hypothetical: what if you were in a trench and a few yard away you see 4 guys just chilling. for whatever reason they don't see the grenade that just plopped right next to them. you won't have enough time to warn them, if it goes off it will most likely kill them all, though you are at a safe distance. if you dive on that grenade, thus saving your comrades and sacrificing yourself, would this be wrong? after all taking a grenade to the belly will cause grievous harm and if you don't dive on it, you will make it unscathed.
That's a great question. I think you'll find the answer a little surprising:
We don't classify acts such as those as acts of suicide. Why?
A necessary component of suicide is the intent to kill oneself. One must take an action, with the INTENT and purpose of killing oneself, and be successful, for one to have committed suicide.
The person who jumps on the grenade, who pushes the old woman out of the way of an oncoming car and gets hit himself, etc., are not taking actions with the PURPOSE of killing himself.
The soldier jumps on the grenade (there are at least two examples of this in recent history, incidentally, one involving a Navy SEAL and another involving a Soldier, both of whom were awarded the Medal of Honor) with the purpose of shielding his comrades from the blast, and not with the purpose of killing himself.
Thankyou so much bud, you've basically pointed out everything that I think of and said its just part of the illness which is a relief and breathes a bit of optimism into my head.
Do you think I should give up drugs altogether? (i only use ketamine and or 2c's on the weekend)
Im battling hard man and I really which I could reply with something better to actually show how much I appreciate it but I just can't make sense of what to write.
Hey, no problem. That's one of the hardest things about mental illnesses: they literally become a part of the way you view the world, and it makes it difficult to untangle the illness from reality.
As far as the drug use, you may not want to hear this, but that's something you've got to talk to your psychiatrist about. They could certainly be exacerbating the problem, or interfering with treatment for the problem.
Many, many people have felt as you have, and have gotten better. But you must give the treatments a chance to be effective, and that means being honest and open with your doctor.
It's clear that you are motivated by the best of intentions, and you have put your points across clearly, but there are few things that make me angrier than someone claiming that my autonomy is of less consequence than their subjective morality.
E.g. taking drugs is bad - it is therefore moral to deny drug users their autonomy.
First, I was careful to say that simply that an action is "bad" isn't sufficient to stop a person from doing it. Suicide, though, in cases outside justified circumstances, involves such grievous harm to the person that it DOES make sense to stop him. The good in allowing him the (wrong) choice to commit suicide is hugely outweighed by the harm in allowing to end a life.
Second, re "subjective morality," we're both arguing for principles that we think are best for society. Neither one of us can claim NOT to be making ethical claims. So I don't think metaethical discussions of subjectivity and objectivity are useful here.
My argument is based on beliefs and concepts about human good that we likely all agree upon. Society needs such a shared concept of the human good in order to govern effectively and remain cohesive, which is why a radically libertarian society simply doesn't exist. Radical libertarian principles are violated every time we decide to use tax dollars for schools rather than nuclear plants, for roads rather than bullets, because such decisions require us to decide which policies are BETTER for society.
Similarly, every time we require doctors to acquire licenses before practicing, meat to be inspected before being sold, etc., we make the same choices.
Now, I think it's worthwhile to have a discussion about whether there are cases in which it IS a good decision, or a reasonably or plausibly good decision, to commit suicide. I agree there are certain cases. But there are also cases where it simply isn't, and I have no problem banning those instances.
I feel that in cases where someone has expressed a clear wish to be allowed to die, at the same time as taking into account the suffering that this may cause others (family, close ones etc.), their autonomy should be respected.
Why? What's the value in allowing every such wish to be followed, even where it is clearly motivated by mental illness and is not a good decision?
From my own experience, over the last ten years or so my world view has become progressively more pessimistic. This is not linked to personal experience, or an abstract sense of hopelessness, rather it is based upon observations of the broad geopolitical situation and the likely intractable problems that humanity is now facing. I really don't want to be around to witness the prolonged series of progressively worsening economic and ecological crises that seem likely in the not too distant future - and, were my worst expectations to come true, I can see a time where suicide might be a rational choice (and also, in terms of relieving the burden upon scarce resources, that might even be for the greater good).
If you ever in the equivalent of a lifeboat at sea, with enough resources only to feed 4 of the 5 people in the lifeboat, and you wanted those other 4 people to live, then I agree that might be such a justified circumstance. But of course we're nowhere near that point.
)
