4 ms·

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 an

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.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." What else would justify the means? There's nothing wrong with that form of argument. There are arguments of that form that are wrong, but not because of the form, rather, because either the ends don't justify the means, or because the means produce additional unaccounted costs which offset the value they have in producing the ends. Or, because there are less-costly means to the ends, or because the means don't actually produce the ends used to justify them.
ionised 10y ago
Would you attempt to prevent someone about to engage in ritual suicide from doing so? That's not a mental issue, it's cultural. Not all suicides are the result of mental anguish or impulsive decisions.

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.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> that's essentially an argument of the form "the ends justifies the means." What else would justify the means? There's nothing wrong with that form of argument. There are arguments of that form that are wrong, but not because of the form, rather, because either the ends don't justify the means, or because the means produce additional unaccounted costs which offset the value they have in producing the ends. Or, because there are less-costly means to the ends, or because the means don't actually produce the ends used to justify them.

ionised 10y ago

Would you attempt to prevent someone about to engage in ritual suicide from doing so? That's not a mental issue, it's cultural. Not all suicides are the result of mental anguish or impulsive decisions.