A good example of how CTB can be a benevolent act, when it prevents future harm to oneself and others

[TAW122]

This thread is something that I've derived from the quote: "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Most of the time, people don't really consider the niche, but valid scenario in which a person CTBs in order to prevent future harm to themselves (once you're dead you can no longer do good nor evil) and/or others. Instead, they still continue to demonize the act and delusionally believe that no [rational] sentient being can ever do any harm, or that it's acceptable harm to continue sentience against one's wishes. They only ever make an exception for CTB (not all but most do) for terminal illnesses and to a lesser extent, maybe severe disabilities, impairment, and illnesses.

In another thread, I wrote about how a would be gunman CTB'd before he carried out a terrible act. Sadly, most people still view the act of CTB'ing it as wrong, even if more (potential major) harm is prevented. In such an case, albeit rare, I view it as something that is benevolent act because the would be perpetrator stopped themselves before they carried out something that harms others and that alone should be considered a brave, selfless act (even if it was selfish in nature) because there are many others that are alive and unharmed from the would be perpetrator's decision to CTB.

In the video that Eye Doubt has posted of him and the co-founder discussing about the right to die, there was a point (at 23:05) where the hypothetical thought-provoking question was raised, which is "What if what if was (insert infamous person)" and such debate. I believe that it would result in two possibilities, which will depend on person's views. So below, case one is where the person would just deflect it or deny the premise from the start.

Case A: Most normie pro-lifers would deflect the statement: "BuT yOu'Re NoT (insert imfamous person)!", and then proceed to preach their morality with the smug, snide, and holier than thou attitude towards the person. They would then try to condescendingly talk down to the person and try to act superior over whoever they are addressing.

On the flip side, if they didn't just deflect the statement, they would just flat out ignore the fact that such a statement is ever made (due to it being fiction), then proceed to justify the gamble.

Case B: Pro-lifers would just ignore the statement and go on to justify the gamble for 'potential' harm, meaning that they would just claim that people are inherently good (optimism bias) until proven otherwise.

Anyways, regardless of how the normie pro-lifers react, my argument that I make is that if people were "omniscient" and could accurately predict the future, then yes, it would [objectively] be a good decision if insert infamous person(s) CTBs before said person carried out such heinous acts and caused much more harm. For example, with the 1930's, imagine If (infamous person name) actually CTB'd instead of carrying out one of the most heinous acts of genocide in modern human history (in the 20th​ century), people will still lament about that fact, even if they are omniscient and able to predict the future. I'm sure there would be some pro-lifer contrarian who will claim that CTB is never the answer (or until after said infamous person does something irrevocably unforgivable act). I just find it really incorrigible and incongruous stance that people have whenever it comes to CTB. However, I beg to differ because the preemptive prevention of (potential) harm to others at the expense of relieving oneself from perpetual suffering is worth the trade off as it is a win-win situation for all parties involved (yet sadly, pro-lifers almost never see it let alone accept that fact).

 

[GriffonGuard]

I don't think that the gunman CTBing himself was brave or benevolent. He may have done the "right thing" by not committing mass murder, but the fact that he came so close was a massive failure on his part. He never should have put himself into that position in the first place.

I respect that he stopped himself from committing a heinous act, but I won't congratulate him for it.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I just think that pro-lifers think that all poblems are fixable. That people with sadistic, homicidal thoughts probably just need a bit of therapy and they'll be cured. I think they put too much faith in the mental/healthcare system.

Of course- they are utterly wrong in some cases. There have been cases I've known of where mentally unstable patients were released and commited acts of arson and murder. There have actually been people here who confessed to having sadistic thoughts and were terrified of acting on them. They did receive 'treatment' but it sounded lousy- so yeah- they CTB to avoid hurting others. To my mind- they were terribly let down by the system and yes- I'd say their actions were heroic. They wanted to save other people from what they might have ended up doing to them.

Maybe these pro-lifers just think they should learn more self control. How do they or we actually know what's going on in their heads though? What if it's a Jekyll and Hyde type situation when they have little to no control at some points? I don't know but from talking to people here- some people end up afraid of themselves and- if they aren't or can't be helped- they feel like the most responsible thing to do is to safeguard others. These people should be grateful for their selfless sacrifice and they should be focusing on the kind of treatment these people got/get. It clearly wasn't sufficient!

 

[GhostShell]

My wife is my fulltime caretaker. I am house/bedbound and I have to do as little as possible (no moving, standing, sitting more than necessary) to have 1/10th the quality of life of a stage 4 cancer patient. She also works full time and besides my puny disability which barely pays for 1/3 rent each month she is also the provider. That is a lot to put on one person and she is already becoming burnt out from life. We both are just shells of the people we used to be, but at least she has the potential to be so much more.

We have talked about the topic of suicide many times. She is a bit more pro-life than I would like but is basically okay with me having a method available but I can only do it if she is not here (which is not that often to be honest as she works from home and we get groceries delivered). I suppose Im in a better situation than most here in this regard but still, a far shot from safe, painless and certain death of medical euthanasia.

I am hurting her by existing. My suicide will also hurt her. But the math is clear. 10 years of small hurts is bigger damage than one last big hurt. I want to give her as much quality time on this planet as possible, considering nobody has much time left due to climate change anyway.

I agree that suicide can make other peoples lifes better, especially if you have very few people that would miss you or c are about you anyway.

 

[TAW122]

I don't think that the gunman CTBing himself was brave or benevolent. He may have done the "right thing" by not committing mass murder, but the fact that he came so close was a massive failure on his part. He never should have put himself into that position in the first place.

I respect that he stopped himself from committing a heinous act, but I won't congratulate him for it.

Interesting perspective and while I may not completely agree with you, I could see why you may think that it should NEVER have gotten to that point to begin with. I do believe that part of the blame lies in our anti-death, anti-CTB culture (or just in most human societies) such that if said person would have been able to talk about things WITHOUT the risk of incarceration, detention, and/or having their rights suspended in the name of health, safety, and security, then maybe (assumption on my part) that said person would have just taken a more peaceful route instead of getting close to committing a heinous act, only to stop short one step before the carnage.

I just think that pro-lifers think that all poblems are fixable. That people with sadistic, homicidal thoughts probably just need a bit of therapy and they'll be cured. I think they put too much faith in the mental/healthcare system.

Of course- they are utterly wrong in some cases. There have been cases I've known of where mentally unstable patients were released and commited acts of arson and murder. There have actually been people here who confessed to having sadistic thoughts and were terrified of acting on them. They did receive 'treatment' but it sounded lousy- so yeah- they CTB to avoid hurting others. To my mind- they were terribly let down by the system and yes- I'd say their actions were heroic. They wanted to save other people from what they might have ended up doing to them.

Maybe these pro-lifers just think they should learn more self control. How do they or we actually know what's going on in their heads though? What if it's a Jekyll and Hyde type situation when they have little to no control at some points? I don't know but from talking to people here- some people end up afraid of themselves and- if they aren't or can't be helped- they feel like the most responsible thing to do is to safeguard others. These people should be grateful for their selfless sacrifice and they should be focusing on the kind of treatment these people got/get. It clearly wasn't sufficient!

Well said, and yes, this whole mentality of "therapy and medications can fill all problems that one is having" is really misguided and ignorant at best, while very harmful (stigmatizing and over-generalizing a great deal of the populace) towards the people who actually would only benefit from death itself (there are more than zero). Of course, you would (almost) never hear about pro-lifers admitting that death is sometimes the answer, except for terminal illnesses, but instead they'll just double-down on all the people that have helped while ignoring the fact of people who it hasn't benefited (which is quite a bit more than zero or one), due to optimism and selection bias as well as survivorship bias.

With regards to self-control, yes that's another technique that helps not just with not acting out on impulses, but also just general day to day life, and can be helpful, but it shouldn't be the only option or tool available to prevent disaster. I fully agree that pro-lifers are not grateful for what could be much worse and seem to still snidely assert that "but they (the would be perpetrator) could have been helped!" and it's just pitiful.

My wife is my fulltime caretaker. I am house/bedbound and I have to do as little as possible (no moving, standing, sitting more than necessary) to have 1/10th the quality of life of a stage 4 cancer patient. She also works full time and besides my puny disability which barely pays for 1/3 rent each month she is also the provider. That is a lot to put on one person and she is already becoming burnt out from life. We both are just shells of the people we used to be, but at least she has the potential to be so much more.

We have talked about the topic of suicide many times. She is a bit more pro-life than I would like but is basically okay with me having a method available but I can only do it if she is not here (which is not that often to be honest as she works from home and we get groceries delivered). I suppose Im in a better situation than most here in this regard but still, a far shot from safe, painless and certain death of medical euthanasia.

I am hurting her by existing. My suicide will also hurt her. But the math is clear. 10 years of small hurts is bigger damage than one last big hurt. I want to give her as much quality time on this planet as possible, considering nobody has much time left due to climate change anyway.

I agree that suicide can make other peoples lifes better, especially if you have very few people that would miss you or c are about you anyway.

Sorry to hear about your predicament and suffering, yes being in such a position of being a caretaker (your wife) and also not being able to live her life the way she wishes is definitely taxing for sure. I'm glad that you are able to have a discussion about CTB and the fact that she is comfortable to at least accept that you have a means to an end, even if you aren't able to exercise it when she is around. That is already steps better than what most caretakers will allow, so that's a plus. Furthermore, I applaud your analysis of the cost/benefits of small bits of pain over an extended time (10 years or so) versus one big event (CTB), and I commend you for making a selfless act to give your wife as much quality time as possible, it's quite a big investment and ask and I don't expect many people to be selfless in doing so.

Finally, yes sometimes CTB can be a better option and can be the lesser of many evils (one bad event to prevent many future bad events), and yes for people with no one around them or very few people, the impact is much less.