Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-30-2014, 07:56 PM
Status: "81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
5,789 posts, read 3,583,053 times
Reputation: 5687

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christinerica
I doubt that anyone inclined to decide to end THEIR life would care much how your value system should influence them. Why the intrusion into some ones pain and private life? All your actions do is to further stress a person on the edge. Should I decide to self deliver myself this day, I would look at your post and use it as a further reason to depart MY LIFE.


Perhaps if you look to your own affairs and not try to influence the out come would be better.
Show me where my values system fails vis-a-vis other values systems and I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I stand by my claim that we have at least some duties to others (namely not to commit harmful acts as I explained in my OP).

As for intrusion into private lives, our private lives and thoughts sometimes DO impact on others, especially if we publicly express them or act upon those thoughts. So there are limits to this "not intruding into others private life". Intruding into someones pain and private life" is legitimate if they seem likely to act in ways that are hugely detrimental to others physical or psychological well being. Otherwise the whole notion of outside intervention to prevent that person from hurting others would make no sense (other example, someone obviously in need of anger management training).

My words stressing a person: It's meant to get them to think carefully before they commit suicide, given its hugely negative impact on others. That is not the same thing as saying they must never commit suicide no matter how painful and agonizing their situation is. If they have serious pain, then they very likely need counseling or confiding in someone they are close to (family member or not). It would take their condition not managable with drugs, counseling, and/or a better social circle (or if physical, medical treatment/therapy) could I even consider suicide their best option.

Quote:
I sense a deity driven agenda reading your post.
Jennifer Michael Hecht, well on record as a atheist, also disagrees that suicide is an appropriate option. So she shows there need be no religious agenda to oppose suicide based on non-medical reasons.

At any rate, merely sensing that my "agenda" is "deity-driven" without proof is about as sensible as saying that supporting Scandinavian-style "socialized medicine" necessarily indicates an anti-capitalist agenda on the supporter's part. Both are huge presumptions that frankly border on ad hominem, if not actually cross the line into it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-30-2014, 08:24 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,491,140 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
Show me where my values system fails vis-a-vis other values systems and I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I stand by my claim that we have at least some duties to others (namely not to commit harmful acts as I explained in my OP).

As for intrusion into private lives, our private lives and thoughts sometimes DO impact on others, especially if we publicly express them or act upon those thoughts. So there are limits to this "not intruding into others private life". Intruding into someones pain and private life" is legitimate if they seem likely to act in ways that are hugely detrimental to others physical or psychological well being. Otherwise the whole notion of outside intervention to prevent that person from hurting others would make no sense (other example, someone obviously in need of anger management training).

My words stressing a person: It's meant to get them to think carefully before they commit suicide, given its hugely negative impact on others. That is not the same thing as saying they must never commit suicide no matter how painful and agonizing their situation is. If they have serious pain, then they very likely need counseling or confiding in someone they are close to (family member or not). It would take their condition not managable with drugs, counseling, and/or a better social circle (or if physical, medical treatment/therapy) could I even consider suicide their best option.



Jennifer Michael Hecht, well on record as a atheist, also disagrees that suicide is an appropriate option. So she shows there need be no religious agenda to oppose suicide based on non-medical reasons.

At any rate, merely sensing that my "agenda" is "deity-driven" without proof is about as sensible as saying that supporting Scandinavian-style "socialized medicine" necessarily indicates an anti-capitalist agenda on the supporter's part. Both are huge presumptions that frankly border on ad hominem, if not actually cross the line into it.
But you are going to die anyway, whether you commit suicide or not. Suicide moves the date forward, but it doesn't cause pain that isn't inevitably going to happen anyway. So, assuming it is carefully planned, suicide shouldn't cause more pain, it only gets the pain over with at an earlier date. Meanwhile, the person suffering is relieved from the added misery of staying alive entails. So the net pain is reduced by suicide.

And of course, languishing around in pain and suffering might cause your loved ones even more anguish than if you met a quick end. Rather than dealing with a family member dying from cancer over the course of a year, the get to deal with it straight away. So the fact that suicide allows one to not suffer during the dying process might reduce some of the suffering loved ones feel.

Finally, the longer you live, the more people you'll likely get to know, which means the more people that are potentially effected by your suicide. You might save some people the anguish of watching you die by dying before you ever meet them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2014, 11:57 PM
Status: "81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
5,789 posts, read 3,583,053 times
Reputation: 5687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataraxia44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230

*we have a duty to prevent suffering of others that is pointless, avoidable, insufficiently compensatory, and serves no higher purpose beyond our own self-interest. To deny this opens the door to justifying anarchy (not in the political science sense, but in the sense of no-rules lawless dog-eat-dog free-for-alls). Suicide usually violates this duty in the following ways.

*Whatever gains the suicidal person would make for him/herself are more than offset by the amount of anguish and suffering their family and friends would be forced to endure. In short, net suffering in the world increases while there is no increase in net pleasure.
Related to the first point of the above quote. Your basically saying people have a duty to prevent unneeded suffering to others if it can be done at only the cost of our self interest. If that's the case NO ONE in a first world country should get a 60 inch TV, take expensive vacation, dine out to eat etc. Because those only serve our self interest, we should all just donate all that money to people in third world countries that are starving to death. So you can't use that logic unless you apply to all the non-suicidal people who are also causing suffering by their actions.

Now saying all that, personally for me the above won't even apply. If I shot myself today I would leave my family with over $3 million. The reason I haven't killed myself yet is because I want to leave them more. I'm 100% sure that I can increase my estate to at least $5 million. And if things work out like I want I can increase my estate to $15-20 million in the next few years. After which I will shoot myself. My family will never have to work again, my close friends won't have to either, I can donate millions to the people in the world that are truly suffering and I get to end my misery. So why the hell should I stay alive and suffer if I can completely take care of all my physical obligations?
Notes: (1) The same material goods and financial comparisons also apply to nonfinancial situations; as I find them sufficiently comparable in most instances to non-financial/qualitative aspects of the issue to make an appropriately close analogy. (2) I’ve come to the conclusion that if life does have any meaning, it is to prevent and mitigate sufferings of others to the extent that our inner strength enables us to endure our own inner sufferings (e.g. is preventing or combatting highly unjust or unfair situations sufficient compensation from our perspective to make it worth us enduring our own greatest inner sufferings?). That’s why – contrary to others replies – I did NOT say that we should ALWAYS endure even the most egregious types of sufferings for the sake of preventing / mitigating harm or anguish in others. Perhaps I muddied the waters by using “discouraged”, as people obviously took the term in a finger-pointy, judgmental sense – which I thought I made clear at the bottom of the OP was not my intention. My point was to show that – the cruelest, most sadistic 1% or so aside – all other human beings have intrinsic / potential value to others, whether through our close one’s (mostly) unconditional love for us or through our ability to alleviate the suffering of others in worse positions than we are.

With that said, I’ll go on with the response.

--

The operative word in your first sentence (as I see it, at least) is only. So my interpretations of the sentence is as follows:
IF my self-interest and only my self-interest suffers from my volunteering at a food bank, buying Sweat Free ™ clothing and Fair Trade ™ foods , etc. THEN I indeed have a duty to prevent unneeded suffering to others.

And/Or

IF others’ self-interest suffers from my volunteer work…..THEN I might lack a duty to prevent …suffering to others (“might” because even if certain others did suffer from my volunteer work, those certain others could suffer either more or less as a result of my work on behalf of those other “others”).

For both interpretations, and likely any others I haven’t thought of, to make a long story short – it’s a “lesser of the two or more sufferings” kind of issue, combined with sad but as far as I can see, irreparable flaws of human nature; which we must bite the bullet and make at least a small accommodation for this moral imperfection.

First, I never said a person should devote ALL their disposable wealth to the poor. Entertainment and recreation – if personally and/or societally enriching enough (in an enlightened, idealistc sense), then it could make sense to “splurge” on “extras”. For example, someone in rural Tennessee (f.ex.) could take a trip to Beijing, or even only to Nashville or Memphis, for the sake of interacting face-to-face with different viewpoints or lifestyles that are hard to come by in their home area. If their experiences in those places truly enrich and improved them culturally, intellectually, and spiritually to the point that (however subjectively self-assessed) their own quality of life in those senses, then I think sacrificing a little aid to others would be worth it. This is especially true if in addition the experiences/viewpoints gave showed them ways to more effectively help others (quantitatively or qualitatively). Ditto for the gadgets. Dining at fancy restaurants? Same thing, if doing so inspires an emotionally enriching hobby or understanding of other cultures; especially if it helps them make a business or community contact that – all things considered – allows them to help the community more effectively.

Second, i.e. the flaw in human nature bit. Unfortunately, 20th century history proves that we humans are too selfish to make Communism doable (the implication, intentional or not, of “donate all that money”); even if it proved we’re civilized enough to move beyond Dickensian-style Capitalism. Thus, I do not say we should donate 100% of our disposable income to the poor. I will be the first to admit there is necessarily a subjective component of all this, as in “how much self-sacrifice can one genuinely endure for the sake of social responsibility (not just in a monetary / volunteer sense)?” Thus, I am willing to settle for second best, so to speak: Would a reasonable person believe that the good done now or in the future by theuntreatably suicidal person outweighs any suffering that suicidal person must endure?

As said at first, the same essential principles can apply to the non-monetary, non-consumerist aspects of life as well – sacrificing an earlier end to suffering in return for offering suffering prevention / mitigation for others. Again, all I’m saying is that we should make those expressing suicide ideation aware of both how great their own pain is in relation to both the suffering that act would cause to others and the future suffering prevetion/mitigation efforts they would deny to others – then decide for themselves if they think it appropriate to end their life.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataraxia44
In regards to point 2. You cannot measure the net suffering of my friend's and family vs. my total net suffering. My net suffering is beyond what you can imagine, yet I hold on to do this suicide correctly. I'm trying to minimize the emotional pain I will cause to others, even though I wish I can leave this world today. I'm not doing this impulsively. I have already talked to most of my loved ones regarding me potentially going down this route. I will spend time with them before I leave this planet and prepare them the best I can. After I reach my financial goals, I plan on taking a few years off to spend with them all before I shoot myself. I'm going about this in a completely logical, objective and rational manner. My net suffering is so much greater that I'm willing to kill myself even though I KNOW I'm going to hell.
I take the first sentence to mean “measurable with numerical precision and accuracy” (and by implication scientifically). True, as I said above (explicitly or close to it) that there’s necessarily a subjective component in this judgment. To further clarify matters, I did not imply (at least intentionally if at all) that our subjective experiences should be totally disregarded, although I DID mean by that that our subjective judgments and sufferings should not be the absolutely only concern. Nevertheless, and without trying to slam mainstream definitions of this and that down your throat, 90% or so of all people are sufficiently similar in mental makeup so that they react with similar levels of intensity to particular causes of pain; without which meaningful empathy and people-reading would be practically impossible. Thus, it is possible to plausibly predict how others would feel regarding your actions.

If my point is still unclear, perhaps an analogy may help. At some risk at offending combat veterans (given I’ve never been in the military, much less experienced combat), I offer the following. Imagine that during a firefight with about 30 or so heavily armed insurgents, about 3 or 4 soldiers are cut off from there rest of the unit. The soldiers are forced to take cover in a small store. A few insurgents manage to throw 2 grenades and a Molotov cocktail into the building, the resulting flames trapping the soldiers inside. They soldiers themselves know that, cut off from their unit, they have no chance of escaping the store alive and in fact judge it very likely they’ll be burned alive. Personally, I believe the soldiers should fight the insurgents so long as they are able to escape the flames and avoid significant smoke inhalation, although I do think it unreasonable to insist they endure being burned alive as a result. As such, I think it reasonable for the soldiers to kill themselves as quickly as possible with their own firepower if the only alternative is to endure the almost literal Hell of being burned alive, even if by staying alive they do kill a few more insurgents.

As such, if you feel you’re at the psychological equivalent of being burned alive, then I would have no objection to your suicide. Even so, given you said you’d wait a few more years before all the elements are in place, I think you at least have the duty to constantly revisit your evaluations just to make sure you haven’t missed some important element.
If you did think long and thoroughly about the net harm vs net benefit to others and yourself and still decided to end it all at whatever time you have in mind, more power to you and in fact, I commend you for it. Even so, IF you did your such a best possible analysis as you described, that still implies – regardless of your final calculation – that you have at least some degree of belief in the duty to others I described above (“pointless, etc”).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataraxia44
This brings me to my third point that someone may bring up; religion. I'm HIGHLY religious. That's one of the reasons I have held on so long. But I'm so tired of the pain that I don't even care that I'm going to hell when I do this. Yes I truly believe I'm going to hell when I pull the trigger. So based on all that tell my why my suicide should be discouraged? I have everything this physical world has to offer, yet all I feel is pain, anguish and sadness. I have even accepted the afterlife consequences of my suicide. Why should I live another 50-60 years in misery, when I can meet all my obligations and then just kill myself?
I don’t know exactly what your religious beliefs are. That’s a matter between you and whomever you consider the Creator to be. No further comment from me about this aspect.

Last edited by Phil75230; 03-31-2014 at 12:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 10:30 PM
 
561 posts, read 1,178,012 times
Reputation: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
But you are going to die anyway, whether you commit suicide or not. Suicide moves the date forward, but it doesn't cause pain that isn't inevitably going to happen anyway. So, assuming it is carefully planned, suicide shouldn't cause more pain, it only gets the pain over with at an earlier date. Meanwhile, the person suffering is relieved from the added misery of staying alive entails. So the net pain is reduced by suicide.

And of course, languishing around in pain and suffering might cause your loved ones even more anguish than if you met a quick end. Rather than dealing with a family member dying from cancer over the course of a year, the get to deal with it straight away. So the fact that suicide allows one to not suffer during the dying process might reduce some of the suffering loved ones feel.

Finally, the longer you live, the more people you'll likely get to know, which means the more people that are potentially effected by your suicide. You might save some people the anguish of watching you die by dying before you ever meet them.
That's a very sensible post.

To me, suicide isn't just a philosophical issue; psychology is at least as important.

Each person's 'mind' is different. That is, individual experience is subjective (duh!) and highly varied. There's really no way for us as individuals to directly understand the inner world of someone else. Life can be extermely difficult, especially for some persons, and many do experience a high level of pain (emotional and/or physical), distress, constant anxiety, or any number of other burdensome emotions. The reality is that many of these persons seek treatment, but their 'issues' prove irreconcilable.

If these persons are inclined to commit suicide, ultimately it's their life and their own volition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2014, 06:27 PM
Status: "81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
5,789 posts, read 3,583,053 times
Reputation: 5687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apathizer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I feel guilty for being so fascinated by your story.

If you've tried everything, and you truly believe the balance of life is more pain then pleasure, then I think suicide is a rational answer. I certainly don't mean to encourage it, and I would hope you search for more solutions. But if nothing works, then ending your suffering is a human and rational action to take.

You are going to die someday anyway. Your loved ones will experience a loss when you are gone whether that happens this year or in 40 years. You are not creating their suffering, you are only changing the timing of when they will have to deal with it. Given that, I don't know why you should extend your suffering just to put off the inevitable pain they will experience.
That's a very sensible post.

To me, suicide isn't just a philosophical issue; psychology is at least as important.

Each person's 'mind' is different. That is, individual experience is subjective (duh!) and highly varied. There's really no way for us as individuals to directly understand the inner world of someone else. Life can be extermely difficult, especially for some persons, and many do experience a high level of pain (emotional and/or physical), distress, constant anxiety, or any number of other burdensome emotions. The reality is that many of these persons seek treatment, but their 'issues' prove irreconcilable.

If these persons are inclined to commit suicide, ultimately it's their life and their own volition.
Actually, suicide committed outside health reasons is likely to create more anguish in loved ones than would that person's natural death - even after taking into account health reasons. An person whose elderly parent dies peacefully after a few months illness is much less anguishing than losing a perfectly functional young adult and especially a juvenile.

At most, it's debatable even among the experts whether suicides are no more anguishing than natural death. Me, as someone who lost both my grandparents AND both my parents within a 12 year period, I can assure you that as sad as it is to lose loved ones through natural causes, it would have been much more anguishing had they died while in perfectly good health through suicide.

If you're still not convinced, the following articles on the ncbi server should give food for thought. They are only abstracts from published research papers (except the .au one, which is a PhD thesis, and long). This seriously undermines your assertion to the effect there's no difference in grief between natural death and a suicide.

Grief shortly after suicide and na... [Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of loss from suicide, accid... [Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
Suicide survivors' mental health a... [Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
The grief experiences and needs of bereaved ... [J Affect Disord. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/researc...D01?sequence=2
http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/researc...D01?sequence=2

Again, the most those saying it's OK to commit suicide for reasons NOT related to reasons not in Death With Dignity Acts of various states is that we should such things on a case-by-case basis. Here, this means that suicide should be the absolute last card to be played, when it's impossible to endure one's pain and torment any more (or when whatever good you can give to your family and friends does not justify your remaining in this realm). It certainly is not a license to go willy-nilly about individual rights and not give a damn about how greatly grievously our own acts can negatively impact on others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 05:45 AM
 
652 posts, read 871,545 times
Reputation: 721
The poem "A Poison Tree" by William Blake has always been intriguing to me when I think about the concept of suicide. I always envisioned myself of dying from a heart attack or heart failure in my sleep. During my dark years I would curse the daylight when I woke up each morning. I used to intentionally forget things in my life but always remember where the experience was buried in the abyss of my mind.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:47 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top