tronvillain

Samhain:
Actually, it would be rational if it only seemed that all other alternatives had been exhuasted. Unless you wish to propose that no one is ever rational that is.

Samhain

Point noted and granted. To better express my position I would modify that phrase to viable, possible, or applicable alternatives. If one cannot afford some kind of alternative or has no access to it then it cannot possibly apply. Thanks for noting this

Ierrellus

I have personally suffered from seasons of major depression all of my life. Effects of the disease have cost me two marriages and a good relationship following those, placement in my own field of endeavor, estrangement from my children and importunity to my family.

I have attempted suicide and have often contemplated it. Medications give me about six months of relief followed by another episode. I do believe that in life quality outweighs quantity. I would not deny anyone the right to make the decision in a rational state of mind. Nor do I find the act cowardly. Romans fell on their swords.

Yet, I find that, when I am able to communicate, I can feel almost human. I cannot put this precedent into the minds of my children by action, whether they are able to care for me or not.

Ierrellus

MadMordigan

If a perfectly sane and reasonable person wants to commit suicide it is unlikely that anyone would be able to do anything to stop them. In other words, anyone we are likely to be able to stop from committing suicide are probably not sane or reasonable.

The problem is that shrinks are like mechanics. No mechanic has ever seen a car that doesn't need repairs, and no shrink has seen a patient that is sane.

As it stands now, the intent to commit suicide is all the evidence required to give a diagnosis of mental illness.

Alonzo Fyfe

Anybody who does not devote 100% of their energy to preserving their life expectancy holds that one can trade a high quality of life for a high quantity of life.

One of my life goals is to save a large quantity of money and donate it upon my death to an organization who will fund it to promote the study of formal logic at the Jr. High School level.

I do not want that money to be drained on medical expenses. For me, the rational time to die is at that point where staying alive requires more of a drain on those resources than I can expect to replenish.

What is the use of living where doing so destroys the very things to which one has dedicated his life?

free12thinker

Those last two paragraphs sum it up perfectly in my opinion. For some, the yearn to live stops when they have to try too hard to live, or when the goals they set have been met or would not be met by moving on in life.

free12thinker

A diagnosis of mental illness for someone who doesn't look at their own life the way everyone else does? That's pretty selfish. We're basically telling people that there are only certain "life views" that are accepted, and everything else is insane or unreasonable. Selfish and narrow minded. Sounds like religion.

Samhain

Ierrellus:
What can be said of either quantity or quality when life and existence no longer exist for a person? The point is that when you're dead, that's the end, no second chances, no coming back, you better be 100% content with your life, honestly, before you think about taking it yourself or you better be 100% sure that life will only get worse and that no more happiness can result from life.

Is it completely rational for a Roman to fall on their sword, though? Have they exhausted all other alternatives, have they exhausted the happiness (even minute) which they could obtain in life?

Alonzo Fyfe:
I think you mean trade high quantity for high quality, regardless, though, ending one's life prematurely does not demonstrate either. Ending one's existence does not demonstrate life at all, in fact, it demonstrates the exact opposite, being non-existence.

Taken even just a bit further, this becomes the Socratic lifestyle, give up all your flaming worldy possessions, etc. and live for the people instead of for yourself. So as soon as you start "draining" your resources, then that is the time to die? You can't say that it only applies from a medical viewpoint, since your "goal" does not require that you be old and sickly, only that you give the money, regardless of health. So taken to this extent, say you are diagnosed with a treatable but financially draining disease of some sort in your early years. You can still function as you used to when the disease is treated, but treating the disease is going to cost you much of your money at first. You won't be in debt, but you will just simply have a lot less money than before, now, all the profit that you used to make to save up for this project you must now spend on supporting your treatment. You are financially stable, but just at a point in which you neither profit or lose, financially stagnant. Do you end your life in this situation even though quality of life does not decrease in regards to your health and your comfort? In such a situation you would not be able to give anything to this charity, but would it not seem absurd to end your life when it's possible to maintain your current lifestyle and health by treatment, wouldn't it?

free12thinker:
At what point is it possible to be 100% sure that you cannot complete these goals unless you have some kind of terminal disease which suggests that you will live the next 3 months of life in pain then die with no hope for a cure?

All I'm saying is that this is the gravest decision one could possibly EVER make, there is no decision which could possibly require more thought and reason to be applied. You better be damn fucking sure that whether you live for the rest of your natural life or whether you end it now does not make ANY difference, but will only cause pain and would be completely pointless to extend yourself any further.

free12thinker

Your going by the notion that life in itself, by mere definition, is a great thing. People measure life on different levels. And because people measure on different levels, their reasons and thought may be less "detailed" than someone who looks at life as a gift. People can simply look at life as a good thing when it means good things are coming their way. But looking at the world around them could take away that good, thus making their so-so life unworthy of the effort. And for us to say they are being lazy about making an effort is to say there should be a certain amount of effort for everyone, when in fact, people should be able to look at their own life with differing angles of importance.

Samhain

Um, no. Why is it that I'm not making my point clear? I'm going by the notion that life is the only thing. Existence, good or bad, ceases completely when one dies, it is annihilation of everything which one holds in life. I don't hold that good things come my way. The world is cruel at best, indifferent at worst, but at least my and everyone else's existence brings some kind of meaning to the world. I don't feel that the good things in life ever outweigh the bad. Happiness seems to be fleeting, but suffering is always there, but at least I EXIST!