25 replies to this topic

[Arbiter]

I'd like to know some other people's thoughts on this. When is suicide morally correct, if ever? Is it justifiable if a person is in a great deal of physical pain? Is it justifiable if a person is in a great deal of mental or emotional pain? I believe the former is justifiable, so long as there is little or no chance that the physical pain will subside. Emotional pain on the other hand, I don't know. Emotions can lead someone to make rash or hasty decisions that they would regret later. Obviously a dead person can't regret, but a spur of the moment decision to commit suicide may have very negative consqeuences on the person's family for instance.

I have been reading that suicide may be the result of an affliction, an involuntary reflex (or response) triggered by trauma/conditioning, psychopathology, extreme intoxication, etc., rather than agency. That would mean it is a pathological event, not a voluntary act. One would be no more responsible, in a strong moral sense, for killing oneself than one would be for having a heart attack.

[Twilight]

Suicide is only justified when the conditions of the world make the goal of life (as a man) unachievable. By that I mean totally unachievable, so that no amount of effort or time would remedy the situation, and by life I do not mean mere biological life, but life as a being with the freedom to act.

[Insathius]

Suicide cannot be justified, period. In my opinion it is a cheap way out of your existence. If someone's situation is that bad they can seek help. There are facilities in society that offer such help, there is always a way to fix anything.

You should fight for what you want, that is the society in which we live.

[Darkademic]

Suicide cannot be justified, period. In my opinion it is a cheap way out of your existence. If someone's situation is that bad they can seek help. There are facilities in society that offer such help, there is always a way to fix anything.

I'd have to disagree with you there Dave. A lot of times suicide is irrational and not justified, but I think there are cases when it is perfectly moral. Even when it is irrational it is the person's choice, and nobody should forcibly prevent him/her from ending his/her own life, since such an act will not infringe upon the rights of others. Suicide can be moral when a person is in enormous physical pain which is very unlikely to cease, or when a person has some kind of sensory failure making them both blind and deaf (I know I'd rather be dead than in that situation).

[Insathius]

How does that make it moral? If you are in such great physical pain ending your own life is an option., but if it was a moral option it would be legal, or at least not seen as a taboo, in this society.

I agree that we shouldn't prevent people from taking this option, as suicide may be the only one they have left. However, I disagree that in any circumstance it is justifiable or moral in any way. Suicide is a taboo best left alone, I dread to see the day when this becomes something people see as "ok".

[Darkademic]

Well how are you defining "moral"? Morality is not what the majority or "society" says it is. That which is moral is the objective good, and that which is immoral is the objective evil. Good and evil need a standard by which to judge them. Religious folk will say the standard comes from God, and that good and evil are defined by his arbitrary decree. Communists will say that material equality of the collective is the good. These are both wrong.

As an Objectivist, I believe morality stems from the metaphysical nature of every individual person. What is the fundamental alternative that an individual faces? Life and death. All moral decisions must therefore lead back to this alternative and be judged according to whether something promotes life, or destroys it. In a state of perpetual pain for example, one is not truly living as a human being, but as a dying animal. One cannot hope to achieve a happy or efficacious life if one is in constant agony. Using life as the standard of value, it is clear that life cannot be achieved in this case, one cannot pursue values and act independently, and it is therefore preferable to die.

Obviously it is only in very extreme cases where suicide is morally justifiable, but it is so nontheless.

[Insathius]

Morality is simply principles of right and wrong. Agreed, each individual does make their own distinctions on what is morally right or wrong, however isn't a society these views collated together? Are not our taboos, rights and wrongs decided together? Take for example the media, isn't that basically a forum from which people's distinctions are altered depending on what they are told?

I probably have it seriously wrong here, or I'm misunderstanding this but bear with me. You're saying that each individual's moral decisions stem back to what promotes life or death, so therefore does that mean things that promote life are moral and things that promote death are immoral? I agree that in these circumstances where life cannot be perpetuated that it should theoretically be extinguished, but it still does not make that decision moral.

In my opinion moral decisions are made by individuals that are heavily influenced by society. Your upbringing and background also have influence on these decisions but I believe that each society has its own moral code, which we agree to live by. If we all lived by our own moral distinctions, wouldn't that lead to chaos and anarchy? Everyone running about doing what they feel is right?

[Darkademic]

Okay I'll try to explain the Objectivist view of ethics as simply as possible, and as best I can.

Morality is a code of action. It is a guide which we use to decide how to live - what we should do and why. Why do we need morality/ethics? Because human beings, unlike animals, can't act automatically or by instinct. Human beings need to learn and find out how to survive.

Human beings have a specific nature; they need certain things to survive. The fundamental tool for survival is reason, the ability to think. Using reason, we can figure out what actions need to be taken to stay alive for longer, more easily and more efficiently, and as a result, more happily.

Now, life is something which each individual has. Society doesn't have life. Therefore a moral code is only applicable to the individual. An individual has to take a specific course of action to stay alive. Since life MUST be the standard of value (since without life one cannot have any other values), then that which promotes one's life is the good, and that which destroys it is the evil.

This is the basic jist of the Objectivist code of ethics/morality. I believe Objectivism is the correct moral code. However, that doesn't mean that is the only moral code. As you say, morality is taught to us, but crucially we are being taught the WRONG morality. Yes, the government, religious institutions, our parents, the media and the education system all try to enforce some kind of morality - but I believe it is nearly always the WRONG morality. Not simply in my opinion, but as a matter of FACT.

Your last point about everyone doing what they feel is a good one. To answer it, you have to recognise that feelings are not always right. Emotions are a result of what one thinks. If one's beliefs and ideas are wrong, then any emotions resulting from those beliefs and ideas are also wrong. To this end, if everyone adopted a rational moral code, then there would be no conflict or chaos, since such action is NOT rational.

[Insathius]

Very intriguing.

Can I not say that because suicide is a decision that destroys life, it is inherently wrong and therefore immoral after your last post? I'm unsure how you can see suicide as a decision that promotes life.

Also, could I conclude that negative behaviours that result in such things as wars, mass murder etc. are a result of negative moral codes being taught to the masses? If this is true then, we as a culture are perpetuating things like terrorism and violence by enforcing incorrect moral codes through such institutions as the media? A shocking idea.

[Darkademic]

Can I not say that because suicide is a decision that destroys life, it is inherently wrong and therefore immoral after your last post? I'm unsure how you can see suicide as a decision that promotes life.

Good point. By life, Objectivism doesn't mean simply biological life or "morgue-avoidance", it means life as a human being. If one is in a state of perpetual agony, one is not living, but dying. One cannot perform the basic functions required to sustain one's life, and one cannot therefore achieve happiness. One is ultimately unable to survive this way, therefore it is not a case of life vs death, but a case of death now or death later. Sustaining biological life when there is nothing but pain for one to experience is not the preservation of life, but the preservation of pain.

There's some good threads on Objectivism Online if you want to see some other thoughts on this:

Life as the Standard of Value for Suicide
Why is Life the Standard of Value?

Also, could I conclude that negative behaviours that result in such things as wars, mass murder etc. are a result of negative moral codes being taught to the masses? If this is true then, we as a culture are perpetuating things like terrorism and violence by enforcing incorrect moral codes through such institutions as the media? A shocking idea.

Exactly. Though it is also a case of people accepting or even spreading irrational and immoral ideas.

[LordSilly]

Nothing you choose to inflict upon yourself can be immoral. Period.

I mean sure your own suicide could hurt others (I mean feelings, not landing on someone after hurling yourself off a cliff) but that's not a good enough reason to call it immoral as it really is your business.

Now I'm not trying to say suicide IS moral, I just don't think it can be defined in terms of morality at all.

[Donkzy]

A topic very close to my heart this one, as a friend of mince comitted suicide only a few months ago leaving behind a litttle lad and I can honstly say the pain and dispare caused to your loved ones and family is unbelieveable and in fact makes me a bit angry you could do that to the people you love, I think it was a lot to do with cocaine and drinking and this leading to the break up of his relatioonship with his missus. So really I think its wrong and should never do it and try get help but you don't always think sraight when you are at your lowest. I think the only time its justified is if you have no quality of life physically (due to illness) or are in chronic pain, but apart from that I think its selfish.

[Darkademic]

Moral arguments aside, I was pretty upset by a suicide about 8 years ago now, even though I'd never met the person.

It was the day after my birthday in 2004, and I wrote a short blog entry about it.

I'd stumbled across her DMusic site just by chance, and was listening to some of her songs. I was about to send her a PM to compliment her and ask if she'd consider singing a chorus on one of my own songs, but as I read the comments it turned out she'd killed herself just a few weeks before. That's the closest I've come to knowing someone who comitted suicide, and as I said, I was pretty upset by it. I still listen to her songs every now and then.

[Tuskz]

since such an act will not infringe upon the rights of others.

I think it's really interesting that you have introduced the notion of rights here. What kinds of rights do you mean; natural rights, human rights, political rights? Even if we disregard that in virtue of which we have these rights we must know what these rights amount to and without a further definition of what you mean I cannot understand your opinion on this subject. To infringe upon another person is to somehow interfere in their life without consent. This is where the notion of rights becomes integral; at what stage do your actions become an interference with my rights? We cannot know the answer to this question without knowing what we first mean by 'rights'.

From some avid scrolling down I came across your post advocating moral objectivism. From this I gathered that what seems to be an important value to you is 'individual life' and I'll therefore assume each individual has a right to a life. You have written that Objectivism does not amount to a defense of a biological life so I take it that you mean life in the sense of being able to fulfill your goals to the extent that they do not interfere with other peoples' goals. This interpretation is very similar to a Libertarian view, advocated by philosophers such as Nozick. Nozick basically says that my natural right is a right to non-interference from others and that I should be protected in having this right so long as I do not interfere with the lives of others. I realise that I've probably put an undue political spin on this notion of rights but your ideas in the case seem to be fairly similar.

So, regardless of whether this conception of rights is an adequate or 'correct' one, I still take issue with suicide not interfering with the rights of others. If a mother commits suicide does she not interfere with the rights of her child? She is denying her child a mother. This is an infringement on this child's (negative [cf. Isiah Berlin]) liberty in so far as he is denied a mother and has no chance to have another (biological) mother. By taking her own life the mother has affected the lives of those around her. In this way she is interfering with their lives. If we relate this directly to moral objectivism then she has affected her child psychologically (and we will assume not practically as we shall assume that the child will survive whether in virtue of its father or the state etc) and infringed upon its 'right to life' by denying it the psychological and emotional (positive [cf. Isiah Berlin]) freedom that other children without this trauma are given. (I'm not for one second claiming that this is what Nozick would say).

In short, is suicide not a right's-violating act upon those who depend on you not only materially but also psychologically? Do we have a right to have a stable childhood? Do we have a right to have parents?

[Darkademic]

So, regardless of whether this conception of rights is an adequate or 'correct' one, I still take issue with suicide not interfering with the rights of others. If a mother commits suicide does she not interfere with the rights of her child? She is denying her child a mother. This is an infringement on this child's (negative [cf. Isiah Berlin]) liberty in so far as he is denied a mother and has no chance to have another (biological) mother. By taking her own life the mother has affected the lives of those around her. In this way she is interfering with their lives. If we relate this directly to moral objectivism then she has affected her child psychologically (and we will assume not practically as we shall assume that the child will survive whether in virtue of its father or the state etc) and infringed upon its 'right to life' by denying it the psychological and emotional (positive [cf. Isiah Berlin]) freedom that other children without this trauma are given. (I'm not for one second claiming that this is what Nozick would say).

In short, is suicide not a right's-violating act upon those who depend on you not only materially but also psychologically? Do we have a right to have a stable childhood? Do we have a right to have parents?

Interesting point, I never thought about the suicide of a parent.

Children are certainly the responsibility of their parents under normal circumstances, but in circumstances where suicide is moral (i.e. where a person is experiencing unbearable pain or is completely unable to attain happiness) I can't (at the moment) think of a reason why having a dependent child would make it immoral. Rights violations are immoral, but their immorality is based on a person whose ultimate value is their own life... so, honestly I don't know, I'd have to really think about it a lot more to come up with a definite answer.

As for rights themselves, I view them as moral principles defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context, and they state explicitly the requirements for a person to benefit rather than suffer from living in a society.

[Tuskz]

Rights violations are immoral, but their immorality is based on a person whose ultimate value is their own life...
As for rights themselves, I view them as moral principles defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context, and they state explicitly the requirements for a person to benefit rather than suffer from living in a society.

If this is the case then what is the relation between my rights and another person's? If immorality is based solely on violations of my rights, i.e violations of my potential to benefit whilst having freedom action, then it is, by your account, in no way immoral to violate another person's potential to benefit as long as they have freedom of action. In this situation I could do anything I wanted, such exploit another person, and as long as it didn't limit my potential to benefit and I had freedom of action, that act would not be immoral. I don't find this account of morality to be adequate, it seems intuitive to me that an act which hurts of exploits another, whether physically or mentally, should be considered immoral. I feel that any being that has the capacity to suffer, and therefore has an interest not to suffer, has a right to have this interested respected. Therefore, any act that does not respect this right is a violation of this right and to be considered immoral.