Ierrellus

Let's say that Mr. X buys a lotto ticket, falls into a spell of consciousness from which he can see no viable alternatives for suicide and kills himself. What is the difference beween his postumous winning or losing of the lotto?

Ierrellus

tronvillain

For him? None. Your point?

free12thinker

Forgive me, but I don't quite read you. Fall into a spell of consciousness (do you mean uncosciousness?) There is no impact to his posthumous winning or losing of the lotto. But what is the relevance of the question?

Ierrellus

The purpose of introducing the late Mr. X is that he had no options available. Some posts here seem to suggest that there are always options and Mr. X should have looked for his. If he died leaving behind the winning lotto ticket, maybe his family would have been happy! All I am saying is that no one knows the place of "no exit" for anyone else; and to claim that they do is to claim some degree of omniscience!

Ierrellus

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

free12thinker

Bravo. I couldn't agree with you more. There are a lot of replies to this subject in which people claim that someone should explore all alternatives, and that death is always the last resort, when in fact, we don't know anything about the next guy and our 'saving grace from despair' may be very different from the next guys.

Samhain

juiblex:

Um, yes, this is what I have been saying all along. Suicide is a perfectly reasonable choice as long as every other alternative has been explored and none of the other alternatives come to any kind of acceptable conclusion. Let me just state once again that I do not find suicide immoral, I do not find it completely irrational, I only find it as the most (and the least) important decision one could ever make. I only hold that is irrational when one has not fully explored every other viable and knowable solution. Without exploring every feasible solution, which applies to the person considering suicide, in making a decision of the most important magnitude, then I do definately see this decision as rash and irrational. If one explores every other alternative and comes to the conclusion that life just "isn't for them" because they cannot accept any of the alternatives, then I would see them as now making a rational decision, since obviously non-existence is more postive to them than existence, and now they have the knowledge to know exactly what existence would have in store for them even if they explored alternatives. So if the alternatives are all explored, but found to be unacceptable, then suicide can now be considered a rational option.

I know juiblex. I'm really trying to understand it, though, and trying to find that "happy medium"
that we talked of before.

Of course, if there cannot be any option which could decrease the emotional torment to a minimal or "liveable" level, then I would say that suicide is a completely rational option. I see some people who consider suicide as irrational, though, only because they allow their emotions concerning it to override their reasoning to try and correct the problem rather than just trying to find an "out." If one suffers from emotional torment, it is the same as physical torment, if the torment can be resolved without suicide, then committing suicide in this sense is considered irrational. If the torment cannot be resolved in any other way except suicide, then suicide is, of course, a rational (and arguably, the most rational) option. All I'm saying when I state something about "emotions overriding logic" is that they allow the feelings of the "now" to choose their decisions immediately rather than exploring what they could possibly do to end their torment without ceasing their own concious existence.

I do not hold that it is not reasonable. I cannot completely relate to that, because I do value my existence no matter my pain and suffering. I have thought about it before, I doubt few haven't, but I found it to be a rash decision in my case since I could change things regarding my situation through methods previously unexplored. Largely my emotional detatchment, which we discussed in a different thread, is largely a backlash of painful emotions which I had trouble dealing with in any other way.

As I said earlier, though, if one has left "no rock unturned" and still comes to the conclusion, rationally, that suicide is the best choice, then I would have trouble disagreeing.

Well, yes, regardless of what our theories are, death is an unknown. I have beliefs about what death will be like, but I do not know it for certain, and no one has come back to tell me. Death could entail a suffering greater than ever known on earth, hypothetically speaking. We just don't know what death will be like, therefore, this is why I say that it is the most (and the least) important decision anyone could ever make in their life since they are considering ending it, good and bad.

I hold that it should hold value until completely proven otherwise, that is all.

Well, pain doesn't hold a candle to my knowledge that I am a concious being capable of reason and logic. But that's just me personally. For others, it should be the possibility that pain so intense, that suicide becomes agreeable, will not always be there. One cannot be considered completely rational if one makes a decision based upon their immediate pain, if the pain has potential and possibility to subside, or if the possibilities that would cause the pain to subside have not fully been examined or explored.

Well, yes and no. From this perspective we could view suicide as a more logical decision at any moment. Had a bad day at work? Here's a gun, shoot yourself in the face. Had a good day at school? Well it doesn't matter in the end so why don't you go hang yourself? If you would permit the statement above, then you would permit these statements here. In the case you point out, death is seen as the more logical and rational decision when faced with a world of absurdity. I hold it exactly the other way, death is the ultimate absurdity, something which makes the absurdity of life pale in comparison.

Well, it is possible to make a judgement on something which one is uninformed about. If a four year old child told you that the reason the Holocaust happened was because of space aliens from the moon, would you be inclined to believe this child? Of course, not to say that this was not a possibility, but it is an extremely uninformed possibility, and anyone with history on the holocaust or knowledge of the moon would know that this was a rationally absurd idea because there is no information to back up the conclusion. If all options have not been explored when making a decison of such a great magnitude as suicide, it is best to have all viable information at hand and explored before committing the act. Making uninformed, instinctual judgements on certain trivial situations can be seen as rational to some degree, or at least, acceptable, but when concerning suicide, unless you are a nihilist, then this is not a trivial decision.


free12thinker:

Uh, yea, I've affirmed this several times, and said that in certain situations I do agree.

What the hell are you talking about? All I've said is that one can only make an informed decision if one has explored every other alternative. Nothing else. I am not trying to preach or tell people "this is what you should do" I only say that it is irrational to do otherwise, but the decision is still theirs. No one needs to listen to what I say in the matter, I only express my views, nothing else. If someone wants to commit suicide because they got an F on a test, well, whatever, it's not my life, and not my problem, but it doesn't seem hardly rational, and this is all that I've been trying to portray. Only in certain cases can suicide be considered as rational, what people do with their bodies is not my concern, I couldn't give a rat's ass, honestly, but I just feel that many cases of suicide leave some possible options unexplored, and therefore can be seen as irrational. I do not hold that they are immoral, bad, or whatever, just unreasonable.

Well then, my little nihilist, assuming that you are talking about doing things to their own bodies (I hope you aren't devoid of reason enough to think that one can allow that everything is permissible and should have no kind of consequence), let's say a man gets drunk, he then gets into his car and drives around. This is what he wants to do, he is only doing it to himself, correct? He hits a child and kills him/her. Now, why should we hold this man responsible of committing an act which he only had the intention of doing to himself? If he runs into a concrete pole and kills himself, well, no harm, no foul. He only kills himself and harms no other, this is fine, but when there is possibility that others may be harmed in the process or that there are other, better, more reasonable alternatives, well, those should be explored first before the drunk gets behind the wheel, should they not?

Um, so that they can make an informed decision so that they can choose what they believe will be best for them given their current situation. I do not say that they will always find a better choice, only that there is a possibility that they will, and therefore it should be explored.

Well, I certainly wish that I lived my life as a nobel-prize winning millionaire, just because I don't does this mean I should cease to exist?

Well, now you're leaving it to chance, there's usually just as much of a chance that it will "delay the inevitable" as there is a chance that they can find a better solution.


Ierrellus:

There are always options, unless we are determined. To suggest otherwise is to compromise free will. If he explores all other options and finds that suicide is the best of all possible options, then who could disagree with him logically? The decision is ultimately his in either case, but when all other options are explored the decision to commit such a significant act ceases to be irrational. There are almost always alternate exits, too, but the choice of whether or not they are better than non-existence lies ultimately with the person.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

free12thinker

Samhain,
You keep saying that the only informed decision is one that has been contemplated through all alternatives. All we are saying is that an informed decision to someone alse does not have to include all alternatives. Let me say that again. An informed decision does not have to include all alternatives. My decision to cut my life short in the blink of an eye can be as informed as yours is after you've been to therapy a million times, and explored a thousand alternatives. It's informed to me because it means the difference between happiness and unhaippiness. And because a life of happiness over unhappiness is very important, my informed decision can simply come down to those two things. And before you say "Explore other alternatives to see if that can make you happy", I will say, some people don't find it worthy of their time, or necessary. To some, when that point hits, when they question their lot in life, that's when it's time to go. You're not getting that one thing that everyone else seems to be explaining.

free12thinker

Samhain Quote:
Well then, my little nihilist, assuming that you are talking about doing things to their own bodies (I hope you aren't devoid of reason enough to think that one can allow that everything is permissible and should have no kind of consequence), let's say a man gets drunk, he then gets into his car and drives around. This is what he wants to do, he is only doing it to himself, correct? He hits a child and kills him/her. Now, why should we hold this man responsible of committing an act which he only had the intention of doing to himself? If he runs into a concrete pole and kills himself, well, no harm, no foul. He only kills himself and harms no other, this is fine, but when there is possibility that others may be harmed in the process or that there are other, better, more reasonable alternatives, well, those should be explored first before the drunk gets behind the wheel, should they not?

----------------------------------------------
My poor Samhain, when one gets into a car drunk, he is not onloy endangering himself now is he? You've said this, yes. I argue suicide directly hurts the suicidee, but drunk driving does not. Suicide halts the process of life for the person who wishes it to cease. Drunk driving halts the progress of life for others. So does murder. So does rape. So does molestation. Direct effects on others here. That's why they are universally accepted as immoral. That's why suicide is not. Direct effect only on the participant. If participant does not want to contemplate other alternatives, so what. This does not make them irrational. It just means their take on life isn't the same as ours.

Samhain

free12thinker:

So, with suicide there is not any direct effect on others? A parent who commits suicide leaving his/her little children to fend for themselves. A father or mother, part of a full family, commits suicide, puts the family in a position to not support themselves anymore, plus burdening the family with financial burdens with not only the rest of their lives, but with immediate funeral costs. Not to mention that it could also lead to the depression of the children, spouse, or, possibly, eventually to their suicide, also. Suicide may not directly cause physical harm to others, but it many cases is causes direct emotional and psychological harm to those closest to them. Just because something isn't physically harmful to others doesn't mean it's not harmful to others in any way.

Um, yes it does. An "informed" decision is one in which one has all feasible information explored, and makes a decision based off of that information. Without all information that applies, one could hardly be making an "informed" decision. When making such a powerful decision, the rational man would search for and weigh all information that applies to that current situation in order to help them make what they feel to be the "best" decision concerning themselves. If suicide is still the decision, at least the decision was made rationally. If they do not explore all other viable alternatives, though, then they could hardly be said to be making a rational decision (when concerning something as powerful as suicide) if they choose suicide since it is not a decision made while searching for the best possible outcome, but instead for the quickest possible outcome, making that decision rash. They cannot know what the best decision is in that case unless they choose to explore all alternatives and make an "informed" decision based on the possibilities of those alternatives. Without exploring all alternatives they make the choice of suicide "just because" and really, for no real rational reason, hence making the decision irrational. "Just because I wanted to" is hardly a rational excuse for any action.

You stand on the point of almost arguing that people who commit suicide have the worst lives in the world. Do you really believe that? Do you actually believe that there is no one in the world worse off than people who commit suicide? I'd venture to guess that there are many who have it much worse, and yet they still live life.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

free12thinker

I don't believe people who commit suicide have the worst lives, no. I've gone so far as to say that someone could simply decide that hey, I never asked to be brought into this world and sometimes it's just too much trouble living. I had a best friend of mine who was 29 years old and he was just sick of the daily shuffle. He was pretty well off and he had a rational way of thinking about everything (he was a free thinker with a lot of intelligent and independent insight into everything). But he just didn't feel that the grind of paying bills and working 40 hour weeks was right for him. He told me one day that he would be content with dying, noting his inability to treasure life the way most people do. I didn't desire to call a shrink or his family for that matter. He had made up his mind. I knew him as an intellectual untroubled soul enough to know he knew what he was saying, he simply didn't wish to work another 15 years and have to put up with everything. Now his life was in no way tragic, but he would bow out a couple days later at the hands of a revolver. I didn't cry, or get upset, because I knew that he didn't want to be here and, in retrospect, I could see why. Who needs 40 hour work weeks, and taxes, and bad news, and a bad environment and miniscule laws and all that jazz. As much as we complain about the world around us, it shouldn't be expected to take too much thought to figure it may not be worth it. Does any of this make sense?