Discussion Concept of reasonable expectations and the lack of absolute certainty is NOT a reason to deny CTB

[TAW122]

Note: I am writing this argument mainly to debunk the myths and misconceptions in society and what pro-lifers and anyone out there that denies the freedom of choice and right to die as an intellectual exercise. Yes, while I know and have mentioned in another thread that it is unlikely to win against pro-lifers and the masses (of NPCs) in society or to get them to change their programming, I'm at least debunking the arguments, claims, and misconceptions for others on here to use and that someday (when I'm not around anymore, such as when I CTB or die of other causes), someone will pick up the torch and carry on from where I left off.

With that said, here is my take on the concept of "Reasonable Expectation and Absolute Certainty". First off, lets define what I mean by "reasonable expectations". By reasonable expectations, I define it as the standard and criteria in which something (be it an action, event, or occurrence) is can be accepted as truth given the evidence provided (observable, empirical, provable, repeatable, etc.) and also something that is based on tolerable and rational standards in which is within the standard deviation of the event or activity. For example, if someone is copying a document or scanning a document into another format, it would be reasonable to assume that it should not take 20 minutes to scan one page, but rather about 10-15 seconds (or even 30 seconds on a slower machine). Another such example is that it should not take two hours to take a shower, and that it may take maybe 15-20 minutes (considered a long shower). Absolute certainty is defined by something that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and is accepted as fact, as an absolute truth. For example, every human being will all one day die. 2 x 5 = 10 (mathematically speaking).

Anyways, on to the argument at hand. I oftenly hear both religious and secular people use the line of "but you can't 100% guarantee that things don't get better!", "You haven't tried hard enough!", "You need to keep going!", "You don't know if it will if you don't try!" (which is a very presumptuous statement) or similar variations of the statements or meanings. Yes while it is true that if one gives up, one is forfeiting the chances of things (maybe) improving, but on the same token, one is also guaranteeing that one does not suffer or risk more disappointment. Keep in mind that the same argument could be made that just because things might get better, it could also get worse. There are NO guarantees in life, except birth (not by choice but by imposition), taxes (if you work or if you don't work or earn income at all then even that's not guaranteed), and death (all living things eventually die, just at different times and circumstances; some sooner than others).

The counter-argument I want to present is that if someone has a reasonable expectation of how his/her life is going to be (based on circumstances, REAL, CONCRETE evidence) and has already reached his/her limits and tolerances of how much he/she is willing to keep trying, then it's ultimately up to the him/her to decide whether he/she wishes to check out, quit life, CTB, no one else. Also, while they may not have an absolute certainty of how the future is to come, it is not a reason to deny one the choice and freedom to CTB, especially if free will exists.

 

[Doemu]

Well, there's something i really wana disagree:

Humans are not NPCs, more or less smart, more or less similar one's to anothers they are not empty as a game character.

And something i want to add:

Even in a hipotetic case that things would surely gonne better, ir doesn't mean that will go good, or the person wants lo live the suffer enought to wait the change.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yeah- exactly. It has to be up to the person. It's like insisting someone (in a wheelchair) should climb Everest because, there's a great view at the top.

What I think is reasonable is to be able to discuss it with someone. I'm sure conditions like depression can push someone to experience ideation. In which case, it's not unreasonable to say it's something that could improve if they feel willing to try. What does feel unreasonable is insisting that they do. We're allowed to turn down treatment for physical ailment, why not psychological?

Atttributing all ideation to mental illness regardless tends to piss me off too because I think it's lazy. It puts all the onus on the 'crazy' suicidal person. If it is actually true though- then- why is mental illness so prevalent these days?

It's also unreasonable (in my view) to insist that it can be cured. Some people definitely seem to have treatment resistant mental illness. Just when will they have finished the criteria to be stopped messing about with and for them to admit there's nothing more they can think of to try?

Honestly, I wouldn't even trust putting my faith in psychiatry- especially drugs. I don't think they know enough about the brain to really know what they're doing. Sometimes, they make people worse. Why should we have to take that risk? I think it's fine if you know the risks but, I don't think they tell people!

But yeah- all of this denies choice. You simply can't convince someone that their entire situation, mood, outlook on life will change if they adamently don't believe that themselves and they stead fastedly don't want to put in the effort to try. It's fairly obvious that things won't change if they don't try.

In which case, I wish they'd just admit it that- ultimately, they don't care about how that person feels. They just want them alive- even if that means they'll continue to suffer.

The whole argument is flawed because it's based on chance. Yes- their lives could get better. They could also stay the same or get worse.

By their own reasoning- they should never resign from a job they hate because- that could get better- surely? If they think taking chances is the best way forward (which, it kind of is,) they should also play the lottery with as much money as they can afford. After all, money would improve most people's situations. They won't though. They're smart enough to realise the odds of them losing all they put in are astronomically high. I wish they'd only understand that- that's how some suicidal people see life! They find the likelihood of them achieving a life they would want to live astronomically low. Plus- they're likely tired of putting so much effort in for so little reward back.

Again though- choice is the major issue. I just wish they'd come clean and say: 'We don't want to give you the right to choose.' And then admit what that actually means: our lives are not our own. We've all been born into slavery. They try to sugar coat it by at least (sort of) promoting this idea you can be whoever you want in life and achieve whatever you like. They like to pretend we have freedom. And of course, some do have more freedom than others. I guess with suicidal people though, the sugar coating has worn off and it's a bitter centre. You can't convince someone biting into a lemon that it's a strawberry.

 

[TAW122]

Well, there's something i really wana disagree:

Humans are not NPCs, more or less smart, more or less similar one's to anothers they are not empty as a game character.

And something i want to add:

Even in a hipotetic case that things would surely gonne better, ir doesn't mean that will go good, or the person wants lo live the suffer enought to wait the change.

I suppose you might partially correct on the basis that humans do have emotions and sometimes, even they allow emotion (everyone is at least guilty of it by default, naturally of course) to dictate their decision making at some level or capacity. I still believe that the core issue is the matter of bodily autonomy and personal choice when it comes to the right to die or whenever one decides enough is enough (and nobody elses).

Yeah- exactly. It has to be up to the person. It's like insisting someone (in a wheelchair) should climb Everest because, there's a great view at the top.

What I think is reasonable is to be able to discuss it with someone. I'm sure conditions like depression can push someone to experience ideation. In which case, it's not unreasonable to say it's something that could improve if they feel willing to try. What does feel unreasonable is insisting that they do. We're allowed to turn down treatment for physical ailment, why not psychological?

Atttributing all ideation to mental illness regardless tends to piss me off too because I think it's lazy. It puts all the onus on the 'crazy' suicidal person. If it is actually true though- then- why is mental illness so prevalent these days?

It's also unreasonable (in my view) to insist that it can be cured. Some people definitely seem to have treatment resistant mental illness. Just when will they have finished the criteria to be stopped messing about with and for them to admit there's nothing more they can think of to try?

Honestly, I wouldn't even trust putting my faith in psychiatry- especially drugs. I don't think they know enough about the brain to really know what they're doing. Sometimes, they make people worse. Why should we have to take that risk? I think it's fine if you know the risks but, I don't think they tell people!

But yeah- all of this denies choice. You simply can't convince someone that their entire situation, mood, outlook on life will change if they adamently don't believe that themselves and they stead fastedly don't want to put in the effort to try. It's fairly obvious that things won't change if they don't try.

In which case, I wish they'd just admit it that- ultimately, they don't care about how that person feels. They just want them alive- even if that means they'll continue to suffer.

The whole argument is flawed because it's based on chance. Yes- their lives could get better. They could also stay the same or get worse.

By their own reasoning- they should never resign from a job they hate because- that could get better- surely? If they think taking chances is the best way forward (which, it kind of is,) they should also play the lottery with as much money as they can afford. After all, money would improve most people's situations. They won't though. They're smart enough to realise the odds of them losing all they put in are astronomically high. I wish they'd only understand that- that's how some suicidal people see life! They find the likelihood of them achieving a life they would want to live astronomically low. Plus- they're likely tired of putting so much effort in for so little reward back.

Again though- choice is the major issue. I just wish they'd come clean and say: 'We don't want to give you the right to choose.' And then admit what that actually means: our lives are not our own. We've all been born into slavery. They try to sugar coat it by at least (sort of) promoting this idea you can be whoever you want in life and achieve whatever you like. They like to pretend we have freedom. And of course, some do have more freedom than others. I guess with suicidal people though, the sugar coating has worn off and it's a bitter centre. You can't convince someone biting into a lemon that it's a strawberry.

Well thought-out post. Yes, sometimes a person's ailments and situation is really bad that it's not about mindset (contrary to what many pep talkers and motivational speakers say - and in fact, I get annoyed by MoSp (shorthand for motivational speaker), due to how shallow, simplistic, arrogant, and even presumptuous they are, but that would be another topic altogether). I like your examples, especially the wheelchair example (someone who is severely physically impaired) being able to climb Everest. Yes, while it may be possible (with much resources, efforts, and depending on how much suffering said individual wishes to endure to get there), does NOT mean that they should.

I agree with you with regards to how many MHPs and pro-lifers attributing all ideation to mental illness being problematic (and quite frankly insipid and insulting) because not all suffering are the direct or have any link to a defective mind/brain. Additionally, as Existentialgoof on Reddit said in many of his posts in response to pro-lifers, that MI isn't something that is grounded in objectivity, but rather the social norms, mores, and whatever arbitrary standards the psychiatric field (oftenly unfalsifiable diagnosis, with definitions changing ever so oftenly). Also, yes not all supposed "illnesses" can be CURED, sometimes there is NO CURE, and just coping, then yes, not everyone wants to just 'keep coping' contrary to what pro-lifers claim. This doesn't mean that their mind is defective; in fact, they are rather rational for wanting to end their suffering, cutting their losses, and not gambling for the minute chance that their life suddenly has something worth living for. I agree with you that the field of psychiatry is flawed in many ways (oversimplified statement on my part, but that's the general claim), not just in it's authoritative, incarceral nature, but also how it's implemented into the social fabric of society.

The biggest premise of this thread, of course, is about CHOICE and bodily autonomy indeed. Even if it can get better, like you said, the likelihood of achieving a life that said person would deem worthy to live, let alone barely tolerable is astronomically low and also putting all the effort (which is a gamble anyhow) for little to no reward in return is simply not worth it to said person. Also, yes pro-lifers are rather hypocritical, they want to subconsciously deny choice, then lie to others by pretending to have freedom (yes, some do have more freedom than others but they are still trapped in sentience and life itself). Finally, the last analogy is very true and spot on. You can't convince someone that taking a bite into a lemon that they are biting into a strawberry. That is true with suicidal people, you can't convince them that life is beautiful and that their brain is just defective when life around them and their circumstances are shitty. However, many pro-lifers refuse to accept this, oftenly will dodge and deflect, then start to ad hominems (personal attacks and what not, which is also unacceptable). Therefore, the issue of bodily autonomy and personal freedom of choice is (and has been for a long time) a contentious issue, less of a debate and more of a conflict. Then of course, the inevitable consequence happens when "real" choice is taken away from suicidal people, they resort to DIY means which includes risky and brutal methods to CTB, sometimes causing collateral damage (which of course, pro-lifers complain about how it affects them; though ironically they (the pro-lifers) are the ones who deny peaceful reliable means and support paternalistic interventions against suicidal people against their will, thus resulting in what we see today!).

Anyways, wow, my reply could be almost in it's own thread.