I’ve read that 2/3 of all people who’ve committed suffered from mental illness, but what about the other 1/3 who didn’t? And I’m not counting the terminally ill — to me, that’s a no-brainer.  Are there rational reasons for deciding to end one’s life?
I see people constantly answer in the negative on other forums, but I can’t see how this can be an objective viewpoint. Â Everyone says ‘there is always hope’ or — my favorite brainless platitude – Â ‘suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.’ Â I have a feeling that people who say that haven’t had a whole lot of serious problems — and are totally out of touch with those of us who have.
I mean: Â life is temporary already, and what if your life IS the problem?
6 comments
Of course there are rational reasons to commit suicide. All sorts of reasons.
Sometimes there are situations where things simply aren’t going to get better, like if you’ve had a terrible accident or are afflicted with some terrible disease.
Like my aunt for instance. She had stage 4 brain cancer and went into a coma, which is how they discovered the cancer. They tried to treat her for it, she went through chemo and all that, but never really recovered, and it came back a few years later. Near the end, my mom was taking care of her, and said she would just sit there and watch horror movies all day, because it was the only thing that made her feel alive (kind of like the woman with cancer in Fight Club who desperately wants to have sex and watches pornography all day, as it is the only thing that makes her feel alive. That sort of thing is not just in movies).
If doctors hadn’t intervened and tried to cure the cancer, she simply would have slipped into a coma one day and been gone. That’s a fairly merciful death, all things considered. Instead, we brought her back for 2 straight years of torture. My mom told me that if she ever has stage 4 cancer, to just let her go. I agree.
I realize this doesn’t exactly relate to your point, but what I’m saying is, this “Life at all costs” attitude is unreasonable. And in my opinion, if someone found out they had stage 4 cancer and went home and swallowed a bullet, I wouldn’t hold it against them at all.
Why does it matter? Who cares what the majority of the world thinks. People get caught up in these philosophical arguments because it allows for an excuse to not follow through with the act. Most of society saying that suicide is never rational does not actually stop a single person from going to kill themselves if they so desire. Maybe the rest of society will not approve of the suicide, but the dead person won’t be here to know about it, so it’s a moot point. Getting caught up in what other people think and the feeling that there needs to be a crusade to change these opinions is becoming an epidemic in this society lately. Fictional books talked about the government eventually turning into the “thought police” but ironically it’s normal society which is becoming that. Other people may not think suicide is acceptable. They have the right to think that. You have the right to go jump off of something if you really want to. Neither side has to be right.
“…because it allows for an excuse to not follow through with the act.”
I disagree that this is the primary cause for people getting caught up in both abstract and granular philosophical arguments.
I think the real primary cause, is that we are all told that “normalcy” and “the status quo” have been collectively agreed upon, as the most reasonably acceptable ways to do and be. But individuals experience many instances where “normalcy” and “the status quo” are actually quite far from what should most reasonably be expected or concluded… and then we see all the problems caused specifically by “everyone thinking the same wrong ways about certain things,” and we feel compelled to attempt to correct it, due to how deeply it has affected ourselves.
This ties into an article i read, days ago (which i felt inclined to link here, but hadn’t gotten around to doing so), about how the dynamics of reason and rationality relate to persuasion. I found it very interesting, and it basically said what i expected, but in a more expertly-defined way than i would be able to articulate it myself (because i’m not a neuroscientist! …but i totally found grammatical errors in it, so maybe i would be able to re-articulate it better than they did… 😉 ).
So to get back to a fundamental (and unfortunately unpopular) idea i find myself frequently referencing: “what other people think” does actually “matter,” though not so much in the way that we should necessarily “care” what other people think; just that what other people think, WILL affect us, unless we can completely shield ourselves from the impacts of their actions upon our shared environments.
The other part of that, is that any individual only ever belongs to themselves, regardless of any duress or oppression; you can ultimately choose to do whatever you want, meaning as far as selecting what is prohibited by *other people* (who are not you, and cannot own you), but perhaps not adding your ideal potential selections to the list of what is available. You can choose to do what other people demand you not do… but they will likely impose consequences, again, without your consent. They are exerting their dominance, in opposition to your inherent personal sovereignty.
I believe we are all sovereign, and that no one has the right to harm me, unless i have first harmed them, and that no one has the right to deprive or take from me, unless i have deprived or taken from them. Unfortunately, there are literally billions of people who would disagree with me on that… and lots of them are in positions of what i will call false authority, which they believe and insist is actually legitimate, as if somehow they feel something has given them jurisdiction over my own individual sovereignty, which i find to be an insultingly preposterous notion.
All this… is part of why we actually SHOULD, and do NEED, to strive to adjust what “normalcy” and “the status quo” defines as “acceptable.” If we don’t even try, we will ensure that people will continue being arbitrarily oppressed and needlessly tormented, and most importantly: unjustly so. Anyone who has experienced this persecution (as many of us have), should know: we have to change this shit our damn selves, or it’s not going to change. What an onerous burden, right? It’s those of us who have had enough, and are actually considering just not existing at all, as a better alternative… who have the critical experience and motivation required to passionately push, and vehemently demand, a sufficient improvement to the way people are treated, and why we think and do as we do.
And in the interim, we need to abolish any law that does more harm than said law’s absence. Cannabis is a perfect example of such a situation: the prohibition does exponentially more harm than good, and so the absence of that prohibition would be a better temporary solution, instead of keeping this as excessively wrong as they are, until a better solution can be built. We need to abolish all unreasonable paradigms that cause more harm than they prevent, including in the social arenas.
Which brings me to this:
“Fictional books talked about the government eventually turning into the “thought police†but ironically it’s normal society which is becoming that.”
That is a great point, and a keen observation.
But… why do you think that occurs? Where would they all learn such a thing?
Actually, it’s a gov’t propaganda agenda, trying to get people to “tell on themselves,” to submit to the nanny-state undermining of our humanity, the exploitation of our fears, to get us clamoring for “protection” and “safety,” which we will never actually have, if we (since we have) give up our individual sovereignty.
Ever heard of the “see something say something” campaign?
A huge amount of intentionally misguided people, are being trained to act like it’s their duty to point out anything that isn’t “normal,” and shun anything “scary.” Everyone who doesn’t fit the status quo, is suspect. No one wants to be associated with the “bogie men,” and so they become preoccupied, even obsessed, with “judging” everyone, based on those propagandized standards, according to their socially engineered perceptions of “normalcy” and “status quo.”
So yeah, it matters… but at the same time, anyone can do whatever they want, prior to incurring consequences. The system is either broken, or working exactly as intended. I’m not sure which is worse.
Funny, you nailed it on your final comment. Life is the problem. There was a guy who was named The Buddha, which means awakened one. The very first thing he came to understand was that life is suffering. Period. Doesn’t matter who you are, what you’re doing, the money you make or don’t make…all of life is suffering. Sounds depressing, but then he went on to teach people how to overcome this suffering. Anyway…ya..Life is the problem.
It’s not about rejecting reason behind suicide, it’s rather about those who misinterpret irrational arguments for rational ones and therefore claim that suicide is the “only rational option” they have left. And that’s the case way too often.
I’d agree that irrational arguments can be the foundation for suicide, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. People are assuming that suicide can only be either rational or irrational. This is not true.
Subjectivity is the basis for suicide. We all have opinions about what does or does not matter to us. Let’s use an example.
My dog died. I can’t go on without him. Suicide.
Is this choice rational or irrational? For some people, it seems irrational because they can’t perceive the value of the dog in relation to themselves, but to the person making this call, it seems rational because the dog and all of his unique characteristics are not “replaceable”. Life is no longer considered “worth living” without this particular dog, and the situation can not be fixed.
Sometimes people mistakenly think they cannot fix their situation, and therefore the thought is irrational, but they could just as easily say that fixing the situation is not worth the effort. As such, it enters the realm of opinion and can no longer be counter-argued.
I think most of these pessimistic philosophical views from people on here are coming as a side effect of other issues. However, if they are using it as a primary reason, there is a good chance that the viewpoint is irrational.