FaithNoMore

THe only reason I would say suicide is bad is because of the people it affects. Granted, it is "your life" to do with as you please. I could end it all right now, and no one could do a damn thing about it, BUT I think a lot of people fail to realize how it affects the ones you love. As a society, we all know we're raised to believe that suicide is wrong. I'm sure almost everyone on here can agree that as freethinkers, we don't adhere to the majority.

Samhain

I'll respond to Shabby Chick and free12thinker later today. I must respond to this first, though. In the case of suicide freedom does not conflict with life. If a person really wants to commit suicide there's no one to stop them, the government can't stop it by passing laws against it. People will commit suicide regardless if there's laws against it, it is a personal choice in this sense. My next post will be dealing with that point and for what reason (if any) is there for the government to condone (by legalizing it) suicide instead of attempting to condemn it. I only wanted to address the point that the government truly has no power to exercise over a person committing suicide if they are set to do it. The government knows this. There are other reasons why it is against the law to do, though, since for societal protection it's better to condemn such a thing rather than condoning it by it's legalization.

MadMordigan

There are other reasons why it is against the law to do, though, since for societal protection it's better to condemn such a thing rather than condoning it by it's legalization.

This attitude, that legal tolerance = condoning, is antithetical to a free society.

WhiteKnight

When faced with a suicidal person, how can you preserve that person's freedom and life? That is the conflict I see.

The law against suicide, as you have noted, cannot stop it. Of course no law totally stops whatever crime it is against. The point is that suicide should not be considered a crime, or at least not in all cases, and thus, not illegal.

I also beg to differ on whether there is nothing government could do to stop suicide. Unless the first attempt is successful, all manner of state actions can be taken to prevent a suicidal person from succeeding - such as confinement in a mental institution.

On a slightly different slant, consider Do Not Resuscitate orders. Are these not essentially premeditated suicide?

Samhain

We do not live in this utopian "free society." Anarchy the ideal "free society" and this seems to be what you and others suggest as things should be. An ideallistic system (or non-system) requires ideal citizens. Laws have been forced upon us in order to "protect" us from others and, in some cases, from ourselves. I will elaborate further on why suicide cannot be allowed to be "permitted" in all cases since it does, in a sense, condone these things for other people. I don't hold that suicide is now ok since the government legalizes it, but others will, and catastrophe is a very probable result in such a case. I'll elaborate further later on.

ju'iblex

im sorry Samhain and everyone else, im going to have to skip out on this conversation. i just dont have the energy.

Samhain

Sorry about my delay at following up to your posts, "The affairs of state must take precedence over the, uh, affairs of state" as Mel Brooks once said while wearing a jacket with "GOV" on the back of it.

free12thinker:

Hey, that's not my problem, like I said, I feel that suicide is a personal problem. A universal acceptance of nihilism is not. Nihilism would not allow us to keep freedoms in the current state of humanity. Those who value life would more likely be victimized by those who do not value life.

Whatever works, different people will accept different things. Besides, for what reason should society try and come up with some kind of objective rationale to explain why things are the way they are and why laws are in place? It doesn't really seem to me that the American government has explained hardly any of the laws or why they are in place. We still have laws dating back to the 1800s, why they still exist is anyone's guess, the government doesn't need to explain itself as to why they believe life should be valued, it's generally accepted that life is valued, or else the death rate would be higher than the birth rate.

That's rich. You've got to be kidding me. Like you said before, we can't really stop someone who is set on committing suicide. They are not prisoners, they have free will to do whatever they want, governments cannot take that away from them, they can only punish them for diverting from the laws it creates. There are always alternatives and always possibilities, we are not imprisoned by the government in any way. They make their own decisions regarding their life, we cannot take away their thoughts or their actions, we can only punish those which we catch them doing.

And what's truly stopping them? Does a law preventing suicide stop anyone who is set on death? They can fold their hand at any time.

The slave had the option to runaway, to rise against his master, to kill himself, etc. Many options are open, as Sartre said: you are never placed into a situation by someone elses doing, you are placed into that situation because of previous actions and if you stay in that situation you must realize that you choose to stay in that situation since there are alternatives.

No, it promotes a value of their own life, and in turn a value of the lives of others. Men are free to do any act which they choose, but they must accept the consequences of punishment if they are caught within the act. These laws aren't in place to enslave man, the government doesn't care about you or your family, what they care about is the well-being of the masses of it's citizens. The government couldn't care whether you lived or died, they only care that there be some kind semblance of value of life and hence the values of others so that the end result isn't chaos.

Suicide does not go against what "seems" natural, it is the bane of existence, it goes against all that is natural.

Not at all, I'm not judging the authenticity of another's pain or rejection of life. I don't hold that there is anything wrong with suicide, only with nihilism which is a likely result from condoning suicide.


ShabbyChick:

On the same note, the fact that suicide is illegal is not going to stop anyone from committing suicide if they are set upon it.

I beg to differ, by allowing something to happen you basically condone it and allow that it's an "ok" activity from a governmental perspective. Truly, I doubt many theists follow their cult doctrines to the letter. In many cases they come up with their own morality, sort of based upon their cult doctrines. But many will still follow the laws to the letter, few will condone anything which isn't lawful, mostly out of fear of being caught. If you condone suicide by legalizing it (it can only be said to be "condoned" since whether or not it's legal will not matter to a person set on commiting suicide), then you condone and accept that life has no meaning (I want to make it clear, I'm not speaking of euthanasia based upon terminal illness, I'm talking about legalizing SUICIDE in all cases, no matter what the reason). If you accept and condone the fact that life truly has no meaning, and you force this idea upon the masses by legalizing suicide in all its forms, the result would be chaos. The government is basically stating that "Nothing truly matters since even your life holds no value in the end." So what happens to those who accept this reasoning? They become nihilists in a pure sense, they would in turn reject all teachings, laws, etc. since even life does not matter. Hence, what happens to those who do not accept this and continue to value life? More than likely they will be in some way victimized by others for sheer pleasure since nothing really matters anyway. If you agree that this is a possibility even (and I hold that it is a very likely possibility), then you can see why the government does not condone suicide. The way it is now is perfectly fine, people value the lives of others, if a person does not value their own life, they take it, regardless of laws, because we cannot prosecute them if they're dead.

Are you willing to sacrifice your own value for life and your protection and your other rights just so everyone can have the right to suicide and, ultimately, nihilism (even if it is only a possibility)?

LMAO, you can't be serious. It takes a real idiot to not know how to end his own life if he is truly set on it.

We're not talking about Euthenasia for those with terminal illness, we're talking about suicide in all its forms.

free12thinker

For your replies that state we don't have to explain to people why they're not allowed to do certain things, especially things on such a personal nature, I bow out of this discussion. You are now doing what rational people do not do. You are accepting ideas and laws that have been set-up, simply because they've been set up. I, nor most other free thinkers, atheists (even if they agree with your take on suicide) can at least tender an argument regarding whatever. Now you're simply saying that giving someone an explanation behind a law is not our problem. Suicide and life in general is such a personal thing, we atheists allow it to be a personal thing, that's why we're so tolerant and anti-conservative/anti-tradition, yet you're willing to tell someone that they have to live through a situation (life) that they didn't even put themselves into in day 1, simply because it's law, or as you have discussed in all of your replies, simply because once suicide occurs, theres nothing else. Well, duh. People know this, it's not hard to figure out. Let people leave this place if they so desire, and we can carry on with our own lives, instead of making them live theirs.

emotional

</strong>

That's right: saying suicide is wrong is as just out of selfish motives as committing suicide. That's the other side of the coin for those who say "suicide is the most selfish thing you can do".

The ones you love should realize how that which is making you suicidal affects you and offer help instead of criticism.

"Don't commit suicide" - OK, agreed, but what's the alternative? Continuing to suffer? If you simultaneously invalidate suicide and offer no relief for what's causing the suicidal feeling, you're an insensitive hypocrite and your words are worth garbage to the person in question.

Samhain

You must obviously be joking, or you seem to have read my posts wrong once again. Suicide ceases to be of personal nature when massive nihilism results. Your arguments have gone beyond the point of ridiculous. I say that providing that explanation is not my problem, I do not hold that the government must not come up with a reasonable explanation for why suicide is illegal. They should if they wish to keep the law in place. As far as that goes, I believe I stated why I feel it would be beneficial to keep that law in place. It is to protect the personal freedoms of others indirectly by stifling a problem at its source. Your ad hominem attack stating that I am not being rational is unfounded. I explain my theories why suicide should not be condoned, and yet you seem to fail at explaining why it should be considering the seriousness of the personal freedom of those who do value life. Thus I have stated my purpose beyond the idea that I am arguing on an appeal to tradition. You state that suicide should be legalized. For what purpose? There is no person who truly desires death who will not find it quickly and with ease, and there's nothing that you, I or the government can truly do about it, especically when that person is gone for good, and you admit to this. For allowing something to be legal you hence allow something to be abused, and abused in an extreme manner, as I have stated with my argument on nihilism. It is comparable in that sense to abortion. Abortion isn't used in the sense that it was supposed to be used for. In allowing abortion in all cases it has been abused as a method of birth control in many cases instead of using proper contraceptives. Truly, I do not feel there is any reason why a person should value life unless they want to live, but that doesn't concern me. What concerns me is that the value of my personal rights will most likely be diminished if such a law is passed allowing it to occur in all its forms. Yes, one should be tolerant, but not to the point of ignorance in the face of a possible danger.

Also, this statement is ridiculous: "...yet you're willing to tell someone that they have to live through a situation (life) that they didn't even put themselves into in day 1, simply because it's law..." I seem to have stated on numerous occasions in this thread that I do not hold that anyone must value or live their life. That is a personal decision, as you said, and none of my concern. I, personally, feel that existence should be valued since it is all we have, in the end, but that's my personal opinion, and I do not wish to force it upon anyone else.

Also:

No amount of laws will truly stop the serious suicidee, we aren't truly preventing anything in this sense, just portraying that it is a serious matter and that we, as a majority, should not condone it by legalizing it.

As is obvious by suicide statistics we cannot truly make anyone "live theirs" if they truly don't want to.

Making outrageous assumptions on my character and logic are not the best things to use in an argument. I feel I have stated well-formed, logical arguments on why I feel the law should be kept in place (although I hold it should make certain exceptions as far as euthenasia, but I do not hold that it should be condoned in its entirety). You have failed to come up with a logical argument on why it should be legalized other than your argument of "personal decisons" which is clearly fallible since once a person is dead the laws no longer apply to that person, so its not as if we can bring them back and put them in a facility or put them on trial, etc. Further, you have failed to express reasoning contradicting my arguments of nihilism. If it is a potential danger to personal freedom, and the law cannot be extended to suicidees, then why not keep the law in place, if for nothing else but preventing loss of the personal freedoms of those who value life? I've never stated that it was immoral, unreasonable (except in some select cases), or that there is a sure-fire reason why one should value life, in the end it's truly a personal decision, no amount of law making will change that, but condoning it by taking away that law could encroach upon freedoms of other individuals.

Edit: Until governmental laws become unbreakable, there is no way to "force" a law upon anyone. The decision to commit suicide or to steal or to murder is, in the end, a personal decision, but condoning these things could be potentially harmful for that government and the majority of its citizens.

Also, if what you were referring to was my previous statement...

then I can see why you may have misread this. Sorry, I'll try and keep my ideas more clear. I do not condone the fact that the government does not give rational explanations for all of its laws. I definately hold that it should if they wish to keep that law in place, all I'm stating is that it doesn't seem that we've got as much from any other laws in place. The idea that life is to be valued is one that is generally accepted by the masses, thus I could see the lack of need for the government to explain itself in this case. I do not hold that it is ethical or right that they do not, though. But it also seems that we have no choice whether or not the government makes a law against a certain act. To live in this country and accept its priveleges is also to follow its laws, and if we break them, then accept punishment accordingly if we are caught. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens at all costs, this is the true reason for a governmental system. If the government views that something is potentially dangerous to more than just the acting party, then the government has an obligation to established laws in order to protect the victims before the crime happens. We live in this country, and we must accept this, whether we like it or not. I do not hold that it's the right thing to leave a law unexplained in purpose, but I do hold that to accept the services provided by a certain government, one must also follow its laws or make a more powerful rational explanation against them in order to see them changed, thus we can see why the government doesn't feel a need to explain every law out there, if it's generally accepted as correct anyway. I hope that clears that part of my previous post up a bit.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>