Thomas S. Szasz said: “Suicide is a fundamental human right. This
does not mean that it is morally desirable. It only means that society
does not have the moral right to interfere.” Do you agree?
share your suicide story
Report Post
Please log in to report posts
24 comments
Is it a fundamental human right? If the person is of sound mind, has the ability to competently weigh the relevant factors, and understands that death is permanent… then I don’t have a problem with self-decided suicides. Heck, I’ve previously made that decision myself.
I believe that society can interfere when suicides are decided when things aren’t necessarily stable… being drunk, being high, or not having the ability to fully understand the consequences of suicide are among the variables I could understand generating interference.
just because it doesn’t mean it is morally desirable, doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t, either.
I pretty much agree.
Clevername, that doesn’t make sense. If something is not moral, then it’s not moral. If something is moral, then it is moral. So it can’t be ‘kind of’ both depending on the context . . .
He’s referring to karma logic.
morally neutral is a thing, btw.
Never heard, clevername. Example?
the difference between “immoral” and “amoral.”
Come on, this is easy stuff.
You ever heard the term “moral ambiguity?” In other words: the gray area, where it’s neither clearly “immoral,” nor clearly “moral.” It could be some of both, or even neither.
IMO, suicide has nothing to do with morality at all, unless you factor in the part about choosing to avoid superfluous suffering, which can be argued to be moral.
So, like the quote says: just because it’s a fundamental right, doesn’t make it “morally desirable…” but just because it’s not “desirable,” doesn’t necessarily mean that it is morally Undesirable, either. He didn’t specify that part. I think he was making a distinction between pro-choice, and pro-suicide; allowing for a non-morally-determined position, without endorsing it as something people should do.
An example would be the color gray. Because actions are black or white/right or wrong
Is it moral to pick up rocks and then toss them into a pile?
but… why are we picking up these rocks? What is the purpose of gathering them into a pile? What does picking up rocks, and putting them into a pile… “mean?”
lol, kidding.
Lorax and Clevername, I hear you. I was just talking about suicide. I always thought suicide had a sense of morality to it. . . but I bet that’s just another opinion of society I fell under.
I’m sure a few particular groups would assign a morality value to it, or even declare it “immoral,” but that doesn’t make them right.
Clevername . . . ouch. Never picking up a rock again, or else my brain might explode. And I am not losing my life to a ROCK! 😀
Suicide is killing onseself – taking a life, albeit not involuntarily. What is it that makes the act of killing immoral?
If you kill a fish, is that immoral?
Well, I don’t want to think too hard about this. My short answer would be: Humans already claim themselves much more life worthy over animals. Human lives are pretty much worth more, is what they are saying.
My opinion on that could be a book. Why are you killing a fish? To eat? Then not really. Just for the fun of it? Then yes. So for humans, killing for the joy would be seriously fucked up and yes, immoral. Suicides are (i hope) for a reason, and therefore, not immoral to me.
I think there are a lot of ways to approach the issue – I don’t, however, think that the question of whether humans have more value than animals is a meaningful question. I think life is life, and it exists, and that’s all there needs to be said about it.
But whether killing is moral depends on the context the killing takes place within. Suicide is a tricky issue because the people most inclined towards it may not have the most clear mind, and so perhaps can’t come to undistorted conclusions about the best way to handle whatever problems impel them in that direction. That’s not to say it’s amoral or immoral – it’s a choice, and nobody ever makes it lightly.
No.
Society has the obligation to interfere. And it’s not simply a moral obligation, but an existential one.
Life is too important to pass morality judgments on rights to sit and watch. Maybe have some popcorn too?
No.
Humans evolved because of society. We are social beings. Even when we feel hugely (yes it is a word) alone, we are not – we are a part of a biologically, evolutionarily significant structure – society. Every human life is precious and society should be, must be its ultimate guardian.
Your argument assumes that society – this amalgamation of other beings taken as a whole – is somehow wiser than any of its individual parts. But its individual parts are what comprise, define, create and lend meaning to the whole. What if one member finds the choices, and the structure created by the others occupying society, to be repulsive, and therefore rejects it as a whole? Does one individual member have the right to leave one kind of society and start, or enter another, apart from the first? Or perhaps to reject the concept of society as a whole and strike off alone?
Who makes these rules, anyhow?
Evolution makes the rules. We exist in our current form, and sit in front of a screen and type because of it.
Society as a whole is wiser than individual parts. And that’s plain and obvious – can you make a computer? A water-heater? A car? No! But society – as a whole – made all these things and they do make our lives .. convenient.
Social agreements is a flexible concept. If one doesn’t quite like them, there’s a lot that can be done in bending them. As for striking it off alone, check a documentary called “Alone in the Wilderness”. Yet during all those years alone, he documented everything and took countless hours of video. Why? For someone else that might be interested, of course (i.e. for society).
Suicide is not striking off alone – it’s throwing in the towel. Society has an obligation to intervene just in case the reasons for doing the irreversible turn out to be subjective than objective.
I asked evolution, and evolution told me that it’s a form of adaptation to reject malformed and abusive structures, and seek some kind of escape from it. Much like an animal caught in a trap, gnawing off its own leg.
@lorax – noone can ask evolution anything. We can see its results, but don’t quite know what it is or why it exists.
For instance, growing wings might have looked like a ‘malformed’ structure on the first bird ancestor dinosaurs. Passing judgment on evolution (or its results) is simply pointless.
@gillian: That sounds oddly like doublespeak to me. Were you not initially defending a position which you defined using a backbone of evolutionary observation? If we don’t know what it is or why it exists, then where it’s going is equally ambiguous. Thus my point entirely.
I just like that clevername championed the concept of moral neutrality (that a theist tried to bollock me for suggesting a few nights ago) and that gillian championed the use of the word ‘hugely’ (that a member tried to bollock me for using, saying it isn’t a word, but a few hours ago.)
Anyway, I’m a batshit insane libertarian atheist so I obviously think that society has no right to stop a person killing themself. I do think it’s a decision that shouldn’t be made rashly or lightly but who am I to tell someone they’ve been too hasty or careless in coming to any conclusion they’ve arrived at?
@lorax – just because we don’t know where evolution is going doesn’t mean we should judge its current state as deeply flawed. Society is a product of evolution, and not only for humans. And it is wiser than the individual, and not only for humans.
For example the most evolved insects are those that form societies. Bees are one kind of such insects, and have the only other (non-human) known abstract language.
You’d be surprised to find out how much modern technology has benefited from studying social insects (google ‘ant algorithms’ and ‘swarm intelligence’).
What I am trying to say is that we are by evolution social beings and recognizing this means recognizing that we function best in some sort of a society, thus we shouldn’t be rejecting the social construct as a whole. If you find a particular flavor of society not to be your cup of tea, then try another. You’d be surprised how many flavors there are. This discussion board is also one.