Psychologically Motivated Suicide Is Not A Right

thewonder

The right to die is defined by Wikipedia as "The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that a human being is entitled to end their life or undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood that a person with a terminal illness, or without the will to continue living, should be allowed to end their own life, use assisted suicide, or to decline life-prolonging treatment. The question of whom, if anyone, should be empowered to make this decision is often central to the debate." I'm with the right to die camp for the most part when it comes to physical ailments. It, however, does not seem to me that any person could responsibly advocate that a person end their life due to that they are "without the will to continue living". Anyone doing so, to me, just seems to have to be some sort of cult leader. It's not that suicide is immoral, it's just that it goes, by in large, unsanctioned, and rightly so. You can not be of any decent Ethical paradigm and advocate that person commits suicide due to psychological durress. Camus was only so correct in positing that the human condition was absurd, but right to suggest that we should rebel against such a state of affairs. Sorry to come back here, introduce a totally controversial topic, and then leave again, but, as someone who has attempted to commit suicide twice, this has just been bothering me. Basic human sympathy seems to suggest that you can offer a person any other option. Even the most vague optimism or the most banal platitudes can make all of the difference in the world.

thewonder

Also, does anyone know what the Death Positive Movement stance on this is? I thought that that sounded pretty cool, but worry that it might be a bit of a cult.

I think that the act ought to be given due regard. It's certainly tragic. That someone does so calls everything into question. It should very much so be considered on its own terms. I just really do think that no person could ever find themselves in a situation where advocating that a person end their life would be the right Ethical thing to do. There's always someway out of every bad situation. There's, at the very least, always a means to cope. I know that "The mind is its own place and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." is the part of The Argument that is put forth by Satan which Milton intended to refute, but I don't believe in a fatalistic God, and, so, I think that that really rings true.

uncanni

You can not be of any decent Ethical paradigm and advocate that person commits suicide due to psychological durress. — thewonder

Certainly no would would advocate for someone's suicide (without being seriously sadistic and sick), but I think that someone with profound emotional pain who seeks an end that way has the fundamental right to make their own choice. I think that some people are so empathic and so sensitive to various things going on in the world right now and how nutes humanity is, (unlike millions of people who don't seem to be feeling or perceiving this at all). On the other hand, next time, they will come right back to the same karma, so ideally (from a Buddhist-type perspective), we man up or woman up and face our worst demons. Again and again.

I think it's a deeply tragic choice when someone does make it--like they never got the right support/medication/counseling that might have assisted in the process of coming to a desire to live and change. BUT since I've never been in that person's shoes, I absolutely will not judge them.

thewonder

Also, concerning my particular opinions in regards to human nature. I really do think that people have a natural will to live. Suicide must occur during bouts of mania or something. Perhaps I'm stripping the act of its agency, but I do just think that it's like that. You can choose to kill yourself if you're someone like Socrates, but, for the most part, it really kind of is resultant of some sort of psychological malady. The symptom is not the subject even though the subject is always itself or something. I don't really know. I'm just hoping to ramble until I've improved my social relationship with the internet at large in regards to this.

I do see what the other side is. If you know someone, you want to treat the act with a certain degree of reverence. To truly cope with it, I think, though, means to accept it for what it is which is made in desperation. Suicide is tragic, but it's just that. It's not like this brave Existential act or anything. I honestly can't really engage in any sort of encounter on this and don't quite know why I even decided to bring it up.

thewonder

↪uncanni

Whether or not you have a legal right to just doesn't matter. You can always kill yourself either way. What is the fundamental right if not that you are advocating that they should do so given significant emotional pain or whatever?

I'm, of course, not advocating that people who commit suicide should be judged. It's something that other people can not possibly empathize with. You do just not know what it is like.

I don't know. There's just something about right to die advocacy that sort of bothers me. I bet it's not quite as cultish as I think. I feel like it's kind of like Eugenics or something. Eugenics can be pretty terrible. People should use contraception, but Eugenics can be pretty terrible.

That's just a projection, though. I feel like people assume that I'm right to life because of my opinions on this which is totally false. There's probably a lot of that that goes on with this debate.

Terrapin Station

I'm in favor of letting anyone do whatever they consensually want to do, including suicide. Like uncanni I'd not encourage anyone to commit suicide, but to me it seems immoral to prohibit people from doing whatever they want to do, as long as it's consensual.

uncanni

↪thewonder

I said, I am not advocating.

thewonder

↪uncanni

My point is that, while surely suicide shouldn't be punishable by law, suggesting that people have a fundamental right to it seems to advance that, in exceptional cases, it should be advocated. What does the normative natural or divine law do otherwise?

↪Terrapin Station

What does it matter what anyone does or does not prohibt in regards to suicide? They can stop anyone. I think that suicide is a somewhat exceptional case where the taboo is well founded. You probably should attempt to stop the person in most cases.

thewonder

↪uncanni

Like, what I mean is that suggesting that a person has a fundamental right to suicide seems to imply that it is something that is said person's choice and that you should respect that. What I am saying is that, if you can talk the person out of it, then, you probably shouldn't. Perhaps the right exists, but there is a greater Ethical concern. The situation created by the other demands that you respond to it in some, way, shape, or form or another.

uncanni

seems to advance that, in exceptional cases, it should be advocated. — thewonder

I don't know where this "advocated" thing is coming from. It seems to kind of sit there, in the middle of the discussion, without a clear reason for its presence. This has nothing to do with eugenics, so you have lost me.

uncanni

What I am saying is that, if you can talk the person out of it, then, you probably shouldn't. — thewonder

You've lost me again. Re-read, if you will, what I first wrote above. Of course forms of appropriate intervention are an ethical obligation, but should never be forced on anyone who's not delusional.

thewonder

↪uncanni

Eugenics was a ramble. I'm suggesting that invoking a fundamental right implies that, in exceptional cases, you should not try to stop a person from committing suicide. I don't think that that is the case.

↪uncanni

I guess I would posit that being suicidal is a pathology. It can be resultant of dire circumstances, but it is still a pathology. Life can always get better.

Perhaps you have a right to suicide in some abstract sense, but there doesn't seem to be any practical application of such a right as, in all cases where you can do something to alleviate the other person's plight, you probably should.

thewonder

↪uncanni

You took that quote out of context. "You probably shouldn't [respect said person's right to commit suicide]."

Suicide is an interesting exception to the respect that a person ought to have for another's autonomy. If someone is smoking a joint and you think that they shouldn't do that for whatever reason, and you take the joint out of their fingertips and stamp it out on the ground, then, you have probably done something that most people would consider to be overbearing. If someone is going to commit suicide and they have a bottle of pills, and you have to strip the bottle of pills out of their hand in order to prevent them from doing so, then, it's probably fine that you do that. Maybe it would have been better if you could have just talked them out of it, but it's probably for the best that they don't commit suicide, however that happens.

My point is that, while perhaps you somehow do abstractly, you don't actually have a practical right to die if you are attempting to commit suicide because of psychological distress.

thewonder

That was realistically all that I came back to explain. Sorry to just bring this up and then bounce, but I am going to do just that. I'll catch ya later The Philosophy Forum.

Terrapin Station

What does it matter what anyone does or does not prohibt in regards to suicide? — thewonder

Again, what I think it matters is that I think it's immoral to prohibit someone from doing anything they consensually want to do. That's one of the core tenets for me re my ethics.

thewonder

↪Terrapin Station

I guess I'm not sure that a person can really consent to suicide. You obviously can't know the full breadth of the endeavor.

Judaka

↪thewonder

What's a right to begin with? Euthanasia is one thing, we're discussing a legal issue and rights apply. Suicide itself can't be a right because rights can only go so far, if you're doing it yourself, you don't need approval to suicide you just do it.

thewonder

↪Judaka

I suppose that if you fail and suicide was illegal that it could be punishable which I don't think should happen. A right is like some inviolable thing that a person has. I'm positing that people don't necessarily have a right to suicide, but I'm not insinuating anything by it.

Judaka

↪thewonder

People don't have a right to suicide because it's not something that needs a right. I understand you're saying that we don't need a right to suicide but why would we need a right to suicide to begin with? Why is it important to say that we shouldn't have one. Seems to me you're just saying that "suicide is not the answer".

thewonder

↪Judaka

Well, that is the case, but I am saying that you are Ethically correct in violating another person's autonomy in preventing them from committing suicide which is how it is not a practical right. It may only exist as a right abstractly.

If we are to consider suicide only as an individual choice without any other parties, then I think it can be considered as a right as it is not something that is immoral. You have right to commit suicide in so far that you have not wronged anyone by doing so.

You are correct that whether or not a right is invoked is somewhat irrelevant. The person can do as they please regardless as to what people suggest abstractly or what the law stipulates.

I'm just not sure as to what the right to die entails in regards to someone "without the will to continue living". It doesn't seem like any responsible Psychologist could assess that a person should be let to commit suicide. Any industry or institutionalization of such measures seems rather frightening to me. I suspect for people involved with the movement to have merely overlooked these considerations and don't think that they're quite the merchants of death that I'm making them out to be, but I do think that those things pose serious problems for the movement.

thewonder

Idk. Everything was probably alright however it was beforehand, anyways.

I'm gonna take off now. Feel free to carry on with this discussion in my absence.

Isaac

I think it's immoral to prohibit someone from doing anything they consensually want to do. That's one of the core tenets for me re my ethics. — Terrapin Station

For a start, I thought you'd made it clear you didn't have any core tenets and everything was judged on a case by case basis. Second, I don't see any reference here to 'preventing' someone from doing what they consensually want to do, so what exactly was the purpose for this particular pronouncements (apart from furthering your delusion that people are just waiting for you to tell them stuff you reckon about stuff)?

Terrapin Station

For a start, I thought you'd made it clear you didn't have any core tenets and everything was judged on a case by case basis. — Isaac

Are you an Aspie? I'm asking because this is further evidence of your reading comprehension deficiencies. You have a tendency to read everything "as 'literal' as possible," with no evidenced ability to pick up on contextual clues for semantic nuance.

Terrapin Station

You obviously can't know the full breadth of the endeavor. — thewonder

What sorts of things would you say constitute "knowing the full breadth," so that one can't know this for suicide, but where it's the sort of thing one needs to know to consent to anything?

Isaac

Are you an Aspie? — Terrapin Station

Yes.

You have a tendency to read everything "as 'literal' as possible," with no evidenced ability to pick up on contextual clues for semantic nuance. — Terrapin Station

What 'contextual clues' indicate is a subjective matter, just because you think you have given sufficient context for your meaning to be clear is not in itself evidence that you have, you'd need some kind of external measure (external to you) to support an argument that it's my comprehension that's at fault and not your communication skills. You have no such evidence, so why not just be charitable and explain yourself better rather than complain about the skills of those who can't seem to make sense of what you're saying?

And what's my being an 'Aspie' got to do with it. Do you have a class of people who you prefer not to communicate with?

Terrapin Station

Yes. — Isaac

Thanks for being honest about that. It's been fairly obvious on a number of occasions.

What 'contextual clues' indicate is a subjective matter, — Isaac

Sure, and a matter that Aspies have a lot of problems handling in any sort of conventional manner. That's one of the characteristics of the condition. Maybe try having less attitude if you don't want to come across as someone who is obviously an Aspie and who is apparently an asshole about it? (Although if you want to come across as that, you're doing a fine job,)

deletedusercb

↪thewonder

How can one not consent to suicide? I may be missing something in the context here. If one does not consent to suicide, then it isn't suicide. It would be an accidental death caused by your own actions or a murder or something else.

Isaac

Maybe try having less attitude if you don't want to come across as someone who is obviously an Aspie and who is apparently an asshole about it? (Although if you want to come across as that, you're doing a fine job,) — Terrapin Station

Maybe try answering the questions within the topic under discussion rather your opinion on my personality? You can either explain better what you mean by a 'core tenet' which does not come under the category of 'foundational principles' which you have previously denied, or we can continue this sidebar about evidence of comprehension among epistemic peers. Whether I'm an asshole is not really a suitable topic for this forum.

Terrapin Station

Maybe try answering the questions within the topic under discussion rather your opinion on my personality? — Isaac

I address what's an issue as it occurs, and sometimes what's an issue is (due to) someone's personality.

Isaac

I address what's an issue as it occurs, and sometimes what's an issue is (due to) someone's personality. — Terrapin Station

Fine, you think I'm an asshole who should have less 'attitude'. That's that issue covered. Now will you answer the question, or do we have more therapy to get through first?

Terrapin Station

↪Isaac

So I'm not literally saying above that I'm using a foundationalist approach. You need to be able to not read everything in an overly "literal" and simplified way. It wouldn't be a question if you were able to do that.

Psychologically Motivated Suicide Is Not A Right

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions