Morality of Suicide

[Andre_5772]

For quite some time, I have been of the opinion that suicide is always immoral. This intuition arises out of my awe at how complicated and delicate the human body is, yet how elegantly all these systems work together, for the most part.

However I read something the other day which was to the effect of, "Life is for learning and growing, not for suffering through." I have to admit that this makes a lot of sense to me, too. But this leads to the possibility that at times suicide is justified. Specifically, when one can reasonably expect an excess of suffering in the future, and this condition will prevent any significant growth as a person, contribution to society, or whatever that person finds meaningful.

When I thought about this further, I realized that I probably wouldn't begrudge someone who committed suicide, provided they had rationally come to the conclusion that these criteria were satisfied. While I would never advise suicide, I think my view has changed to the point where I can accept it in certain circumstances without condemning it. I'm wondering what others think about the morality of suicide. Is it on par with murder because it ends a human life? Or is it a different act because rational beings are free to choose death for themselves although not for others?

[ChristianGuy]

I suppose a continuation of this argument is unnessecary. You have stated firmly what you believe and I respect that. I believe that God is going to destroy Satan one day and he will not burn in 'Hell'. Rather, he will burn in God's wrath in the "Lake of Fire." I did not post all of this to try to force my beliefs upon you, but rather to understand what you meant back when you said that you "could not make the grade." I guess you meant that you "will not" if God does exist. Alright, back to suicide.

[Fallibleone]

But god allowed Satan to get away with all that he has done, in fact at times he has given him explicit permission. He's going to punish him for doing what he asked him to do? This is exactly my point. Why would someone trust a being like that? Why would someone place all their hopes in a god who is known to have a history of stretching people as far as they can be stretched, making people suffer hideous diseases, standing idly by as babies suffer and die, because he might make it all come right at the end? What do such people have as a guarantee? Some words in a book? No, that's not good enough for me. As far as I am concerned, if I am at a point where there is no hope that I will ever get better and all I have left is a long lingering painful death, I see nothing immoral in removing myself from that situation.

In some other cases of suicide, I believe that poor mental health has a large part to play, and I can't really see how the mentally ill can be accused of immorality either. I believe that your life is your own. Of course individual cases vary - if you have a young family for example, it could be argued that suicide is harmful to them, but I say that most people considering it as an option feel that it will be better for their family if they are not around, rightly or wrongly. If you think that you are truly doing the right thing, can you be said to be acting immorally?

[ChristianGuy]

I really don't know. I have often debated (personally) on wether someone can sin if they truly have an illness which causes them to see what they do as right. I'll do some looking into that, but as of right now I am undecided.

[Mister E]

... Logically, no. It is an infinitely immoral act, for the following reasons.

1 - It is incredibly selfish and inconsiderate. Before committing suicide, one must fully justify the psychological harm they do to their family (losing a child is the most psychologically traumatic experience possible for a person to undergo, second only to losing a sibling) and friends.

2 - This one is more to do with circumstance. Let us say that the person is going to commit suicide because they are depressed. The chances of them becoming happier in later life are slim (if they continue the same psychological attitude to life, but large if they can change their self image enough to improve their perception of life, since that is the generalised cause of depression/mania), but still not 0%. Thus - logic states that the only fully justified action (therefore the only rational option to take) is to not commit suicide.

Let's say the chances of happiness if suicide is prevented are... 20%. There is an 80% chance the person will stay miserable for life. The only statement that can be obtained from this is that "suicide cannot be fully justified because there is not enough evidence to base the decision upon". Therefore, there is only one rational outcome - non-action.

[McCulloch]

It [suicide] is incredibly selfish and inconsiderate. Before committing suicide, one must fully justify the psychological harm they do to their family (losing a child is the most psychologically traumatic experience possible for a person to undergo, second only to losing a sibling) and friends.

I agree with you that one should consider the effect on others of your chosen actions. I disagree that suicide is always a bad thing. I speak of the terminally ill. Do you think that they should not be allowed the option of assisted suicide, if it is their will? Or do you believe that they are not capable of judging that the extra few months or years of pain or vegetative state might cause more psychological harm to others than a quick end of it all?

[Mister E]

I agree with you that one should consider the effect on others of your chosen actions. I disagree that suicide is always a bad thing. I speak of the terminally ill. Do you think that they should not be allowed the option of assisted suicide, if it is their will? Or do you believe that they are not capable of judging that the extra few months or years of pain or vegetative state might cause more psychological harm to others than a quick end of it all?

Yes, I agree here - there is a near 100% chance of the person suffering which will almost certainly cause their friends and family to suffer - as well as suffer yourself. so over a period of time it is more humane to die. Logically, this is still immoral - since there is never going to be an absolute 100% chance things will end up for the worse, so you can never justify euthanasia or suicide - but with such a slim chance I would agree that yes, suicide is justified in this case.

It's funny how pure logic can lead to the immoral acts sometimes, don't you think? Imagine if everybody took a purely logical approach to abortion!

Edit - The major problem with suicide and euthanasia is that more likely than not, the person whose choice it is (e.g: a person with dementia or a lonely teenager in a hormonal fit of depression/mania) will often choose the immoral option because they do not fully understand this. However much debating is done over more complex ethics by us will never be able to completely fix society's inability to think objectively about other people's wishes before they make decisions based on their own demands and emotions.

[McCulloch]

It's funny how pure logic can lead to the immoral acts sometimes, don't you think? Imagine if everybody took a purely logical approach to abortion!

I don't quite follow. I don't think that you understand what logic is. Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. No one can take a purely logical approach to anything, because in logic, the validity of the conclusion is absolutely dependent on the truth of the premises and the truth of the premises are outside of the scope of logic.

[realthinker]

... Logically, no. It is an infinitely immoral act, for the following reasons.

1 - It is incredibly selfish and inconsiderate. Before committing suicide, one must fully justify the psychological harm they do to their family (losing a child is the most psychologically traumatic experience possible for a person to undergo, second only to losing a sibling) and friends.

I personally think it's just as selfish and inconsiderate to impose sanctions on one for the anticipated psychological impact one's suicide may have on another. Why does the anticipation of psychological distress give people a claim to another's life? To what degree are we obligated, in circumstances relating to our personal lives, to protect the emotional state of everyone around us? If we wish to share in a meaningful relationship with another we may wish to accept that obligation and nurture it. But society itself has no place in that obligation. You can't make me care how you feel about me.

2 - This one is more to do with circumstance. Let us say that the person is going to commit suicide because they are depressed. The chances of them becoming happier in later life are slim (if they continue the same psychological attitude to life, but large if they can change their self image enough to improve their perception of life, since that is the generalised cause of depression/mania), but still not 0%. Thus - logic states that the only fully justified action (therefore the only rational option to take) is to not commit suicide.

Let's say the chances of happiness if suicide is prevented are... 20%. There is an 80% chance the person will stay miserable for life. The only statement that can be obtained from this is that "suicide cannot be fully justified because there is not enough evidence to base the decision upon". Therefore, there is only one rational outcome - non-action.

Your analysis here assumes that the magnitude of the circumstances are neutral. If the misery one is experiencing is entirely debilitating one may not accept even a very high probability of recovery. If my misery causes me to be grouchy every other day I might hang around and live through it. But if I'm not able to hold a job or have social contact of any meaningful form or care for myself, that's another matter.

[Mister E]

It's funny how pure logic can lead to the immoral acts sometimes, don't you think? Imagine if everybody took a purely logical approach to abortion!

I don't quite follow. I don't think that you understand what logic is. Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

That's quite a biased definition (looks more like a definition of solely formal logic to me) - but you yourself said it there. Logic is the study of reasoning.

No one can take a purely logical approach to anything, because in logic, the validity of the conclusion is absolutely dependent on the truth of the premises and the truth of the premises are outside of the scope of logic.

You sort of summed up my point - read my first post in this thread. This rule excludes certain examples (like ethics) because the only fully justified statement (therefore the only purely logical action) that can be made about a... let's say decision is that you cannot make a logical decision on the topic being reasoned over. The only logical outcome of said decision is that no answer can be obtained.

Let us take this back to the ethical controversy at hand - suicide. We can never make a decision based on pure logic because there will never be enough evidence to deduce a completely justified answer from. There is... a 0% chance that either decision will be fully justified.

Therefore, if you cannot make a logically correct decision over suicide/non-suicide - the only truly logical option is to not make the decision. In a case like suicide (or abortion/euthanasia), this results in non-suicide - which is one of the outcomes of the former decision - therefore, a decision can be answered purely logically, even if only as a coincidence.

My point about abortion was that if this purely logical view was taken towards abortion, it would always be considered immoral to abort a child.

[Mister E]

It's funny how pure logic can lead to the immoral acts sometimes, don't you think? Imagine if everybody took a purely logical approach to abortion!

I don't quite follow. I don't think that you understand what logic is. Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

That's quite a biased definition (looks more like a definition of solely formal logic to me) - but you yourself said it there. Logic is the study of reasoning.

No one can take a purely logical approach to anything, because in logic, the validity of the conclusion is absolutely dependent on the truth of the premises and the truth of the premises are outside of the scope of logic.

You sort of summed up my point - read my first post in this thread. This rule excludes certain examples (like ethics) because the only fully justified statement (therefore the only purely logical action) that can be made about a... let's say decision is that you cannot make a logical decision on the topic being reasoned over. The only logical outcome of said decision is that no answer can be obtained.

Let us take this back to the ethical controversy at hand - suicide. We can never make a decision based on pure logic because there will never be enough evidence to deduce a completely justified answer from. There is... a 0% chance that either decision will be fully justified.

Therefore, if you cannot make a logically correct decision over suicide/non-suicide - the only truly logical option is to not make the decision. In a case like suicide (or abortion/euthanasia), this results in non-suicide - which is one of the outcomes of the former decision - therefore, a decision can be answered purely logically, even if only as a coincidence.

My point about abortion was that if this purely logical view was taken towards abortion, it would always be considered immoral to abort a child.

I personally think it's just as selfish and inconsiderate to impose sanctions on one for the anticipated psychological impact one's suicide may have on another. Why does the anticipation of psychological distress give people a claim to another's life?

Why is it selfish and inconsiderate to anticipate psychological impact in order to understand and benefit society (bear in mind this is based from various experiments in psychological stress, not just a random classification)

Where did I mentioned that other people should be in control of another person's life, because I don't see what you're criticising here.

To what degree are we obligated, in circumstances relating to our personal lives, to protect the emotional state of everyone around us?

Well, in my opinion - absolutely (though this includes the self), although this isn't possible most of the time.

If we wish to share in a meaningful relationship with another we may wish to accept that obligation and nurture it. But society itself has no place in that obligation. You can't make me care how you feel about me.

No, but then society is incredibly inhumane - I was talking of ideals, not what should happen within today's society. Also, for you to think about whether you care how I feel about you, surely you have to care.

Your analysis here assumes that the magnitude of the circumstances are neutral. If the misery one is experiencing is entirely debilitating one may not accept even a very high probability of recovery. If my misery causes me to be grouchy every other day I might hang around and live through it. But if I'm not able to hold a job or have social contact of any meaningful form or care for myself, that's another matter.

... Probably - you seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to impose this upon a suicidal person. The circumstances are neutral, since I can't specify a correct answer for all occasions.