>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." Yo

>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.