality objective? Simply because the majority of people can agree on what's they think is right? Morality is an idea. Ideas are subjective.
Click to expand...

This "argument" for moral relativism is terrible.

Many truths started out as ideas before we verified them as facts. Evolution was an idea, so was language, this doesn't mean they aren't also things which exist objectively.
 
There really aren't any facts/truths.
Evolution is not fact.
It is a theory.

Some shit approaches the truth end of the spectrum, but nothing ever reaches it.
The only objective truth is that something exists.
Beyond that, everything is subjective.
(Including morality.)
 
I never said evolution is a fact, although my post did imply it. Technically there are no such things as scientific facts, just things that have not been proven wrong so far. To use the term fact in every day language essentially means that what we are referring to as facts are the best theories which we have going, have stood up to fairly rigorous attempts to falsify them, and/or have a great deal of empirical evidence to suggest their validity. In this context, evolution is a fact.

I disagree quite strongly that morality is subjective, although I agree that it is impossible to pin down a rigorous system of morality for all issues. Certainly some aspects of morality are subjective, but others are fairly objective. Is gang raping a 5 year old girl ever right? If you agree with me that it is not, I struggle to see how this could be explained without the existence of some objective moral facts.
 
Certainly some moral issues are subjective?
I get that certain things are so consistently deemed immoral that we might say they're objective.
But, really, there are no facts and everything (moral included) is subjective.

I'd be (somewhat) interested to dissect what these objective moral values are.
You'd have to look at mankind, throughout all of history and find values that never changed.

We evolved from animals.
Yet, morality differs species to species.
We don't judge animals for committing acts that would be immoral for a human.
If a dog eats a puppy, that is more disturbing than a rat eating a new-born pup.
So, at what point (of our evolution) did we shift to these human objective morals?

Murder certainly hasn't been consistently seen as immoral, throughout all of human history.
Our sense of morality suits us. We created it to suit us.

Perhaps as we evolve, we are approaching objective morality.
But - like everything - I don't think we will never truly reach it.
(We've got a long way to go.)

If an highly advanced alien race came to Earth, witnessed the horror, and eradicated the human race... would that be objectively immoral? It seems to me that there is a great deal of disagreement about what is and what isn't moral. Even seemingly basic things, like homosexuality and the unnecessary consumption of meat.

...

If anything, d_m, I think you need to explain why you don't think morality is subjective.
The people that disagree with you: are they wrong? That's what you're suggesting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top