5 ms·

I'm in the camp that suicide is a human right, and I get plenty of heat for having that opinion. People seem to feel entitled to the existence of other people,

I'm in the camp that suicide is a human right, and I get plenty of heat for having that opinion. People seem to feel entitled to the existence of other people, which I can't seem to understand.

Declanomous 10y ago
I'm sure the majority of the heat you receive is because your stance has absolutely no nuance to it. For instance, the majority of people who attempt suicide and live never attempt suicide again. Similarly, suicide mostly seems to be impulsive -- if access to a certain method of attempting suicide is reduced, the corresponding decrease in suicide attempts via that method is not reflected in a corresponding rise in suicide attempts via other methods. Lastly, suicide rarely occurs in the depths of depression. People who attempt to take their own life are much more likely to be heading into or out of a depressive episode. While these aren't the only reasons that we should attempt to prevent suicides, I feel they provide sufficient counter-evidence to your argument. I will say that I am in favor of physician-assisted suicide, and there is definitely a contingent of people who are hell-bent on killing themselves, but for the most part most people who are suicidal will later be thankful to be alive. If you'd like to know more, I suggest reading the article on suicide on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/ Edit: Section 3.4 (Libertarian Views and the Right to Suicide) responds to your criticism very directly[1] If you find that interesting (of if you still find yourself unable to sympathize with those who believe they should attempt to prevent suicides), I'd suggest taking a course on either biomedical ethics, or ethics in general. These topics have been debated for centuries at this point, and there are a number of very compelling arguments on both sides. [1] This position is open to at least two objections. First, it does not seem to follow from having a right to life that a person has a right to death, i.e., a right to take her own life. Because others are morally prohibited from killing me, it does not follow that anyone else, including myself, is permitted to kill me. This conclusion is made stronger if the right to life is inalienable, since in order for me to kill myself, I must first renounce my inalienable right to life, which I cannot do (Feinberg 1978). It is at least possible that no one has the right to determine the circumstances of a person's death! Furthermore, as with the property-based argument, the right to self-determination is presumably circumscribed by the possibility of harm to others.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
  Nothing in that linked article is new to me. The religious and deontological arguments are uncompelling. No one chose to exist, but I think everyone is entitled to not exist, regardless of their reasons. Even if someone is thankful that they were prevented from taking their own life, that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." As Camus said, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide." I think it's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Preventing people from doing such is unethical, imho.
  - Declanomous 10y ago
    >Even if someone is thankful that they were prevented from taking their own life, that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." You have completely misrepresented my argument. Nowhere did I present anything that could even remotely be construed as a consequentialist argument. I provided that point as a direct rebuttal to your point that if we look at agent-focused moral systems, and ignore agent-neutral moral systems, preventing people from committing suicide doesn't make sense. > I think it's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Preventing people from doing such is unethical, imho. Your opinion is indefensible and insane. What you have implied constitutes prevention is absurdly broad. For instance, from a consequentialist standpoint, calling a friend you fear may be suicidal and asking them to hang out would constitute prevention at least some of the time. Ignoring that issue, the evidence I've presented effectively argues against the idea that most people who attempt suicide wish to kill themselves. Most suicidal individuals are impulsively responding to what the French might call L'appel du vide, or the call of the void. If they were rational, they would not attempt suicide in the first place. I cannot imagine you actually understand the points Camus is trying to make if this is the conclusion you have come to. Please seek out further education on the subject. Your knowledge of ethics and philosophy is appalling, and ultimately harmful.
    - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
      "Prevention" implies force, and that's all I meant by it. I take no issue with talking to those whom have expressed the desire to commit suicide. My primary issue is when it escalates to calls to police/medical professionals and force of law is brought to bear. I'm sorry you find my ethics so abhorrent, though I often feel that way about the ethics of others.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
You can believe that suicide is a human right, and at the same time believe that it is almost always a horrible choice. You can help people see why it's a horrible choice while still maintaining that it's a human right. Whether or not it's a right can tend to be something of an abstract discussion. But when someone commits suicide, it's not abstract. They die. And it's not abstract to me, because I've helped prevent the suicides of two friends, and failed to prevent that of a neighbor.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
  Should we prevent people from making horrible choices? We certainly don't use the force of law to prevent someone from marrying the wrong person even though they may be making a horrible choice. I think there are conditions in which someone can live that is worse than death, and the problem is finding where you draw that line for yourself. For instance, I would prefer death to slavery or permanent incarceration.
  - sxg 10y ago
    No one is suggesting using the force of law to prevent people from committing suicide. This is just a helpful tool. It's not forcing anyone to do (or not do) anything.
    - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
      Suicide is currently against the law and medical professionals regularly use force of law to prevent someone whom they think is suicidal from going through with it. This feature provides the pretext for such force.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        By the time you are in the care of medical professionals they are responsible for your life. A physically able and rational person will find little impeding their attempt to kill themselves. A person who is mentally unsound and in medical care is not in a state of mind to make a rational decision about ending their life. It's not like it can be undone. The physically impaired (injured, sick), but mentally sound, you have a reasonable case for medical professionals assisting or at least not preventing suicide. But you seem to ignore all cases other than if someone wants to do, let them, even if the decision is spur of the moment because they just experienced something horrible and haven't given time to process it fully. Brilliant.

I'm in the camp that suicide is a human right, and I get plenty of heat for having that opinion. People seem to feel entitled to the existence of other people, which I can't seem to understand.

Declanomous 10y ago

I'm sure the majority of the heat you receive is because your stance has absolutely no nuance to it. For instance, the majority of people who attempt suicide and live never attempt suicide again. Similarly, suicide mostly seems to be impulsive -- if access to a certain method of attempting suicide is reduced, the corresponding decrease in suicide attempts via that method is not reflected in a corresponding rise in suicide attempts via other methods. Lastly, suicide rarely occurs in the depths of depression. People who attempt to take their own life are much more likely to be heading into or out of a depressive episode. While these aren't the only reasons that we should attempt to prevent suicides, I feel they provide sufficient counter-evidence to your argument. I will say that I am in favor of physician-assisted suicide, and there is definitely a contingent of people who are hell-bent on killing themselves, but for the most part most people who are suicidal will later be thankful to be alive. If you'd like to know more, I suggest reading the article on suicide on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/ Edit: Section 3.4 (Libertarian Views and the Right to Suicide) responds to your criticism very directly[1] If you find that interesting (of if you still find yourself unable to sympathize with those who believe they should attempt to prevent suicides), I'd suggest taking a course on either biomedical ethics, or ethics in general. These topics have been debated for centuries at this point, and there are a number of very compelling arguments on both sides. [1] This position is open to at least two objections. First, it does not seem to follow from having a right to life that a person has a right to death, i.e., a right to take her own life. Because others are morally prohibited from killing me, it does not follow that anyone else, including myself, is permitted to kill me. This conclusion is made stronger if the right to life is inalienable, since in order for me to kill myself, I must first renounce my inalienable right to life, which I cannot do (Feinberg 1978). It is at least possible that no one has the right to determine the circumstances of a person's death! Furthermore, as with the property-based argument, the right to self-determination is presumably circumscribed by the possibility of harm to others.

x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
Nothing in that linked article is new to me. The religious and deontological arguments are uncompelling. No one chose to exist, but I think everyone is entitled to not exist, regardless of their reasons. Even if someone is thankful that they were prevented from taking their own life, that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." As Camus said, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide." I think it's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Preventing people from doing such is unethical, imho.
- Declanomous 10y ago
  >Even if someone is thankful that they were prevented from taking their own life, that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." You have completely misrepresented my argument. Nowhere did I present anything that could even remotely be construed as a consequentialist argument. I provided that point as a direct rebuttal to your point that if we look at agent-focused moral systems, and ignore agent-neutral moral systems, preventing people from committing suicide doesn't make sense. > I think it's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Preventing people from doing such is unethical, imho. Your opinion is indefensible and insane. What you have implied constitutes prevention is absurdly broad. For instance, from a consequentialist standpoint, calling a friend you fear may be suicidal and asking them to hang out would constitute prevention at least some of the time. Ignoring that issue, the evidence I've presented effectively argues against the idea that most people who attempt suicide wish to kill themselves. Most suicidal individuals are impulsively responding to what the French might call L'appel du vide, or the call of the void. If they were rational, they would not attempt suicide in the first place. I cannot imagine you actually understand the points Camus is trying to make if this is the conclusion you have come to. Please seek out further education on the subject. Your knowledge of ethics and philosophy is appalling, and ultimately harmful.
  - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
    "Prevention" implies force, and that's all I meant by it. I take no issue with talking to those whom have expressed the desire to commit suicide. My primary issue is when it escalates to calls to police/medical professionals and force of law is brought to bear. I'm sorry you find my ethics so abhorrent, though I often feel that way about the ethics of others.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

You can believe that suicide is a human right, and at the same time believe that it is almost always a horrible choice. You can help people see why it's a horrible choice while still maintaining that it's a human right. Whether or not it's a right can tend to be something of an abstract discussion. But when someone commits suicide, it's not abstract. They die. And it's not abstract to me, because I've helped prevent the suicides of two friends, and failed to prevent that of a neighbor.

x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
Should we prevent people from making horrible choices? We certainly don't use the force of law to prevent someone from marrying the wrong person even though they may be making a horrible choice. I think there are conditions in which someone can live that is worse than death, and the problem is finding where you draw that line for yourself. For instance, I would prefer death to slavery or permanent incarceration.
- sxg 10y ago
  No one is suggesting using the force of law to prevent people from committing suicide. This is just a helpful tool. It's not forcing anyone to do (or not do) anything.
  - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
    Suicide is currently against the law and medical professionals regularly use force of law to prevent someone whom they think is suicidal from going through with it. This feature provides the pretext for such force.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      By the time you are in the care of medical professionals they are responsible for your life. A physically able and rational person will find little impeding their attempt to kill themselves. A person who is mentally unsound and in medical care is not in a state of mind to make a rational decision about ending their life. It's not like it can be undone. The physically impaired (injured, sick), but mentally sound, you have a reasonable case for medical professionals assisting or at least not preventing suicide. But you seem to ignore all cases other than if someone wants to do, let them, even if the decision is spur of the moment because they just experienced something horrible and haven't given time to process it fully. Brilliant.