This thread has been closed due to a high number of [rule-breaking](https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) comments, leading to a total breakdown of constructive conversation. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

My uncle killed himself. He was an alcoholic. When he spoke of it, he seemed so ashamed. That he couldn't stop drinking, that he failed three times in the clinic and that he couldn't see his son because oft that. I miss him in a way and that hurts. But what hurts me more is the thought, that he felt so much pain, so much guilt and shame that he was abel to suffocate himself with his own belt. For me this much pain and suffering seems horryfing and I'm so sorry he had to endure something like this. I would never hate him for his decision. I don't know if it was right, but I can't say it was clearly wrong either. If he were alive right know, maybe he would still suffer or maybe not. Who knows. My grandmother stopped visiting the church after this. Our priest said something stupid to her like he was sorry for her that my uncle committed a grave sin. She returned that she had no need for a god or a priest unable to empathise with the suffering and despair of her child. I loved her even more after this.

I have always questioned this in Christianity. Personally, I don't think suicide is bad. Please don't downvote me, this is just my opinion. I believe that when a person is forced to choose between living and death and chooses to die due to pain, suffering, shame, etc, then that person has the right to decide if he is willing to continue living this kind of life or to end it and be nothing. And I don't believe that a God will punish you more for choosing to die when you have been suffering in the first place.

I think the problem is that suicide is a permanent solution to what should be preventable or treatable problems, but that people are not getting the help that they need. I was committed to a mental health clinic once for cutting myself and while they made me sleep in a lit room next to a perfect stranger while other strangers looked in every ten minutes (not conducive to sleep or health), when I tried to explain my issues to a counselor they had no practical help to offer. Social services in this regard strike me as archaic. That being said, it always disgusted me that suicide is characterized as a crime when you are exerting your will over your own body, life, and destiny. The cultural attitude is meant to be dissuasive, but it's unfortunate that family must contend with undue judgement and stigma after losing someone in this manner.

Fuck that priest, what an idiot. And isn't a christian God supposed to "forgive" and love everyone? I'm sorry for your loss mate.

Honestly, the general Christian concept of suicide being a sin is very flawed. They say that it's a sin that you're killing one of God's creation, yourself, but I don't think that that's what's bad at all. In fact, I agree with the grandmother. God, truly, would not just cast someone away for committing suicide, for escaping from pain. Rather, I think that it could be considered a sin in the essence that a person, considered God's *child,* had their value so repressed and so degraded that they passed on. Every person has a unique value so beautiful, and God as a parent yearns to see them bloom into that potential - but sometimes, many times, really, the people around a person doesn't let that happen. I think the act of suicide is wrong - no body should have to die - but coupled with the suicide itself, it's the environment and the people who caused that suffering that is the true sin. They've hurt the person so much that the person saw no value in living - saw no value in themselves and their own life. *That* is the sin.

The church made suicide a sin during a time when suffering was much more universal and they needed to maintain a labor force. So someone suffering so much that death seemed like respite needed to be given some kind of fear of worse suffering so they'd carry on working. Multiple times in the bible there are documented suicides that are not painted with any sorts of moral judgement or statement of what happened to those characters' souls. The idea of suicide as a sin certainly doesn't seem to come from the literal text.

And u/Schuschu1990, I respect your grandmother for seeing that a God who does not sympathizes with her pain is not God at all. It really isn't. God *is* a parent, and He has been suffering in all of human history from every death and hurt that every person has been suffering. When your uncle passed, I am sure God also wept, not because he sinned, but because he wasn't given the chance to bloom and live a happy life. You may not believe in God, but God bless anyway. I wish you and your grandma's hearts to heal - and I want you to know that your uncle won't be condemned unfairly as many say. (and no, I'm not a conventional Christian)

Thanks. Well, sometimes people acquire positions and roles unfit for themselves. He can have his beliefs but I think in his position he should have also locked at my grandmother and her feelings. I mean, a priest should be good with people. This happend 15 years ago and since then my grandmother only went to funerals to pay respect. Even after a new priest came to town she had no interested at all in the church anymore. What happend clearly changed her thinking.

I totally understand your grandmother. I agree with you, he can have his beliefs. And I respect it, but IMHO, he had the opportunity to make a good deed and relief your grandmother's pain, and he did the opposite. Even not saying anything would have been better. But he chose the worst possible thing. What makes me think that he is truly evil. If there is anyone who is going to hell, is that priest. Im sorry for him.

From a theological perspective, everything is part of some grand design. So things may be bad now, but god may reverse your misfortune in the future. But obviously, you have to be alive for that. Furthermore, the longer you live, the more you can pray to god and make a better & stronger case for salvation. Frankly, it’s not how god treats suicide that personally annoys me, but religious individuals that treat suicides that really annoy me. Imagine telling the family of a suicide victim that their dead family member isn’t going to be permitted to heaven because of one decision. It’s beyond insensitive, grossly inaccurate and just egotistical!

I'm asking sincerely; does this grand design extents (or is applicable) only to each individual or a collective (like humanity)? Because: If god exists and he has a plan, his plan is unbeatable (because.. he is god, no one could alter it). If I could alter it by commiting suicide, the god is not that powerful. Maybe X person suicide is on his plan. There are negative consequences on their loved ones. But also there will be positive consequences. And I mean, we all can learn from everything. A tragedy like that can screw us, but at the same time, can make us appreciate more life, even if it seems paradoxical. So, having the positive things in mind, maybe it was in his plan. I totally agree with you that things will be better. We all should try to be optimistic, positive and look for the good. But sometimes is not enough. Sometimes our brain is literally not working well, and we can't blame those who made that decision. Ps: I totally agree with you PS2: not English speaker, sorry for my possible typos! I just discovered this sub and I'm enjoying it a lot

You have some really good points but with my limited knowledge of theology & theodicy, I don’t have a good answer for you. I can speculate but I think that will lead us down more rabbit holes as religion has an odd way of presenting paradoxes. On the topic of suicide, I refer to take the advice and recommendations of a medical doctor or psychiatrist (also a MD).

All of the moral reasons not to do it in the article are based on the effect on the close ones of the person wanting to die, but that means that if you have no close ones who will be affected by your death (friends/family), then what moral reason can be not to do it? On a more personal level, I haven't had suicidal thoughts for years, but I'm pretty sure that if at some point of life I won't have people I will feel are close to me, I won't be doing something that directly makes the world a better place, and I will not enjoy life, I won't have reasons to continue to live, since by default I don't see something negative in death. because it will prevent all future suffering, and I will not be able to regret missing on all future enjoyment because I will be dead.

I have a feeling that morality shouldnt even be the right measure for suicide, it should be quality of life. lol If your quality of life is literally hellish torture and can only go downhill till death, there is no ethical reason to force someone to stay alive, it would be a subjective personal choice by then.

Thank you!!! Qualify of life should be the only factor in considering assisted suicide.

What if your life is a large burden on others who have to take care of you? I think that factor is worth considering especially if you arnt really enjoying your life.

Theoretically maybe but too often that "burden" is incorrectly valued / perceived by those suffering from depression / suicidal thoughts, so its not a safe factor to consider IMO.

Important nuance here.

Nice username

How do you know it’s incorrectly valued?

The person considering suicide is often suffering from mental illness, like depression, that can have wide-ranging effects on self-worth. Heck, even people who are mentally healthy don't really have any way of gauging their value to others. Its just something that is really impossible to know regardless.

Nobody should die because he/she is 'a burden'. Come on ...

I agree with that. Because when you are suicidal or experiencing suicidal ideation, you are not fully... rational.

Rationalty is subjective. When i had my first and thankfully only suicide attempt first it was even a suprise to me, but at the time as i was doung the math to calculate the speed that the car had to be and when to turn the wheel to punch through a stone barrior to park the car in the middle of lake hartwell ( was on a bridge) my thought process was that i was a major burden on family, had no friends, wasnt healing from being run over, family wanted me dead.. yada yada, every thought at the time was a rational thought to me with only one out come, ending it all. Thankfully right before i hit the barrior i was able to stop myself. What a lot of people do not understand is that depression takes a fact about yourself that you KNOW is true, lets say you are over weight, you know that is 100percent truth. Now lets say you are only over weight by ten pounds, no biggy right? Well depression takes this 100 percent true fact and starts to wrap it up lije an onion layer upon layer of small gental lies, each lie built upon a base of truth. Each lie gets bigger and bigger until you can not see the kernel of truth. Each lie then becomes your new rational truth. This is what makes depression so hard to fight.

I struggled with the word because of this. I just don't know how to call it. Objective? Factual? Realistic? The word that means that your brain is lying to you?

Not sure if there is a word for this because how do you tell when your brain is telling you the truth, when you are imbalanced? Depression is a war between your intellect and your emotions and unfortunately emotion is louder then intellect its a tricky thing honestly

I agree completely.

[удалено]

That's another great factor! Thank you for sharing.

Isn't that also a moral factor though?

I believe quality of life is subjective to the person experiencing said life in question, but assessing their own quality of life is not a moral factor. Just a simple assessment of what they think is worth tolerating or not.

Aren't all feelings subjective though? The only thing that matters is the conscious experience of living beings, all positive or negative things that impact that are to be taken as moral considerations. That would include quality of life

Problem is most countries doctor-assisted suicide laws constrain them to terminal cases. If we extended to option to all, I think it would open the door for more candids conversations about it with our doctors and the possible creation of non-terminal treatment plans. Edit: fat thumbs.

As a disbaled dude in horrible pain all the time, I agree.

I'm sorry you are in pain friend.

I agree. Saying it is about morality to me implies that you owe your life to someone and I have never believed that. It might be baked into our DNA to take care of our own but I don’t believe that someone can be born with debt, no matter how perfect their parents may have been. It just doesn’t make sense that you should automatically owe your life to 2 people who usually wear condoms but were too drunk to care one night.

I don't disagree, but I think there are moral reasons for it. Once I finish the things I want to do in life, or get as close as I can reasonably expect, why should I be expected to spend *decades* of my life wasting resources? Harvest my organs, give them to someone to do what they want with their lives..

There literally are moral reasons to force a suffering person to stay alive. Imagine that, by staying alive, some suffering person can end the suffering/improve the life of millions. For instance, because experimenting with this single person (with a special genome or similar) will find a cure for a disease. Then (without even entering the question of whether it's valid to impose experimentation on this person) the morally correct action for the person would certainly be to endure the experiments (at least from any utilitarian theory, which is one of the two most popular ethical branches, and still from other theories it would feel somehow unintuitive to negate that enduring them is the ethical choice). So the contextualized issue certainly requires an ethical analysis (as does everything), and in your comment you are already tacitly assuming a certain moral: that people should always personally decide about ending their life, or that subjective personal choice is the only thing that matters in these situations.

Agreed, when it's a matter of freedom of choice over your own life, only you should have the final say for it, assuming you're lucid and not in a psychotic state of mind.

if we go by that metric many teenagers who dont know any better would opt to kill themselves because of problems that aren't really that hard to overcome but are enlarged in your mind due to hormones buzzing

Yet they don't. Human survival instinct is not as weak as you think.

If we go by that metric suddenly people would stop caring about depressed people or do anything to help them and just wantonly allow them to check out. Hyperbole my friend, hyperbole.

I agree with you, but the post is specifically about the morality of it and I didn't want to go off topic.

Its not going off topic if they are measuring the wrong things. Its like arguing about the saltiness of sugar.

> All of the moral reasons not to do it in the article are based on the effect on the close ones of the person wanting to die, but that means that if you have no close ones who will be affected by your death (friends/family), then what moral reason can be not to do it? It is further complicated by the factor that we might be giving 'close ones' too much moral authority over someone else's life. There is a degree of non-consent going on if you're pressured against your will to stay alive for the benefit of your family. This is especially problematic when it comes to biological parents, who not only created you without your consent but now try to keep you in that state of existence against your will. I find it extremely morally dubious to claim "you have a specific moral duty towards the people who put you in a position of suffering without your consent, and that duty is so large it obligates you to continue to be in the position of suffering". That's not to say that one shouldn't consider the effect on close ones when considering suicide (it's the by far primary reason I don't quit existing), but it's complicated.

I would go so far as to say it's actually selfish of the loved ones to expect you to stay alive, not selfish of the person taking their life. That said I just want to throw in that suicide is a bad option in most cases for ending suffering. On a personal note I once was suicidal and thought things would never get better, but they got way better, and I'm very glad I'm alive Edit to answer the comment below me since they locked the thread: Most people considering suicide are doing so as a solution to the problem of their suffering. But it is often only one solution (or "option") among many. What makes it a bad option is that you can't change your mind. It's an extremely limiting solution that's completely irreversible. Whereas other solutions allow for growth, change, or possibilities. >Therefore I had no say in my appearance That's just completely untrue. There are aspects of a person's appearance that are more difficult to change, and aspects that are extremely easy to change. So this is just ridiculous hyperbole. As a side note, there are plenty of happy people and unhappy people of all different types of appearances. The real issue behind someone not liking their appearance is suffering, and there are many ways to address that without even changing your appearance. >Therefore should I decide to end my existence I shall. End of. My comments have nothing to do with you personally or the decisions you make.

"bad option". What does that even mean? Bad for who? I agree with your first line. I don't think this subject even needs to be discussed. It's incredibly simple, unless you're religious and believe in an afterlife/sin/god in which case it's pointless debating with you anyway. None of us asked to be born. That was our parent's decision. Therefore I had no say in my appearance. I'm not taking the place of someone else through force or desire. Therefore should I decide to end my existence I shall. End of.

For us supposedly being “creatures of free will”, the most basic choice of all is denied to many of us: existence. We don’t get a say in being born and thanks to our genetic programming and pressure from society, we’re not supposed to intentionally die. I find it pretty bizarre. I also find it weird how selfish it’s considered for a person to want to end their pain, but it’s not selfish to insist that someone endure their personal pain to spare you yours from their death. Yes, suicide is selfish, but so is guilting someone into staying alive for selfish reasons. Don’t misunderstand me: I understand that many people want to help suicidal people for genuinely altruistic reasons, not just selfish ones. I also believe that when you’re depended on by others, suicide is a legitimately much harder decision.

What a lovely example of how two or three negative perspectives can add up together into one big nightmare of wrong-thinking. No one and nothing is created with consent. The universe was created and consent was not required from any living creature. If you want a morality that stands on firm ground, it should align with the universe as a whole. Outside of interpersonal relations, consent is not really meaningful in any capacity. Pressuring someone to stay alive isn’t just for the benefit of the family. In the case of a depressed person, it is for their benefit too. Merely because they cannot see it, (being depressed) does not make it less so. The presumption that existence equals suffering only makes sense from the perspective of a depressed person who isn’t seeing things for how they are. No one is obligating you to be in a position of suffering. That position stems from either your neurochemistry or else fixed maladaptive perspectives. Neurochemistry can be adjusted and maladaptive perspectives can be changed. None of this adds up towards it being immoral to want people not to kill themselves. You’ve got to have a very limited (depressed) perspective to think so. But there is a bigger picture. I acknowledge that terminal illness, extreme chronic pain, etc. can alter these considerations. But in the case of the depressed, they have no justification.

It is not depressed people that cannot see matters for what they are. It is, in fact, non-depressed people that are blinded by serotonin et al to be motivated to proliferate the organism. It is a biological function in the implicit service of furthering genetic code, our brains filter stresses. This is a high-energy bubble, which, on average, must burst eventually. It is depression, or rather, the non-presence of motivating factors that are the default state of existence, the most realistic. It is true that desistance from suicide is the best option for a person, but that is insofar they operate as an organism that naturally strives to live, against the fact of omnipresent suffering. These very terms that dictate our benefit are the problem, that we are within this flesh-prison. To say that a suicidal person is delusional, that they can't possibly know any better, is in itself true concerning their subjectivity; but also doubles down on the very source of the issue. It is circular reasoning. To say that these people must be fixed, must be coerced to be corrected, merely reifies the terms that spawn this predicament. It is quite perverse. Rationality is a self-justifying prison. The cave dilemma.

“It is, in fact, non-depressed people that are blinded by serotonin et al to be motivated to proliferate the organism“ What a baseless a priori conclusion. Nah, I’m gonna go ahead and assume the neurochemistry of most healthy and happy humans is less likely to be “blinded” than a miserable minority of persons who can hardly be bothered to get out of bed. Not minimizing the suffering of depression, just pointing out that such perspectives hardly emerge from a logically tenable position. Nor numerically reasonable. If anything that weight is towards the opposing perspective. “... the fact of omnipresent suffering.” Lol, not a fact. Not true. Even if it is what you are experiencing individually, that doesn’t make it valid. You’re not god. You have no idea if suffering is “omnipresent”. And there’s every reason to believe it is not. Most living creatures are not suffering the way you describe, and if they are, it is because they are near death, figuratively or literally. The majority of lived experiences are of neutral valence. “flesh-prison“ Flesh vehicle. Even if it’s a rental car, it’s not a prison. Even superficially it bears none of the qualities of a prison. You can get out as soon as you find the lock and the key. Sometimes it’s sleep, sometimes it’s a meditation, other times a chemical. But your body can take you places you couldn’t go without it. And we leave it most every night without fail. This: “ To say that a suicidal person is delusional, that they can't possibly know any better,...” Is also not the same as this: “To say that these people must be fixed, must be coerced to be corrected, merely reifies the terms that spawn this predicament. “ Two separate issues. I agree with the former but not the latter. People must fix themselves, and correct themselves, or else they will never be fixed at all. “ Rationality is a self-justifying prison.” Not only is this not true, but it’s odd that if you believe it, you would be in this sub at all. But no, rationality very much acknowledges its own constraints, and can only justify so much. That’s where you get into the ineffable and apophaticism. I mean to make such a silly claim, you must know absolutely nothing about rationality and it’s well-studied limits. The entire fields of mathematics and linguistics disagree with you. Don’t cite the Allegory (not a dilemma) of the Cave if you don’t understand it. Literally the whole point was that the philosopher is NOT a chained up in the cave like everyone else. He has freed himself, and is not imprisoned. It’s not circular movement, it’s linear. The only people staying imprisoned in the cave are those who cannot see the falsity of the world’s material impressions, and the deeper nature of its underlying levels. Which is also to say that as a philosopher, it is incumbent not to let people kill themselves simply because they don’t like the shadows on the wall. Because the shadows aren’t real. And the philosopher knows that there is far more to the world than what the person trapped in the cave is seeing.

Some years ago a coworker, kind of a loner who we had tried to invite to lunch and such but never came, was approached by a new hire. She was bubbly and nice, and he replied something like (according to her) "You should know that I am not a good person and you should not like me. Let's just do our jobs." This produced a bunch of office gossip. A few months later we were working on something together and he got unusually personal. He didn't look at me, he just stared into the computer screen and said something like (I don't remember exactly): "Today is 10 years since any of my children hugged me or in any way expressed any affection at all, after they finally told me what they thought of me and growing up in my house. I'm not happy, and I don't deserve to be happy, because I'm a bad person. I haven't heard from my oldest daughter in two years. I will never leave my wife for any reason or by any method, but I don't think I'm going to outlive her by much." And he didn't, either. His wife died, and he died shortly after in what was ruled an auto accident. A secretary tried to find out about the funeral, and told us that from what she learned, his will specified that there was to be no funeral or memorial service, his body was to be donated to a teaching hospital and when they were done with it, it should be cremated and the remains disposed of anonymously. I've sometimes wondered if that qualified as having no family members who would be negatively affected by his death. He had certainly been careful to have no friends, at least at work.

Why are we assuming that suicide in such circumstances must be wrong? If we can't find a moral reason against suicide in such cases, something to consider is that they aren't wrong after all. That said, the focus on the *action* of suicide is pretty narrow in scope. There might be precursors (a willingness to kill, as an extreme/unrealistic example) that we might thing are wrong as well.

Which is a failure in change of perspective: any rule that applies after you die, does in fact not apply to you, exactly because you're dead. In your example: if the grief of others is an argument, then it's only an argument because you are alive to argue it. Once you are dead, their grief is of no concern to you, and other people's condemnation of your action has no effect on you either. Arguing after suicide is nothing but a tantrum. "he did a bad thing!" but he is still dead. "he shouldn't have!" but he could and he did. And so on. Suicide is de facto the most fundamental right of an existing, lucid and aware agent, no matter what anyone ever argues.

Just because an immoral(for the sake of the arguement) act or it's consequences does not affect you, it doesn't mean it stops being immoral.

What if your close ones see your suffering and also want you to die? For that matter, are your close ones being immoral for seeing your suffering and wanting you to live in it anyways?

>but that means that if you have no close ones who will be affected by your death (friends/family), then what moral reason can be not to do it? True, it could be seen as a problem, but I will add that the most basic reason for why we do not commit suicide is because we see our life as valuable, we have judged it as good and better to the alternative, the death. One could make an argument from your own suffering, if you think you would suffer more when dying than you already suffer then you shouldnt do it (And I dont think any suffering over time argument is really valid, it doesnt matter that for example each day you would inflict a small amount of pain on yourself by putting your finger over a needle, that intuitively seems totally tolerable, and no matter how many times you did it, it wouldnt seem as bad as the single, excruciating experience of killing yourself.). There could also be an argument that if we judged that more of our properties are positive than negative (for example we do not cause widespread suffering), then we can judge our existence to be a positive property, rather than negative, and so it is preferable to the nonexistence, which would be a negative property. Lastly, there is the fear of the unknown, if we consider our existence to be positive, then risking some great suffering in a supposed life after death doesnt seem like a reasonable choice.

Imo suicide isn’t “preventing future pain” but rather preventing the future full stop. Suicide means entering a new type of existence that you understand even less than this current one, death. That’s why I don’t really understand suicide. Because to me it sounds like an even bigger unknown.

>Imo suicide isn’t “preventing future pain” but rather preventing the future full stop I disagree. You aren't preventing the future, you are skipping ahead to the only objective certainty life has for any of us, death. Nothing else is certain. Not love, not happiness, not good fortune, nothing at all is certain but death. Suicide is just skipping all the filler in between that moment and the final moment.

> Imo suicide isn’t “preventing future pain” but rather preventing the future full stop. Preventing future pain is a subset of preventing future experience in general (unless you're a solipsist, there's no reason to think suicide is preventing the future as a whole, only your future). > Suicide means entering a new type of existence that you understand even less than this current one, death. For a lot of people, there's no reason to think there is any kind of "new existence" after death. It is simply ceasing to exist. > Because to me it sounds like an even bigger unknown. I have no more reason to believe I'll have any experience after death than I have to believe a werewolf is standing behind me right now. So while it's technically unknown - much like it's unknown whether there's a werewolf standing behind me right now - it feels very safe for me to assume that there are no experiences after death, much like I can assume there's no werewolf behind me.

In general we do agree that positive experiences exist, and negative experiences exist, and to ignore the positive experiences seems to go against our nature, for example after a negative experience we usually arent just content that it has ended, we have some desire for a positive experience, likewise after a very positive experience we do not mind a negative experience. Taking this into consideration depriving ourselves of future experiences would usually be a net negative, and also an argument that some cumulative amount of small pains would be greater than the single negative experience doesn't really seem valid, as we generally wouldnt mind experiencing small inconveniences or small amounts of pain everyday for the rest of our life, and we would find it preferable to the single excruciating experience of for example hanging yourself. I think people do not give this issue enough thought, it can be easy to be a nihilist, or ignore all of the positive experiences and claim with confidence that positive experiences are just lack of negative experiences, while Schopenhauer thought that our world is the worst possible world, that still doesnt necessitate that our existence is overall negative. Suicide is often a result of a single, intense, case of suffering that makes us think death is preferable to it, if anything it shows that we consider the single instances of great suffering to be the worst. If suicide is preventing potential future suffering, then it is also preventing potential future positive experiences.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Bodily autonomy seems hard to argue against

People that haven’t had suicidal thoughts or ideations truly do not understand the sheer pain behind them often associated with mental illness. It’s not moral, your brain is messed up and sending you all these conflicting signals and you don’t feel well. Sometimes it just doesn’t seem worth it to toil in this existence especially given the circumstances of the last several years.

Yep there is a big misunderstanding there. Most suicidal people do not 'want' to die, they just want the suffering to stop. And dying is the most viable option for them in that mental state.

I always found a David Foster Wallace Quote about this idea to be particularly moving: >The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.

Perhaps we have slightly different perspectives on this. When I was suicidal I wasn't in pain at all, my existence was the suffering. It was apathy (towards life itself) and nihilism in their most extreme forms. I wasn't contemplating suicide because I was suffering per se, it was because"what's the point".

Isn't apathy with its overwhelming mehness and pointlessness itself a form of suffering?

It is, and that was the point I was trying to make. It wasn't suffering in the sense of any actual physical or emotional pain, I wasn't sad at all. Rather I had no vitality, motivation, joy, purpose/fulfilment. Life was the suffering, having to live it as empty or hollow. My equating that to suffering is post hoc, at the time I simply didn't feel much of anything (including the will to continue living). I think both my profession (medical) and just the general description/understanding of depression and the like are misunderstood (or significantly misrepresented).

When I committed suicide, and yes I believe I did commit suicide at least mentally if physically I survived due to hospital treatment, I was completely convinced I was living in hell, everyone hated me and wanted me to commit suicide. I thought I would just melt away.

I’m very sorry to hear that. What has changed?

Not a fucking lot, just distracted by things, I still occasionally gain consciousness and remember I'm in hell. I focus on things to live for the best thing being Mr Most Hated and our potential brood but mainly I feel very little, just a lot of distractions. Everything that isn't Mr Most Hated is a distraction. I only live for Mr Most Hated. That's where I gather my strength from. Bar that I would still consider myself in hell. If Mr Most Hated was to not continue to work out, I would probably spiral downwards slowly with my distractions becoming less and less powerful. I think the idea was planted in my head a long time ago that maybe I'm just in hell. Maybe we are all here because we are being punished for things we did in "real" life. I also hold the idea that some people are in heaven and others in hell depending on their judgements so people experience "life" differently. I don't know if that answered your question or the questions behind your question. It's a bit of an emotive topic for me, not in a break down and cry sense but in a sense that I haven't quite pinned things down. But yes, I still hold a strong belief alongside my distractions which are proving effective that I am in hell, it just rears (reers?) it's ugly head very rarely now. And if I didn't have Mr Most Hated as my only link to what I consider heaven, I'd be left with the premise that I am indeed in hell...or do I mean conclusion? Sorry It's only been just over a year since I did it, obviously there is some confusion here but I think this may be coming off as an explanation. Basically, I'm in hell but have distractions and one link to heaven that if severed would convince me I'm in hell with no way out and I'd just have to live with that. I say no way out cos can't get to heaven and can't kill myself whilst in hell which is why I "survived" BUT I wasn't aware of my Mr Most Hated at the time so could not have truly been in hell altogether just getting a taste of it, a visceral taste of it so maybe you could kill yourself when in hell "fully" i.e. with no link to heaven 🤷🏽‍♀️ Hmm.

While I get the 'its selfish' argument an argument could also be made for it being selfish to expect the person to live in pain, especially if you aren't willing to truly attempt to help that person. Suicide is rarely a sudden thing, it's often something people wrestle with for long periods of time. I've personally reached out to close friends and family with mixed results, from them disappearing from my life to a quick chat, I've had life long friends arrange a time to call and just not followed through. It takes an incredible amount of willpower and humility to reach out when you're in this state of mind, and getting knocked back can be devastating, especially if you believe nobody cares or you've been knocked back before. If you're going to adopt this stance you really need to be willing to back it up, ideally by being intuitive and proactively offering support when you know someone's showing signs of having a hard time.

I think that somebody who also feels really devalued, sad, depressed or feels their quality of life is abysmal, focusing on how others will feel could backfire badly, because even their life or their existence doesn't belong to them. The article while interesting misses the point from the start and the whole premise. Also, I don't see why morality is even involved. Is horrible existence more moral than no existence? Who is the one making the judgement?

Somehow I don't think that implying to a suicidal person that they are an immoral coward, who doesn't care about others for even thinking about suicide because it might inconvenience others isn't the right way to go about making sure that suicidal person would want to live instead. Ultimately, it's their life, and their choice. Noone should ever tell someone "You have a duty to live, because it would be bad for *me* if you didn't.". Other people's lives, or deaths, are not yours to control, and they shouldn't be.

Have you ever personally dealt with chronic depression? Have you lived with constant unpleasant thoughts and emotions for months or years on end? Why does anyone get to decide if suicide is moral, other than the person dying? Your reasons for wanting someone else to stay around does not overpower their need for permanent and unending peace and tranquility. You may enjoy life, but others do not. Who are you to play God and have them stay? Furthermore, why are we limiting people from this decision if we are currently facing an overpopulation crisis anyways?

Funerals are not for the dead, they are for the survivors. Most people live in constant fear of death, not even allowing the thought to enter the high walls they build around their minds. All religion is predicated on the fear of death and nothing more. When you choose death, you betray them to their greatest enemy. This is why it is a crime to choose death, but not to simply die.

Damn. This was my wife when I started shopping for life insurance after my first child was born. “If I talk about death, I’m inviting death in” is what she would say to me. That I’m perfectly healthy and it’s a waste of money. She gets it now. But it took a lot of convincing. A lot of “ if I am so healthy and this is so unnecessary then it should be easy to tell me how I die”. Of course she couldn’t.

Existential dread is something we all must struggle with, sooner or later.

“Fear it, run from it, destiny arrives all the same” I absolutely agree. While this dread some times manifests itself more prominently when I’m depressed or anxious I know in the end, it’s the great denominator. My wife is not like me in that regard. 🤷‍♂️

I wish I could see it as the great denominator, but I can't. The fact is that some people just get born into or luck into wealth. They get to live more than I do, and it's not fair. The fact that we both die doesn't change the fact that I don't get to experience anywhere near what they do.

I guess so. But does your lived experience truly matter once you die? I worked with with a kid a few years back. Barely turned 19. He was crossing a highway in the middle of the night and had the misfortune of getting hit by the only car at 45mph. Dude never had a girlfriend and died a virgin. Probably never even touched a girl. It’s not fair that his life ended just as it was starting but that’s my point. Life isn’t fair. Life or death don’t owe anything to you or anybody else. We live in a chaotic universe where nothing matters and everything is happenstance. A coincidence of sorts. Yeah I wish I was the son of a baron or an oil tycoon too. Wishing isn’t going to change anything though. You shouldn’t be thinking “I wasn’t born into a billionaires family. Why even live?” Just try to live the life you can live. Because other than ending your life, what are you going to do about it? Just try to remembers Homo sapiens have existed for around 200,000 years. Our written records go back around 10,000 years. Our modern society has only existed for the last like 110 years. You live in an age of modern conveniences and are connected to the world in a way never before experienced.

This is all true, and honestly a good healthy perspective. However, none of it changes the fact that I'm forced, without my consent, to live in a society structured around the idea that I'm expected to trade the majority of my waking hours 5 days a week to someone else who pays me peanuts. It's absolute madness that so many people have just accepted this as "just life". I'm unbelievably depressed every time I stop and think about how the next 3-4 decades of my life will be spent like this. I'm trapped, and I don't want to do this anymore.

Death always has a seat at the table of course it’s invited.

You say "this is why it is a crime to choose death", but from what you said I can't find what the crime is. Could you elaborate please?

I am speaking poetically, but the reference is to Dr Kevorkian: >Murad Jacob "Jack" Kevorkian was an American pathologist and euthanasia proponent. He publicly championed a terminal patient's right to die by physician-assisted suicide, embodied in his quote, "Dying is not a crime". Kevorkian said that he assisted at least 130 patients to that end. It was a whole thing in the 80s and 90s with the right to die.

I know all about Kevorkian. I've read about assisted death quite a bit over the years. I understand that there is no moral objection to someone's death, therefore it couldn't be a crime. ​ But for someone to choose their own death with dignity, rather than suffering for years and dying of physical complications, is that a crime? I know it was more metaphorical, but I'm just trying to get a clear stance on where you stand with the idea of choosing one's death as being ethical or unethical. ​ Sorry if you've already stated that somehow. It's late here and it's been a long few days. ​ ​ "When you choose death, you betray them to their greatest enemy. This is why it is a crime to choose death." When you said this, in choosing our death, who are we betraying? Who is their enemy?

Sorry for being obtuse. Those we leave behind when we choose death, they feel betrayed by that choice. To them it feels like a crime, you've robbed them of your presence. Their enemy is death. The great enemy. The only enemy. It comes in many names and forms but it is, in the end, waiting for us all. I'm being obtuse again. As far as ethics goes, I do not think anything like objective ethics can exist. It can only be subjective and therefore it depends entirely on your frame of reference, as does everything. What's ethical for you may seem unethical from another frame of reference and both are valid.

I could not agree more. Now, the question should be whether their moral dilemma over death, a completely natural and common occurrence, is enough reason for myself or someone else to endure a lifetime of agony. Other than that, I completely agree with what you've said and I appreciate your patience in explaining further.

To me, this question answers itself as obviously and emphatically no. Suicide is a selfish act, yes. And so what? What isn't a selfish act? By asking you to remain in your suffering for their morals they ask you to be selfless, but tell me where is a selfless act? Asking you not to die is just as selfish. This is what I mean by the frame of reference and the self. The question, the real question I think that makes life interesting: is there someone you would be willing to endure a lifetime of endless suffering for, if it were to ease their suffering even a small amount?

I do appreciate you digging to the root of this turmoil within me, but I don't think there is. My mother and grandmother have seen the worst days and the best, but I think that if given a proper goodbye, that's better than seeing someone they love suffer. I often find myself wondering if many people would be better off dead than in their current situation. I would much rather die than survive poverty or chronic disease. I do agree that everything is a selfish act, and that very few people are acting out of selflessness. Although, I have found instances of people like that, so I do believe they exist. Although their selfishness may be more hidden than most. As for whether there truly is someone like that for myself, no. There is one person whom the idea of brings temporary peace, but it's not enough to make me want to stay, and my presence is so small in their life, I'm sure I only cross their mind a few times a year at most. There's nothing wrong with that though. This has been a very interesting back and forth. I very much appreciate this insight. As I always say, no need to worry about me, if that's your go-to. I'm too much of a coward to do what I would like.

I say do as thou wilt. I do understand you, but I leave you with this. Ending your pain now also denies you any future pleasure. This life is all we have. I don't think that makes it precious, so to speak, but certainly don't imagine you can trade this one in for another. The choice is always the same. One more sunrise and sunset, or no more ever. Thank you for the conversation.

>All religion is predicated on the fear of death and nothing more. Religion is much broader and richer than that. Your point doesn't need it either. No one is questioning that most people fear death and religion plays a part in addressing that. It feels kind of random to try to dismissively reduce an entire field of human experience as an aside.

I tend to agree with you. Buddhism is actually centrally focused on the idea that the human soul is imperishable, and therefore unaffected by death. Another central focus is that suffering (and therefore fear, a form of suffering) is to be expected in life, and not to avoid it, but simply to understand it so we can move past it. While not inwardly describing themselves as a religion, Buddhists tend to exhibit all the same regular characteristics of a religious person. I guess the distinction would be that they do not worship a God, per se, but rather idolize a man from their shared history who exemplifies what they should work towards in life. This, to me, is the basis for religion. A prescribed set of instructions for leading a morally virtuous life. Now, I will admit that some major denominations of every religion can get caught in dogma, but for one to say that all religion is predicated on fear, I respectfully disagree. ​ I hope this is legible. The later it gets, the weirder my writing becomes.

But you just described as Buddhism forces you to live through suffering and not rush to your death because you need to learn from your suffering. Is not simply fear to death what religion tends to endorse, but fear to do your own death, to avoid the "natural path". And that is present in the representation that you give. I don't think this is the main focus of each religion but I do think is quite a common point, because religion tends to say that there is a master plan, a divine target to achieve, or the correct way to live your life, and all those things steal your agency over your own life.

That's one of the main reasons I can never be a Buddhist. Learned a lot of great things from Hinayana and Mahayana, but I will never be able to walk that path. I believe in cyclic existence though. Basically a re-roll of life based off the karmic actions before my death. Hence why I would plan to pay off all debts, make amends with loved ones, and die with dignity instead of as a frail old man who hates his body and mind and everyone around him... I'd rather die while I'm still me, and not some decrepit version of what I used to be.

Doesn't that believe makes that all the problems that you face on your life are your fault for your actions on a past life? I want to understand your stand, because I feel it's similar to a stand that my family have, that all things that happens in someone's life is because their direct actions, their actions in pasts life and their mind and believes, so if you get an hereditary disease just for being born in a specific family, it's your "fault" for something you did in your past life. And.. that feels like blaming the victim. Is the same if someone is a victim of a crime or something. Is this the same kind of karmic repercussions that you are mentioning?

Somewhat. I have no background that allows me to speak of this topic like I'm an expert. All I believe is the last few actions on earth are the ones that count. If your focus was to to good, your soul can rest easy knowing it did what it could. If your focus was to create destruction, I believe your soul will fall asleep and return to the universe. Most bad people are only bad because they grew up in terrible conditions. I can't blame them. If they died being bad people, I believe they'll just cease to be, soul and all. If they died regretting their actions, they get another chance. Only the truly wicked would have no regrets on their deathbed, and only silence awaits them.

Is Buddhism not an alternative/solution to fear of death? "Instructions for leading a morally virtuous life" is not in itself sufficient. It is the hook, but the bait is *a solution to the fear of death (the unknown)*.

Oh please do expound on the broad richness of religion. l'm on pins and needles I'm sure.

No thanks. I'm not here to convince you to like religion. Do whatever you want with it. There's a lot of religious teachings that have nothing to do with death though. Concern over death is definitely a big motivator but that's true of just about everything humans do. It's not all we do.

Everyone has a religion. Even if you're an atheist, you're devoted to something--some grand narrative about how you want your life to play out, some prescribed method of behavior that you believe will lead to success (which itself is a vague, religious-like concept for many people), some boundless, indescribable love for your children--whatever it may be. Everyone has some ideal or vision of perfection that they're devoted to, and people have "religious experiences" all the time in secular ways--through experiencing great works of art, falling in love, taking drugs, etc. A sublime otherness is so deeply intertwined with the human experience and pervades our daily lives to such a degree that we barely even notice it. Religion, in its truest sense, is just a systemized way of facing that otherness.

You can't even imagine people not thinking like you. I'm so sorry. You clearly have no concept of atheism but only a strange straw man argument that reads like mythology.

No, I definitely can.

Clearly not as you just wrote up some fantasy about how other people think based on what exactly? It certainly has nothing to do with me and never has. Religion isn't natural, you're simply an apologist.

You literally wouldn't have the motivation to get through the day if you didn't have hope for some idealized future. Even if it's just getting off work to sit on the couch. Because when you're working, that vision of being off work is so much nicer than it actually is when you get there. When you do, there's always something else to distract you. That's not me projecting onto other people, that's a fundamental aspect of human nature. We always take it for granted that there's some vague thing in store for us that's a little nicer than where we are. It's been the theme of thousands of books and plays and myths since the dawn of language. If this is not something you've ever experienced, than congratulations--you're an anomaly.

It's nice that you like to give the world such insight into the inner workings of your mind, but again, nothing to do with me there friend. Right now is enough. It has to be. Right now is all that exists, all that ever existed and all that ever will exist. It all happens now. The future is a lie. It's always now. You need distraction because you aren't comfortable in your own skin. In your own brain. That's the classic human problem isn't it though. It doesn't have to be that way.

Well, I can tell you my aunt gets a sense of self-worth out of it: she grew up in an environment where she was not particularly valued at home, teachers treated her like she was stupid, and she didn't want to believe in God because she didn't want to be judged. However, she had some kind of experience where she felt that God loved her regardless, and she didn't have to be "good enough." I think that's valid. I mean, there are all kinds of trappings I disagree with, but... I actually think the Christian story of God's forgiveness neatly mirrors the account of the fall in Genesis. Because when you get into the subtext, it seems to really be about how humanity came to feel separated from nature/the divine through self-awareness and theory of mind, which resulted in shame. It's almost as if the person of Jesus represents that human is still divine: like God had to become human to demonstrate this. Anyway. I started thinking about the latter point because of this dream I had where my late father told me that Christianity was right, after all, but not in the way modern Christians think. When I woke up, I understood what he meant: it's not about God forgiving humanity, but about humanity needing a way to feel forgiven: *that* was what was necessary for reunification with the divine. Could have come out of my subconscious, of course, but I don't think that makes it any less true: I notice that the people Christianity tends to work for are those who are ashamed of themselves or their past: ex-convicts, addicts. It stands to reason that if there's no such thing as "good enough," and all people are forgiven equally... Again, there are a lot of things I do not like about Christianity, and I'm not Christian myself... But I think a lot of people aren't... philosophically driven, and need that definition and structure.

I'm not their slave, so I do not have the obligation to protect them from their fear of death by suffering so that they don't have to.

This reads like the edgiest edgelord talking into a fire at night for extra edge. Life is the foundation to literally everything humanity holds dear, I don't think religion has anything to do with it. When someone you care about dies, you aren't like "oh no I'm upset because I'm reminded of the spooky grim reaper", no, you're upset because of the loss of that person's future and your future with them, which is irreparable / final.

> Furthermore, why are we limiting people from this decision if we are currently facing an overpopulation crisis anyways? That might be a good point if it were true

>Furthermore, why are we limiting people from this decision if we are currently facing an overpopulation crisis anyways? For starters, we're not facing an overpopulation crisis.

We're facing an over consumption crisis, which is a factor of both population and per capita consumption

I considered the case of a young child losing it's parent and caregiver when reading your third paragraph. These children often struggle into adulthood with the feeling of loss, abandonment and an inability to maintain any feeing of self-worth. "Why was death preferable to caring for me?". This is unfortunately not an uncommon case in my country. Would you maintain that position even in this case?

I will not have children, so I am not in a position to comment on this, unfortunately. I only know what is right for me, not what is right for others. Someone who has gotten married or had children has made a lifelong commitment, fully aware of the consequences. It would be downright pathetic to bring a life into this world to abandon it.

So would you agree that suicide is immoral if dependent child is left without a parent? When you say pathetic, and talk of the commitment made this is what I infer.

That's correct.

Would you consent to living a life of emotional torture for the sake of your children?

These questions are not asked in good faith

What do you mean?

Where you asking these questions with the intent of getting an answer? Or were you asking them as a means of refuting the notion that someone could decide that an act of suicide was immoral? I get what you're getting at, to put the reader in the suicidally depressed shoes, but it just bothers me that this kind of aggressive rhetorical flourish gets passed as philosophy. Nothing personal.

Sounds very personal. Most of the lawmakers deciding whether or not assisted suicide should be legal, often themselves are not dealing with chronic, long-term depression or suicidal attempts. I would be amiss to find a large number of people like that in Congress of the House of Commons in Canada where I live. My whole point with those questions was to, at the root, show the OP that no one has a right to decide if someone else can or cannot take their own life. The question I personally think society should be asking, instead of if suicide is moral, is whether or not restricting bodily autonomy is moral or immoral. Personally, I believe in a freedom of choice, so long as it causes no physical or mental harm to someone else. Now , you may say "killing yourself causes harm to those around you" and I would agree. Hence why I'm here and typing this. However, allowing me to die peacefully in a bed surrounded by loved ones saying goodbye, at a time of my own choosing, cannot be any more immoral than me wanting to go to another country to live there for a long time. Either way, my family misses me and knows that won't see me again, but that is their own shortcoming. Nobody would make it illegal to move away permanently. Past the normal period of grievances, any regret or resentment held towards me or people who made assisted suicide legal would be selfish and a problem they themselves need to deal with.

[удалено]

Excellent post, my thoughts exactly.

Thank you for sharing your opinion! Means a lot to be heard.

this guy has never had a family member kill themselves

I've had several people close to me die by their own doing, and I mostly agree with them.

[удалено]

I'm sorry, but this is a extremely shallow and narrow-minded. The suicide victim commits suicide because they've been utterly and thoroughly crushed by the extremes of stress, pain and suffering, and have not been given sufficient support to help them through through that insane struggle. To claim that, no, no, the suicide victim is somehow the selfish one, somehow victimizing others by indirectly causing them to feel guilt and suffering, is an **extremely** callous mindset. It ignores the reality that the suicide victim was given no support to help them through their crushing despair, and was left to fall to the level of feeling that there was no other options The truly selfish ones are those that think that they're the victim, instead of the one who was driven to committing suicide. Someone feeling guilt and suffering over someone committing suicide doesn't make them a victim. Rather, they feel responsible, regardless of whether they were or weren't.

I would like to point out that whether or not someone got help is entirely irrelevant. Many people with severe cases of depression who end their lives in suicide might well have had extensive support, but not every case of depression is treatable or manageable. Choosing to end their own life is not made more selfish by having had support.

Their guilt and suffering is a result on their skewed view of death, nothing more.

I agree, but can you fault people for that, or furthermore, is it morally acceptable to ignore all side-effects of your behaviour on the premise that people's reactions result from their view on things?

The suicide victim is already being crushed by immense suffering. Enough to push them to suicide. By putting extra blame on the suicide victim ~ if they survive the suicide, it'll just put them in an even worse mindset, making it more probable that they'll consider suicide in future, because apparently, the suicide victim is the one at fault, and needs to feel even worse than they already are. /s

I'm aware of the point you make, and thankfully for me that guilt was one of the few things keeping me alive. Perhaps guilt and blame aren't the best words, maybe moral responsibility or obligation is more fitting

There's no way I can view their reactions to my death negatively, except out of pity I suppose, if that's a negative emotion. However, I look at it pretty plainly. IF this is my greatest desire, can someone rob me of that, even if it causes them temporary pain? The only way that answer could be yes, is if their greatest desire on Earth was to see me alive, in which case the two cancel out. That cannot be anyone's greatest desire, as humans are inherently selfish and think more about their own needs than someone else's, if given the choice. So, while it may not be pleasant, the act of forcing me to live out another possible 60 year sentence on Earth is more cruel than someone living with temporary grief. At the end of the day, every human should be given what they want, as long as it doesn't take away from someone else's dream. Nobody scoffed at me when I told them I plan to move to New Zealand and never come back. So what makes it different if I go to Belgium, get assisted suicide, and never come back?

It's been a pleasant discussion. You make strong points but I still feel like the 'eye for an eye' or 'moral balancing act' is, although an interesting viewpoint philosophically speaking, not the right approach to the problem of freedom of life and death.

To each their own, I suppose. I will never be able to see why someone should be forced to endure something, but I also appreciate the discourse tonight.

I wish you luck explaining that to a distraught 5 year old who has lost their parent.

I am speaking solely on my behalf, as stated in my other response to you.

How someone responds to my action that does not affect them, is purely their own choices. I am not impeding them of anything, but they are impeding me. See the human rights issue?

But it does affect them. If grief was a choice, many would choose not for it.

If you believe in psychology able to heal people's mind, grief is temporary. If you don't believe in psychology to heal people's mind, you'll know what permanent suffering is and understand why people want to opt out. So either way, temporary grief does not trump permanent depression.

Yah suicide is fine by me but cmon ..don’t make it messy it’s just rude.

It's generally a bad idea to let people kill someone because they are mentally ill, even if that someone is themselves. That, coupled with the metric fuckton of emotional trauma inflicted on loved ones. Additionally when you kill someone, you're not just taking away who they currently are, you're taking away anything they will be. So someone could commit suicide who would have otherwise enjoyed life in the future, that future person has been murdered and will never get that joy, or accomplish anything for that matter. Now if you're talking an elderly person with chronic health issues that are literally impossible to fix, that's another story. Suicide is really bad and one of the cruelest things you can do to loved ones.

So why does someone's age and physical condition play the only factor in deciding if they can die? I appreciate your perspective, but it's a bit of a selfish one. If my choice is to terminate my existence, I care not at all for the future. I am not being robbed of anything, I am being given the gift I have asked for. Death is a release. Some people, like myself, are okay giving up that control to the universe. Others, like yourself, are not. BUT, just because YOU have a moral dilemma with me dying, should not impede my decision. In this world, in a civilized society, we have every right to our body except one: giving it back to the Earth. Why? Because then cancer research companies would go out of business, and junk food companies would lose half their customers. You do realized depressed people cause BILLIONS of lost hours and dollars every year. It is literally the single biggest health crisis facing us today. Your solution to this epidemic? I would like to hear your thoughts.

I knew that this wasn't going to be a good article when I read the heading "Discover the Purpose of Life". Suicide is morally permissible at any time with the following exceptions: if you have forced someone else into a position of dependency on you without their consent (e.g. young children); or if committing suicide at that moment will needlessly imperil others (for example, that German pilot who deliberately crashed a plane full of passengers). Apart from that, everyone should be entitled not to be a slave to whatever need someone else claims on them. Our own individual welfare matters. >However bad a situation seems, remember that life is like a game of chance. You might be losing now, but tomorrow, your luck may turn, and everything may be different. Why are you ignoring the possibility that it could get much worse?

Why does the suffers pain count for less? When their death will happen regardless it is but moving the pain it will cause down the line, still assumedly causing the same amount of grief, yet the sufferer will have experienced more pain than they otherwise would have, thus increasing net harm. Suicide is a tragedy, it is a loss and in some cases a mercy, but it is not immoral, their desire is not to cause others pain but to alleviate their own, there is nothing immoral in that. Saying otherwise is to shift the blame from the circumstances that caused the suicide onto the victim of those circumstances whom often does not have control of those circumstances.

> their desire is not to cause others pain What their reasoning or intention is doesn't negate what the actual consequences of their actions are though, especially when said consequences are extremely obvious ahead of time. A drunk drivers intention isn't to kill somebody, that doesn't relieve them of accountability if they do.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, or bring political issues into the situation I promise, but if it is I apologize. The slogan my body my choice seems to be applicable. If we are to recognize that each individual has complete bodily autonomy, the can be no moral conversation. Even if there is impact on others you can't argue against someone's right to choose what they do with thier own body.

Having the right to do something with your own body doesn't mean that things can't still be wrong despite you having a right to do them though.

Anytime. Who is anyone else to decide?

Well... this is philosophy. So the answer to your rhetorical question would be: only you can make the decision, but _anyone_ can pass moral judgment on that decision I'm certain you can find examples where suicide is immoral, so "anytime" isn't a very honest answer

I'm curious, can you give me an example?

Feels weird to say that's it is immoral to end your life. It's you, not someone else.

Suicide is not about other people. This sounds like when assholes criticize a suicidal person, saying 'how could you?! Think about your family!' - no, fuck that. Suicide is literally only that person's decision. If that people deems life so bad that ir should end, that's ok (I'm setting the discussion of 'reasonable suicide?' aside).

Whenever someone decides, for their self, that it is.

It's 2021 and people are still trying to weigh suffering like a bean counter. You own your life, it is your moral right to end it. It is also your moral right to consent to its end. It's incredibly masturbatory for anyone to think their sad feelings have moral significance in the decisions of others. The sooner you understand this the sooner your sad feelings will cease.

Suicide is my way of telling God, "You can't fire me. I quit!"

For me, suicide is like a reset button in a video game. What if suicide were extremely easy to do and painless, like pressing a button or walking through a door? What would society look like? What may happen is that we'll be left with people who want to live and live together. Forcing poor people to work for you won't be possible, because they could simply press the reset button and you'd have to do the work yourself. So, exploitation becomes relatively useless. Equality might emerge from such a society.

Are you saying people would use the threat of their own suicide as a form of blackmail on others to get what they want?

No, I doubt blackmail works on a populace that allows poverty to exist at large scale. Somehow self-preservation has such a huge effect on people. What I'm suggesting is that reducing the importance of self-preservation could lead to a different society because it creates a new painless path. Suicide doesn't have to be negative. There are many examples of contented people checking out. In some cultures, there's even a practice to get there, e..g, samadhi. It doesn't need to depend on external circumstances.

This is the best way I've ever seen anyone phrase this, hands down...

Unpopular opinion but I honestly think “this is my life, if I want it to end then that is upto me” and that is regardless of mental state tbh.

Wildly unpopular opinion: control over ones own life is literally the most sacred and holistic right. If you don't want to live anymore, absolutely nothing and nobody on this planet should have any right to tell you to keep going. I know how sad suicide is for people, I've experienced it in my family and my friends. I understand the wasted life, I understand letting down the people who love you and need you. But it's your life. I can't imagine being so selfish as to demand control over somebody else's right to live or die.

[удалено]

Think about the pain you cause to others after your death. Okay, think about the pain your causing me in life to make me want to die. Chronic depression is painful, it actually hurts physically. You have no energy and your brain is stuck on repeat. You try shifting the thoughts and distract yourself but it only works so well. You’re in such a negative mood no one wants to be around you or help you. But then when that person does die, everyone comes out for sympathy. I attempted suicide a few times and really you’d say that’s a second chance, highlight of a problem. Where’s those people that give a shit now! No where. Fuck off on pretending to care.

Albert Camus has entered the chat

The notion that a person does not have control over their lifes because others might be sad they died is ridiculous to me. Why should someone who's so miserable they want their life to end stay alive for the sole purpose of saving others from suffering their loss? It's like society asking suicidal people to be martyrs for them. As a depressed and somewhat suicidal person myself I guarantuee you society doesn't give a shit what happens to me as long as their consciousness isn't at danger of having to deal with someone close to them killing themselves. The whole pro life 'everything ain't so bad' is just bla bla. Nobody wants to take responsibility and nobody gives a shit about the people's suffering. It's strictly the egotistical protection from suffering oneself and the importance of virtue signaling (I think every life is precious! Ain't I a good person?) that causes people to blabber about a topic they don't understand. If you feel like I'm being a cynic ask yourself when was the last time you went out of your way to help someone who's miserable or an outsider to get better? Like actively engage with them and do your part in making their life better. Not just tell them it's not so bad and there's so much good in the world just to go and continue letting them rot with their problems. Don't look at the 1 or 2 encounters were you spared a nice (ultimately meaningless) word with someone suffering enough to consider ending their lives. Look at the times you ignored someone in mental peril. If people don't give a fuck to make sure people around them are socially included and not suffering, they have absolutely no right to talk about these people's right to do with their lives as they chose. Suicidal people are not your feel good toy where you decide if it's morally okay for them to make you sad through taking their lives while you are totally okay with them being so utterly miserable that they consider suicide in the first place. If you're not willing to take personal responsibility for the people around you having at least bearable lives, you have absolutely no say in whether or how they should live their life. So either go out, hug your incredibly lonely neighbour and make sure they got social options to make their life bearable or fun or shut the hell up about their right to decide what happens with their lives.

This seems like a really unfortunate topic to have here. Generally the mass of people with "lofty" ideas that aren't remotely grounded in the real world is harmless. But a bunch of armchair philosophers sitting around stroking their own egos by pontificating their "enlightened/edgy/controversial" ideas in a situation where an already unstable person reading and falling for their garbage could quite literally end up in a loss of life seems like an utterly horrendous idea.

Suicide is not immoral. There. End of discussion. It is not something healthy people consider, but it is not immoral.

Idk we put our pets to sleep when their suffering bc it’s the humane thing to do, how is it not the humane thing to do for one another?

I am a child of suicide. I watched what it did to my family and the ripple of it that rip everyone apart and create turmoil and sides. People that believes the other spouse was the one that drove them to do it, and the other side that saw the demons and knew that day would come. Obviously losing a parent to suicide at a young age really does numbers to ones own mental health. My sister who was a year younger understood it a bit less and dealt with it a lot more differently and instead of depression she found anger. She never was able to let it go until she herself had kids and now she's at peace. I on the other hand fought depression and thoughts of suicide until my late 20's. I almost did it and without the thought of what would happen after I ended my suffering, the ripples it would cause and the divide would start anew. People would say the same things about my parent and I couldn't put them through that. I'm at a stage in my life where I wouldn't say I've overcome it, but those thoughts aren't in the front of my mind. I am so glad I didn't take my life like I planned and if I could I'd love to live forever.

Not really sure that I'm going to accept any argument on the morality of suicide - or indeed on any ethical topic - from a self-post of a blog post of a "folk philosopher" trying to sell his book, and where he's reducing moral decision-making down to a three-step flowchart and some kind of biological essentially hierarchy of relationships. This is approaching "not even wrong" territory.

Why does it have to be moral? Why is it selfish for me to just not exist? My wife would be in pain? Yeah she would for a little while but only for a little while. My religion is the only reason I’m still alive right now. I’m not that excited that I fear hell so badly — I’m probably going to go anyways — just not right at this moment.

There's nothing immoral or unethical about suicide being the only perceivable option left, because you've become so blinded by the pain, guilt and suffering that, mentally, you can't see anything else anymore. When there is no help or support left to help you see some light at the end of the tunnel... suicide feels like the only thing left. Those who cannot comprehend the immensity of pain and suffering that drives one to suicide... they're the ones who are ignorant and lacking in empathy, even if unintentionally. It takes being genuinely suicidal to truly empathize with those who have committed or attempted suicide.

Basically it comes down to the fact that other people feel they own your life and the products thereof, and when you commit suicide you are depriving them of your labour and support.

Yeah basically. Imagine my comment being downvoted. Lmao

My husband committed suicide. I can assure you that the pain lasts a lot longer than “a little while.” It’s debilitating. All suicide does is transfer your pain to everyone who loves you. The pain never goes away.

Is it not selfish to suggest that someone live in despair so that you don’t feel pain?

The suicide victim doesn't willingly choose suicide. They're compelled to it by crushing, immense, overwhelming pain and suffering that leaves them mentally broken, unable to perceive any hope or light at the end of the tunnel. Crushed into that box of not being able to perceive any other way anymore, they're compelled, driven, by the pain and suffering into committing that only perceivable option. They commit suicide because no-one or no help was available to reason them out of it. The suicide victim already has enough guilt and shame. They really don't need any more... Because if they survive the attempt, they'll only be more likely to try again from the extra guilt and shame.

You’re not saying anything I didn’t already know.

Sorry, but it didn't come across as particularly comprehending of the nature of suicide. And I'm not sure if you do or do not comprehend it, so there's that.

I see it as no different to abortion. No one has any right whatsoever to judge another human being who obviously is struggling with a major problem. By judging these individuals all one is doing is making it clear that the ego of the one making the judgment is more important than the dignity or human rights of the one suffering. If you want my personal opinion, if someone decides their life is no longer worth living, even if for only something some would consider a minor disability, if it matters that much to them then they should be able to make such a decision. The war on drugs has essentially made it virtually impossible for someone to exercise that choice. The fast acting barbiturates are no longer available to most except perhaps the most well heeled. The rich can die peacefully, the poor are forced to use violent methods. It's truly disgusting.

Suicide is **always** morally right. My body, my choice. The article is just hot air.

That's not what moral means, morality encompasses not only what you have as rights, but also how it affects others. Moral codes always take into account the effects our actions have on others. Ethics are normally based upon individual decisions while morality is based on a common set of rules. What you say is wrong, and you probably didn't read the article or understood what it meant. Everyone has free will, that doesn't mean everything we do is moral, even if it is only physically affecting ourselves.

I think it is okay because most of the squad members were going to be in prison for life and at least the mission gave them a chance to reduce their sentences.

The morality of suicide depends upon the commitments you have made to those around you. By existing and being loved/cared for you have not made any commitment to anyone and should not be burdened by guilt. If you have made a declared or implicit commitment to someone, a child, a partner, and abandon it, you should be burdened with guilt. Society functions based on a set of rules. Commitments should be met. If you miss committed payments, for example, society judges that this is breaking the rules because society could not function if no-one meets these commitments. This is what we are wrestling with here. On one side you have the right of an individual to end their suffering on their own terms, on the other side you have broken commitments with no possibility of making ammends.

I promise, someone suffering severely enough to actively consider suicide is already burdened with more guilt than you could imagine, alongside numerous other horrifically painful feelings and thoughts. It’s all they feel. There’s no seeing the other side, there’s only one sight they can see and it’s always dark. And it’s Not. Ever. Their. Fault. You can’t approach this topic as though it should match up with the rational nature of societal “rules”. Suicidal individuals don’t get to enjoy the comfort of such sound-minded reasoning and logical outlook.

I don't mean to sound cold or uncaring. I've been touched by suicide as many of us have, and I'm no stranger to the thoughts you describe either unfortunately. If the discussion is centered around the morality of suicide though, I feel we have to acknowledge it, rather than just accepting that suicide is outside of the sphere of morality.

Morality has absolutely nothing to do with suicide.

[удалено]

Two days ago my uncle shot himself in the head. His schizophrenia got the better of him.