Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Brad wrote:Suicide, using the common meaning of the word, is never moral, under any system of ethics. I'm extremely curious how you arrived at your conclusions to the contrary.

Look: Did YOU ask to be born? Did I? Did anyone else? Was anyone here given a choice about whether or not they wanted to come into this world?

Heck no. That choice was made totally without your consent.

So at the very least as a consolation, you have the right to take your own life. Or you should, anyway. Otherwise, you're not truly free. You're a cog in a machine whose whole purpose is to be controlled by someone else, or else to overcome and become the controller (though the latter isn't even an option for most people).

You know what the problem with this debate is? There's no THOUGHT. The first thing everyone is trying to do is polarize the issue by talking about religious doctrines or how they were so hurt by a friend's suicide or whatnot. Everyone's quick to throw out any possible line of debate by getting emotional--which is of course most people's first line of defense against new and uncomfortable ideas. It's how every uncommon thought in history has been opposed.

And really, most of the time it seems to me anti-suicide beliefs are selfish. You don't want your friend to commit suicide because you want him to be there for YOU. You say you want what's best for him but you really want what's best for yourself. No one's thinking of what's best for the person who killed him/herself--they pretend they are, but from how people are so willing to demonize those who commit suicide, you can see where their loyalties REALLY lie.

JamesEightBitStar wrote:

Brad wrote:Suicide, using the common meaning of the word, is never moral, under any system of ethics. I'm extremely curious how you arrived at your conclusions to the contrary.

Look: Did YOU ask to be born? Did I? Did anyone else? Was anyone here given a choice about whether or not they wanted to come into this world?

Heck no. That choice was made totally without your consent.

So at the very least as a consolation, you have the right to take your own life. Or you should, anyway. Otherwise, you're not truly free. You're a cog in a machine whose whole purpose is to be controlled by someone else, or else to overcome and become the controller (though the latter isn't even an option for most people).

You know what the problem with this debate is? There's no THOUGHT. The first thing everyone is trying to do is polarize the issue by talking about religious doctrines or how they were so hurt by a friend's suicide or whatnot. Everyone's quick to throw out any possible line of debate by getting emotional--which is of course most people's first line of defense against new and uncomfortable ideas. It's how every uncommon thought in history has been opposed.

And really, most of the time it seems to me anti-suicide beliefs are selfish. You don't want your friend to commit suicide because you want him to be there for YOU. You say you want what's best for him but you really want what's best for yourself. No one's thinking of what's best for the person who killed him/herself--they pretend they are, but from how people are so willing to demonize those who commit suicide, you can see where their loyalties REALLY lie.

Sorry to say but no is truly free, we are all destined to die and most likely be forgotten by this world left behind. Suicide is a no win situation (I am not talking self sacrifice or the terminally ill with no hope of pain or recovery, those fall under self sacrifice and euthanasia), if you are a religious person (correct me if I am wrong) than suicide (the killing of oneself because life has gotten to be to much or your to sad, etc.) is wrong and I don't know of any religion that condones death by ones own hand for these reasons, primarily because one will deny oneself a place in the afterlife or a crappy reincarnation. If you are not a religious person ending ones life for these reasons is really rather foolish because because than in your belief there is nothing else beyond this life. True freedom comes from the unchaining of your mind and the thirst and quest for knowledge, enlightenment, etc. Just as a technical note if you kill yourself what can the law do to you? Currently (with a few exceptions) here in the states most of the laws will not allow someone to assist you in dying. Part of the problem with suicide these days is that it has become romanticized and put on a pedestal as heroic. As to the person trying to commit suicide sure everyone should be concerned with that person because as cliche as it sounds the act of trying to commit suicide (as defined) is really a cry for help.

JamesEightBitStar wrote: You know what the problem with this debate is? There's no THOUGHT. The first thing everyone is trying to do is polarize the issue by talking about religious doctrines or how they were so hurt by a friend's suicide or whatnot.

I brought up moral/ethical theory. Nowhere did I mention religion. I simply asked how you arrived at your conclusions due to every major ethical theory deeming suicide (as you use the term) to be morally impermissible. You seem to be appealing to some form of nihilism, but I can't really tell. Please explicate your ideas instead of assuming I'm making a "religious" attack.

Brad wrote:I brought up moral/ethical theory.

No, you were mostly talking about the wisdom of the decision and the personalilty characteristics of the person making it, which have nothing to do with whether suicide is moral or ethical.

If someone has a moral and ethical right to suicide, but makes inappropriate use of that right by making rash, ill-informed or selfish decisions it doesn't negate the moral and ethical basis of the right. If that were true, I could negate your right to free speech by using mine inappropriately.

Saying that suicide is a moral and ethical decision every time it's chosen is ridiculous. But claiming that suicide is always immoral or evil, because some people choose it inappropriately is equally fallacious.

blackprinceofmuncie wrote: No, you were mostly talking about the wisdom of the decision and the personalilty characteristics of the person making it, which have nothing to do with whether suicide is moral or ethical.

If someone has a moral and ethical right to suicide, but makes inappropriate use of that right by making rash, ill-informed or selfish decisions it doesn't negate the moral and ethical basis of the right. If that were true, I could negate your right to free speech by using mine inappropriately.

Saying that suicide is a moral and ethical decision every time it's chosen is ridiculous. But claiming that suicide is always immoral or evil, because some people choose it inappropriately is equally fallacious.

1) Lack of "wisdom" is a perfectly valid criticism in many ethical theories. I pointed out his lack of explanation beyond "this is what I think", and the attacks on legitimate counter-arguments.

2) As I pointed out, no accepted form of ethics ever allows suicide in the sense that he used it as a morally permissible act. If you disagree with that point, that's fine, but it's a fact of the empirical variety. I suppose you can go with utterly radical points of view such as nihilism and fatalism (which I mentioned), but those are not ethical systems.

3) Suicide is always a moral/ethical decision. You seem to fail to grasp that a "moral decision" can imply rightness, wrongness, or inapplicability. You must judge the act within an ethical framework before deciding if it is permissible or not. I think you're confusing the term "moral decision" with "moral".

BPoM: "If someone has a moral and ethical right to suicide, but makes inappropriate use of that right by making rash, ill-informed or selfish decisions it doesn't negate the moral and ethical basis of the right. If that were true, I could negate your right to free speech by using mine inappropriately. "

There is a difference between if suicide is moral and ethical and if its an "evil" act.

Also there is a difference between if the person committing the act is being evil, or just the act itself. A person that commits suicide usually has lost hope. They can't be blamed for the act or its fall out with those still living, they probably can't help it. The act itself though, is very negative (goes against the natural survival instinct) and most religions.
It makes since that it would be considered an evil act in AD&D.

JamesEightBitStar wrote:You know what the problem with this debate is? There's no THOUGHT. The first thing everyone is trying to do is polarize the issue by talking about religious doctrines or how they were so hurt by a friend's suicide or whatnot. Everyone's quick to throw out any possible line of debate by getting emotional--which is of course most people's first line of defense against new and uncomfortable ideas. It's how every uncommon thought in history has been opposed.

Thought about it plenty, suicide stemming from self pity is pathetic. You do have the right to control your destiny as best as you can manage, the quickest way to no longer have any control is to commit suicide, there is no freedom in the grave.

JamesEightBitStar wrote:[
Why?

Is it morally evil to murder? [pardon me, I'm gonna have to go Socratic on this one]

Gentlegamer wrote:

JamesEightBitStar wrote:[
Why?

Is it morally evil to murder? [pardon me, I'm gonna have to go Socratic on this one]

Counter question: Is morality the proper yardstick by which to measure a government's jurisdiction over human decisions?

Mythmere wrote:

Gentlegamer wrote:

JamesEightBitStar wrote:[
Why?

Is it morally evil to murder? [pardon me, I'm gonna have to go Socratic on this one]

Counter question: Is morality the proper yardstick by which to measure a government's jurisdiction over human decisions?

Did law creep into this discussion without me realizing it?

To answer: yes, morality is perfectly valid basis for law. Every legislative act is essentially based on morality. Furthermore, only just acts of the legislature are laws, unjust legislative acts are not law and have no moral force in themselves; however, the morality of obeying the law regardless of its justice may sometimes have precedence. That is, a generally just and legitimate regime may sometimes enact unjust legislative acts where obedience to the "law" overrides moral disregard of the act itself.

Gentlegamer wrote:

JamesEightBitStar wrote:[
Why?

Is it morally evil to murder? [pardon me, I'm gonna have to go Socratic on this one]

Killing != murder

Murder is morally permissible in some systems (ethical egoism comes to mind), but it almost always fails the self-defeating test.

Brad wrote:1) Lack of "wisdom" is a perfectly valid criticism in many ethical theories. I pointed out his lack of explanation beyond "this is what I think", and the attacks on legitimate counter-arguments.

But "lack of wisdom" is situational. It can't be expanded to encompass the whole concept of suicide (unless you're arguing that the choice to suicide always involves "lack of wisdom").

Brad wrote:2) As I pointed out, no accepted form of ethics ever allows suicide in the sense that he used it as a morally permissible act. If you disagree with that point, that's fine, but it's a fact of the empirical variety.

Could you please explain further? How can you claim that no "accepted form of ethics" recognizes suicide as a legitimate option? What are the "accepted form[s] of ethics" you're referring to here? Who decided whether they were acceptable or not. Does the fact that I believe suicide can be a morally legitimate decision mean that I'm, by definition, a nihilist or fatalist?

Brad wrote:3) Suicide is always a moral/ethical decision. You seem to fail to grasp that a "moral decision" can imply rightness, wrongness, or inapplicability. You must judge the act within an ethical framework before deciding if it is permissible or not. I think you're confusing the term "moral decision" with "moral".

I don't think I'm failing to grasp anything and, please, let's not be pedantic. I think my use of the terms moral and ethical were clearly in the context of "moral" and "ethical" equating to "morally right" and "ethically right". And my point, which you seem to have skipped over, is that a blanket statement that suicide is always a morally and ethcially wrong decision cannot be backed up by examples of people arriving at that decision through individual poor judgement or lack of character.

Suicide can be a positive moral or ethical choice.

For example:

"I am just going out and may be some time" -- last words of Captain Lawrence Oates, who in 1912 walked out into a blizzard to die in the hope that through his sacrifice, his comrades would have enough food to reach civilisation.

Q: "Counter question: Is morality the proper yardstick by which to measure a government's jurisdiction over human decisions?"

No. However, negative consequences to the larger body are. It may or may not be moral or ethical for someone to smoke crack cocaine. Thats a value judgement and people with different beliefs (religious and philisophical) will be all over the map.

However, government does have the right to say smoking crack is illegal, on logical grounds. Why, because it has a negative effect on the economy. It also has a corrosive effect on human relationships, families etc. (thus the continuation of the culture). It ends up costing too much to have to deal with (probably 100s of billions of tax payers dollars, those that are still working and not smoking crack). So, the government outlaws it, not on moral grounds, but on logical.

Religion in different cultures functions largely for the same reason. The taboo against incest (often religously founded) has to do with people figuring out marraige between relatives for long periods of time causes a weaker population. This knowledge falls out of human understanding but the laws still exist. Only when it occasionally happens do people see the negative consequences.


The United States, however, shouldn't be making decisions based on religion or morality, only logic (as our nation imbraces all religions). Suicide tears up human relationships and creates a way out for people under periods of temporary stress. A society that encouraged suicide for anyone feeling down in the dumps or depressed would be people-less society before you new it.

Although I am somewhat of a Libertarian, I disagree with things like legalizing drugs because it costs others (not using drugs) too much. If your work force doesn't show up every morning because their high on crack, there goes your country down the toilet in a few years.

If an action interferes with someone's rights to "life liberty and happyness" then laws are created to prevent that from occuring. Suicide would interfere with these rights in an indirect way.

AxeMental wrote:However, government does have the right to say smoking crack is illegal, on logical grounds, because it has a negative effect on the economy.

I've got to disagree with that, sorry. I work with quite a few crack-heads on a professional basis, and I think the most logical solution to the problem of crack is to legalise it. And in fact to give it away free.