Should suicide be considered an acceptable choice for any reason?

[spacejunk]

Are we confusing the "moral" with the "ethical" here?
"Morality" is a pretty shaky foundation to base belief systems upon, from my interpretation of the word.

 

[drug_mentor]

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.

To suggest that there are objective morals or ethical facts is not to suggest that people have always adhered to them, just that they should have.

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?

Around the point at which we developed the ability to use logic and reason. I don't expect non-human animals to consider the interests of other non-human animals, I don't think it is really within their capacity, outside the context of their immediate family/herd/etc.

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.

I agree with you here, for the most part.

Of course morality suits us, moral principles are essentially guidelines on how to live without unjustly causing a negative impact on others. Actions can never be defined as morally good from a self-interested perspective, the whole point of morality is you have to be able to address a wider audience, or impartial observer, why your conduct was the right course of action in terms of the interests of everyone affected by that conduct.

Morality is not a scientific principle, it can't be measured by any sort of instrument. Morality is a set of selflessly rational principles. This is why one can never morally justify killing someone else for fun, or participating in a rape.

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.

In regards to the alien question, I would suggest it would be immoral for them to eradicate life on earth. If they tried to justify it in terms of being in the interests of the creatures which inhabit earth, this would at least be an attempt at ethical justification, although my feeling is that no such explanation would suffice to excuse their conduct.

People disagree on all sorts of things, it does not mean there is not an objective fact of the matter. Many people used to believe the world was flat, the fact that some people thought it was flat and some people thought it was round does not lead one to the conclusion that the earth was neither flat nor round at the time of disagreement.

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.

Yes, in my opinion, those who argue for moral relativism are wrong.

Are we confusing the "moral" with the "ethical" here?
"Morality" is a pretty shaky foundation to base belief systems upon, from my interpretation of the word.

I am more or less treating morals and ethics as the same thing, as I was taught to do in ethics class. Looking up their respective definitions on google yields virtually identical results, in that both commonly refer to principles which govern behaviour/define right and wrong.

I get that there is not a perfect crossover for the words, but in a certain respect they can definitely be used interchangeably. I feel that being on a philosophy forum, and in the context of discussing subjective morality as a justification for behaviour, I am correct to use the terms interchangeably in this instance.

 

[ForEverAfter]

The world may not be round (either).

...

Re: morality... Isn't it still a work in progress?
Do we really know what is fundamentally right and wrong yet?
And/Or can we adhere to these standards without compromising our survival as a species?

 

[drug_mentor]

My point was not that the world is round, my point was that despite the fact people may disagree as to the shape of our planet, there is a fact of the matter about its shape (whether we know the correct shape is irrelevant). The fact that people do not agree on moral matters is not evidence that morality is purely subjective.

The reason I acknowledge morality is subjective to some extent is that in many cases, one could choose various courses of action and soundly justify them from a universal perspective. However, there are things which are absolutely immoral, like killing for fun. In this sense, morality is objective, not relative.

Morality is still a work in progress in terms of being implemented. This does not mean that it doesn't currently exist. Morality is something which can be appealed to logically, there might be some ethical dilemmas which are yet to be encountered, but they also have selflessly rational ways to respond, just as they will have selfish and immoral ways to respond.

The major point about morals/ethics is that when you consider acting in a certain manner, you consider the interests of everyone who will be affected equally. With this guideline, it doesn't matter if you encounter an unfamiliar ethical dilemma, you have a formula for calculating the appropriate response(s). Obviously the matter is more complex than I could articulate here, philosophers have been writing books on it for thousands of years and we still don't have a rigorous solution which everyone (or even most people) will agree with.

I did state that I agree it is impossible to pin down a rigorous system of morality which applies to every issue, and I also conceded that in many cases morality is subjective because there is more than one appropriate way to act. However, I thoroughly reject the doctrine of moral relativism, because despite the drawbacks I have acknowledged, there is a general framework through which one can make ethical decisions, and there are certain actions which are absolutely morally wrong, for these reasons, morality is not subjective. (In my opinion)

I am not optimistic that most people will ever live truly ethical lives (I know that I sure don't), but I don't think if we did that it would compromise our survival as a species, quite the opposite. I think if people learned to stop being selfish cunts and doing fucked up things to one another our species would be flourishing, or at least much closer to flourishing than we are currently.

 

[ForEverAfter]

there is a fact of the matter about its shape

I'm not convinced there is.

However, there are things which are absolutely immoral, like killing for fun. In this sense, morality is objective, not relative.

I disagree this is absolutely immoral.

(In my opinion)

Indeed.

I am not optimistic that most people will ever live truly ethical lives

Everybody is exactly who they are.
Everything is perfect.

I think if people learned to stop being selfish cunts and doing fucked up things to one another our species would be flourishing, or at least much closer to flourishing than we are currently.

We have to think that, as a species, though... We have to think that way forever.
Paradoxically perceiving ourselves as imperfect is part of what makes us perfect, yet: we will never flourish; the grass will always be greener.

To suggest that there are objective morals or ethical facts is not to suggest that people have always adhered to them, just that they should have.

They did what they had to do.
We are doing what we have to do.
One day, things will be better.
But, it will never be that glorious tomorrow.

I'd rather be alive now than any other period throughout history.
People, I think, should try to appreciate what they have more.
Humans hate themselves so much, it seems.

We look back at history and wonder how people did such horrible things.
And we don't take into account how difficult life was.

We evolved from animals.
Nobody taught us what to do.
I think we're doing an amazing job.

But, I'm still not convinced that there are any objective moral values.
Rape is a more compelling example than killing for fun.
Lots of people kill for fun.
Have you tried it?

 

[drug_mentor]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree FEA. This is a bit off topic and I don't have much more to say on the issue.

If you feel like shooting me a PM, I would be interested in hearing why you don't think killing for fun is absolutely immoral and also why you aren't convinced the world has an objective shape. I will leave the ball in your court, in case you can't be bothered with the conversation.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Killing for fun isn't absolutely immoral because we have overpopulated lots of species by carelessly introducing them into the wrong environments and killing them for sport (which is fun, try it) is a good way to control their numbers. As for the shape of the world, I'm not convinced there are any planets at all. (I'm not convinced of anything.)

[/Off-Topic]

 

[drug_mentor]

When I said killing for fun is always morally wrong, I meant killing innocent people for fun. I probably should have been more specific, but because it was my second time mentioning it in this thread (the first of which I was more specific) I thought the message was clear.

I don't wish to derail this thread any further. Perhaps this conversation can continue in a more suitable thread in the future.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

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.

Yea... except the morality of something can't be verified as a fact.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ You like to have your cake and eat it too, huh?

In this thread morality is bullshit because it can't be verified as a fact, yet in the other thread you are asking me to disprove God? You are ridiculous, I am officially done.

 

[kvsouth69]

This is what I believe--aside from religion. If someone is suffering, family would not want to watch them suffer. If it's for selfish reasons (or self-absorbed despression), then they should get help bc anyone in this state of mind thinks everyone will be better of without them. When, it reality, it leaves a trail of indescribable pain for those left behind (I know). So, unfortunately, I do not believe that just bc a person thinks it's right makes it right. It breaks whatever pattern could have happened, and if they'd have waited just a bit longer, their life will grow into something they could not imagine. Trust me--I've tried twice--succeeded (barely) once. And now I know I'm blessed to have been deterred both times. I would NEVER consider it again. Esp. knowing how much I am loved---at the time I thought everyone would be better off without me--esp myself. I can only speculate--but I don't believe the problems go away after suicide. And if you really love your friends/family, you'll ask for help, be honest, and watch how your life changes. It's ok to ask for help. We all need it at times.

 

[Memnoth]

Suicide is the result following a state of affection that is considered pathological. Pharmacology dictates pathological moods can be altered by mood regulating medication, such as anti-depressants, mood stabilizers and anti-psychotic substances. Psychology implies suicide is the result of insufficient coping mechanisms relative to experienced agony. It would be more morally justifiable to treat these symptoms rather than succumbing to euthanasia.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Suicide is the result following a state of affection that is considered pathological. Pharmacology dictates pathological moods can be altered by mood regulating medication, such as anti-depressants, mood stabilizers and anti-psychotic substances. Psychology implies suicide is the result of insufficient coping mechanisms relative to experienced agony. It would be more morally justifiable to treat these symptoms rather than succumbing to euthanasia.

But if suicide is caused by a pathological state of mind and insufficient coping mechanisms... Then by committing suicide, those problems would no longer exist.

Also, who are these psychiatrists to say that a person committed suicide for the wrong reason?

 

[Memnoth]

But if suicide is caused by a pathological state of mind and insufficient coping mechanisms... Then by committing suicide, those problems would no longer exist.

Problems are subjective, they can only have the property of being problematic as long as the perceiver considers them to be difficult. The difficulty of any experience can only be based on the different states that constitutes your mood.

Also, who are these psychiatrists to say that a person committed suicide for the wrong reason?

I have Bipolar Disorder, a severe psychotic mood disorder, I have made 3 attempts at suicide in my life, every attempt was made under the influence of a severe depression. Now I have received optimal medication, after several years of trial and error, and I realized; I'd rather be alive.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Problems are subjective, they can only have the property of being problematic as long as the perceiver considers them to be difficult. The difficulty of any experience can only be based on the different states that constitutes your mood.

Yea... but if they perceive suicide as right, then that would make it right. If problems are subjective, then solutions are also subjective

I have Bipolar Disorder, a severe psychotic mood disorder, I have made 3 attempts at suicide in my life, every attempt was made under the influence of a severe depression. Now I have received optimal medication, after several years of trial and error, and I realized; I'd rather be alive.

Well, let's say you did kill yourself back then.
Why would it have been a "bad" thing.
Since you don't feel that way now, then it would be bad for you to commit suicide now. However, that's only because you believe currently that it's wrong. If you did it back then, why would it be wrong?

 

[Memnoth]

Yea... but if they perceive suicide as right, then that would make it right. If problems are subjective, then solutions are also subjective

Well, let's say you did kill yourself back then.
Why would it have been a "bad" thing.
Since you don't feel that way now, then it would be bad for you to commit suicide now. However, that's only because you believe currently that it's wrong. If you did it back then, why would it be wrong?

Because I'm surrounded by people that love me and depend on my friendship, the subjective solution for one mind is not always the solution for others. The emotional state that follows the experience of loss does not change even if suicide was considered acceptable, no parent should have to outlive their own child.

Edit: Secondly, choosing not to exist when happiness is available in the future, seems subjectively undesirable. My main point is that mental agony can be treated. There shouldn't have to be death in the process, being alive now has more significance to me than being dead.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

Because I'm surrounded by people that love me and depend on my friendship, the subjective solution for one mind is not always the solution for others. The emotional state that follows the experience of loss does not change even if suicide was considered acceptable, no parent should have to outlive their own child.

Well, that's true now, becuase you're alive. However, I don't feel that people outisde of us determine what a persons life is worth. I think you and you alone are capable of saying whether or not your life is worth living.

Let's say it was the opposite and everyone around you hated you and wanted you dead... Would that then make suicide a good thing?

 

[Memnoth]

Well, that's true now, becuase you're alive. However, I don't feel that people outisde of us determine what a persons life is worth. I think you and you alone are capable of saying whether or not your life is worth living.

Let's say it was the opposite and everyone around you hated you and wanted you dead... Would that then make suicide a good thing?

I believe in treating the problematic aspects in every sentient being, if everyone wanted me dead, I would rethink my personality and see a therapist.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I believe in treating the problematic aspects in every sentient being, if everyone wanted me dead, I would rethink my personality and see a therapist.

Yea, but my point is that the only thing that makes that true is you believing it. You believe that you should solve your problems without ending your life. That is what you should do because you believe you should.

However, someone who feels the opposite of you should end their life.

 

[Memnoth]

Yea, but my point is that the only thing that makes that true is you believing it. You believe that you should solve your problems without ending your life. That is what you should do because you believe you should.

However, someone who feels the opposite of you should end their life.

Well, it seems we have reached an impasse. I respect your opinion and thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.