how young is too young

[grapevoid]

Based on evidence we know here, there probably isn't some other world after death or before birth. I would say its fictional stuff made by humans.

I would be fine with a 8 year old killing themselves as I would be fine with any age doing so as death isn't a bad thing to person is dead as in non existence we can't feel, do, desire or fear anything so there is literally no problems and no suffering. It doesn't matter to the individual that dies if life got better for them if they continued life as they won't regret dying. Its immoral to force people to live when they don't want to like how its immoral for people to stick to a toxic relationship that could potential improve. The brain development thing a bad argument (and also partially a myth) as someone who is younger still won't suffer consequences from a successful suicide.

Whats important is for someone who wants to suffer less be able to do so in whatever way they want.

This is wild.

 

[wiggy]

the reason murder is bad is cus it was a person killing someone else unconsentally, suicide is something someone does to themselves making it not immoral.

If it produces no effect, what bearing does consent have on it? You don't need my consent consent to brush your teeth, to open a checking account, or to seek a medical treatment - consent is only a factor in the circumstances that action being taken will impact a third party. If death were devoid of consequence, then killing a person would have no impact on them, thus there would be no moral foundation to prohibit or punish the act of murder.

 

[Rymrgand]

That is a false equivalency. To forbid an adult from having sexual intercourse by means of coercion is a clear violation of his personal freedom, does that by extension mean that children should be allowed to do the same? Children and adults are treated differently, if you can't conceive of a reason for that you have either never met a child or you have never met an adult.

Children aka teenagers have sexual intercourse with other children constantly, tho. It's not illegal. The age of consent laws are to stop adults from abusing children. They are there to protect children from other people.

The difference with CTB is that nobody is abusing or attacking that child. The child would want to do it out of their own will.

Can you explain to me what's the problem with a child CTB? What is the harm we need to reduce? The country would be losing a citizen, but I prioritize a child over the country.

Of course, we should try to help the child to solve their problems. But if we can't, then we should let him die.

 

[grapevoid]

IMO people who pedal a certain age as the "permissible" one for committing suicide are pushing the very same condescending thing toxic pro-lifers are. anyone who knows anything about brain development will tell you that the "magic age of 25" thing as the main benchmark for how aware/mature the person is totally a myth. our brain NEVER stops developing, with the same logic we can say that nobody should CTB before they're 40 - yet here we are.

i totally understand why so many older users want young people to wait, but let's be honest, most of us had suicidal ideation/depression/any other mental illness way before we hit 25. nobody is in a position to tell you how valid your suffering is, nobody can truly see how much pain you're in and what the best way out would be. choosing life doesn't guarantee things will get better, even if they do for many people, it's all about whether or not staying and seeing how life ends up being is worth it for YOU, at THIS point in your life.

This isn't completely accurate. Your brain will structurally develop completely in your mid 20s-ish after this point your brain will continue to adapt and form new pathways etc based on circumstances and experiences but it is not developing the ground work to do so anymore.

 

[Rymrgand]

If it produces no effect, what bearing does consent have on it? You don't need my consent consent to brush your teeth, to open a checking account, or to seek a medical treatment - consent is only a factor in the circumstances that action being taken will impact a third party. If death were devoid of consequence, then killing a person would have no impact on them, thus there would be no moral foundation to prohibit or punish the act of murder.

Murder has consequences, tho. You are hurting other people, not only the one you murder. If you CTB, however, your own well-being is a priority over the well-being of other people.

This isn't completely accurate. Your brain will structurally develop completely in your mid 20s-ish after this point your brain will continue to adapt and form new pathways etc based on circumstances and experiences but it is not developing the ground work to do so anymore.

The "ground work", whatever is that, finish developing in your teens, as far as I know.

 

[grapevoid]

Children aka teenagers have sexual intercourse with other children constantly, tho. It's not illegal. The age of consent laws are to stop adults from abusing children. They are there to protect children from other people.

The difference with CTB is that nobody is abusing or attacking that child. The child would want to do it out of their own will.

Can you explain to me what's the problem with a child CTB? What is the harm we need to reduce? The country would be losing a citizen, but I prioritize a child over the country.

Of course, we should try to help the child to solve their problems. But if we can't, then we should let him die.

Yes, the problem with allowing children to kill themselves is that they do not have the full capacity to grasp outcomes,effectively process emotion, or create intricate problem solving methods. Period.

I'm sorry to all you young adults that feel very offended by this but that's the reality.
Especially when we are getting into the logic of allowing children 10 and under to make a decision that ends their life. The consequence to them is that they do not get to experience what life has to offer them, and many of them will grow to be happy and successful adults.

Murder has consequences, tho. You are hurting other people, not only the one you murder. If you CTB, however, your own well-being is a priority over the well-being of other people.

The "ground work", whatever is that, finish developing in your teens, as far as I know.

I'm not going to engage in this anymore because it's ridiculous but I really hope you will take the time to educate yourself on the Brian's development. Good luck!

 

[Namelesa]

But if everyone has these thoughts of suicide from time to time, isn't it also immoral to allow those with underdeveloped brains to make that decision for themselves?
It's not suffering less. It's going to generate a lot of suffering to leave this world, as well. ESPECIALLY upon failure. It's this hard for us ADULTS to CTB, and a lot of us fail, but you think a child has the capacity to be able to do it properly and responsibly?

It may even generate more suffering than they otherwise would have had to experience. While it's true it kind of "won't matter after they're gone," that's also a bad argument, because you could use that same logic to justify torturing someone for 50 years and then since they eventually die, you could say "Well it didn't matter anyway, because they're dead now."

Why is it immoral to allow someone to make a decision that has no consequences on themselves and isn't immoral?

The solution to a suicide not ending up in failure is have less restrictions on peaceful methods. Obviously a child won't know as much info about that but they should be able to access the knowledge so that they prevent failure. Children are going to try to suicide either way so best to decrease the suffering by not restricting peaceful methods and so decreasing chance of failure.

Its fair for anyone to leave life early when our parents created us. We are not obligated to stay for anyone and are allowed to leave each other at any time (with the exception of parents shouldn't leave their children). We shouldn't have to suffer for others selfish wants so they don't have to suffer our absence.

Torturing the person was done unconsentally making it immoral. Killing oneself is done out of someones own free will onto themselves making it not immoral.

The reason I feel so strongly about this topic is cus I wanted to die when I was teenager but I wan't able to when I want death the most and still do to this day. I don't want other people to not suffer the same way and for as long as I have done.

 

[amomentspeace]

Yes, the problem with allowing children to kill themselves is that they do not have the full capacity to grasp outcomes,effectively process emotion, or create intricate problem solving methods. Period.

If we let real children choose the option to ctb half of them would do it because they don't really understand it. Like how many kids decide to run away when they're angry only to immediately come back after 5 steps outside

 

[wiggy]

Children aka teenagers have sexual intercourse with other children constantly, tho. It's not illegal. The age of consent laws are to stop adults from abusing children. They are there to protect children from other people.

The fact that no crime is being committed when two underage parties engage in sex(not strictly true, but I won't be pedantic) does not entail a tacit moral approval of the act, or more specifically the consequences produced by it. In that scenario there is no violation because there isn't a valid subject the crime's intention could be impressed upon.

The difference with CTB is that nobody is abusing or attacking that child. The child would want to do it out of their own will.

This is just returning to square one. A child killing themselves cannot be justified by claiming they did it out of their own will for the same reason that alleging they did it out of their own will is not an acceptable defense in the case of statutory rape. It is the same reason that, if a child signed a contract agreeing to sell you their house for a box of chocolates, such a contract could not be judicially executed. It is the same reason why it is not legally or morally acceptable to abuse an inebriated person, even if they do not protest. To exercise one's will, that needs to have sufficient control over their cognitive faculties for the decision to be considered valid, and a child does not have access to those faculties.

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

Why is it immoral to allow someone to make a decision that has no consequences on themselves and isn't immoral?

The solution to a suicide not ending up in failure is have less restrictions on peaceful methods. Obviously a child won't know as much info about that but they should be able to access the knowledge so that they prevent failure. Children are going to try to suicide either way so best to decrease the suffering by not restricting peaceful methods and so decreasing chance of failure.

Its fair for anyone to leave life early when our parents created us. We are not obligated to stay for anyone and are allowed to leave each other at any time (with the exception of parents shouldn't leave their children). We shouldn't have to suffer for others selfish wants so they don't have to suffer our absence.

Torturing the person was done unconsentally making it immoral. Killing oneself is done out of someones own free will onto themselves making it not immoral.

The reason I feel so strongly about this topic is cus I wanted to die when I was teenager but I wan't able to when I want death the most and still do to this day. I don't want other people to not suffer the same way and for as long as I have done.

The problem is what degree of free will does a child have? If the child says they want to touch the stove while it's on, are you just going to be like, "Yeah, sounds like a good idea to this 5 year old. Good enough for me! I'll even help you touch the burning hot stove!"

It's very clear there. The 5 year old does not understand the significance of the actions they are taking. And that's true up through adolescence. Children are idiots. That's why we don't let the drink alcohol. Because we adults want to be able to act like idiot children sometimes, too, and we're not gonna let them take that right away from us by being dumber children than we get to be!

Why shouldn't parents leave their children? It's their life. If they decide to leave it early, that's entirely up to them, isn't it?

The reason I feel so strongly about this is because that I wanted to die as a teenager my whole life, too. But then I turned 25. And then I started trying at life, and it got really fucking good. And the only reason I'm back to wanting to die is because other people forced my hand. If it weren't for them, I'd be happy as a beaver creating a nice life for myself, working hard to contribute to society, getting a wife, maybe adopting a little shitstain or two, and that would be great.

People can change. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean that all teenagers who want to die are the same.

 

[fallingtopieces]

Obviously a child won't know as much info about that but they should be able to access the knowledge so that they prevent failure. Children are going to try to suicide either way so best to decrease the suffering by not restricting peaceful methods and so decreasing chance of failure.

You want to empower an 8-year old child so the child can successfully kill themself??
It seems like you're treating children as if they were adults.

I'm done with this thread.

 

[grapevoid]

The problem is what degree of free will does a child have? If the child says they want to touch the stove while it's on, are you just going to be like, "Yeah, sounds like a good idea to this 5 year old. Good enough for me! I'll even help you touch the burning hot stove!"

It's very clear there. The 5 year old does not understand the significance of the actions they are taking. And that's true up through adolescence. Children are idiots. That's why we don't let the drink alcohol. Because we adults want to be able to act like idiot children sometimes, too, and we're not gonna let them take that right away from us by being dumber children than we get to be!

Why shouldn't parents leave their children? It's their life. If they decide to leave it early, that's entirely up to them, isn't it?

The reason I feel so strongly about this is because that I wanted to die as a teenager my whole life, too. But then I turned 25. And then I started trying at life, and it got really fucking good. And the only reason I'm back to wanting to die is because other people forced my hand. If it weren't for them, I'd be happy as a beaver creating a nice life for myself, working hard to contribute to society, getting a wife, maybe adopting a little shitstain or two, and that would be great.

People can change. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean that all teenagers who want to die are the same.

This! I have had chronic suicidal ideation for as long as I can remember. It has ebbed and flowed through the years, at times much more relevant than others.

But I don't regret not killing myself when I was younger. I'm extremely proud of the life I've lived, the things I have accomplished and contributed to the world, and happy for the things I've been able to experience. I wouldn't change that decision. And throughout life though there has been suffering there has been joy and love as well.

I'm still extremely suicidal- more this past year than for many many years before it. I can't even guarantee I won't ctb tomorrow it's very touch and go most days. But I'd do it all over again.

I know everyone's experience is different but I genuinely believe at least some people can go on to be happy they did.

 

[platypus77]

Yes, the problem with allowing children to kill themselves is that they do not have the full capacity to grasp outcomes,effectively process emotion, or create intricate problem solving methods. Period.

I'm sorry to all you young adults that feel very offended by this but that's the reality.
Especially when we are getting into the logic of allowing children 10 and under to make a decision that ends their life. The consequence to them is that they do not get to experience what life has to offer them, and many of them will grow to be happy and successful adults.

I'm not going to engage in this anymore because it's ridiculous but I really hope you will take the time to educate yourself on the Brian's development. Good luck!

There's not only brain development that counts, mental illnesses twist our perception of reality.

I know this by my own experience with depression, some times I get delusional thoughts which at the time look and feel real, only to realize a few days later it was just fiction created by my own mind.

It's important to differentiate when we're really lost and when we're just temporarily loosing our minds.

I will never feel ok with the idea of children and teenagers to take their own lives. We're not here by choice, but as a species we should find a way to give everyone a honest chance to try and decide what to do with their own lives once they're capable of.

At least we live in an age where suicide isn't considered a crime anymore, not so long ago peoples bodies were dragged through the street and the family possessions confiscated (one of the many ugly parts of Christianity in history).

A curious fact about suicide demonization. The bad look on suicidals started to change when newspapers started to publish suicide notes. People started to relate with the pain of those who committed "self-murder", and this helped to destigmatize the act.

 

[Rymrgand]

But the thing is human understanding is so minuscule that the amount of evidence we've collected amounts to nothing. How did we even get here? Without having the answer to that question, I don't think we can for certain claim that there is nothing after death. I really hope there is nothing after death. But something I've pondered on here before is: if the universe is infinite, anything that can happen on an infinite timeline will happen. So if it's physically possible, it will happen. Over and over again. That means our exactly lives could be regenerated, and after we died, trillions of years could go by in the blink of an eye, just as the billions of years prior to our birth did, then suddenly we were here. Again. After dying.

But if everyone has these thoughts of suicide from time to time, isn't it also immoral to allow those with underdeveloped brains to make that decision for themselves?

The brain development thing isn't a bad argument or a myth. I've linked a lot of studies regarding it in a previous thread like this. The standard belief of scientists is that adolescence continues until 24-25. Basically, they're kids.

It's not suffering less. It's going to generate a lot of suffering to leave this world, as well. ESPECIALLY upon failure. It's this hard for us ADULTS to CTB, and a lot of us fail, but you think a child has the capacity to be able to do it properly and responsibly?

It may even generate more suffering than they otherwise would have had to experience. While it's true it kind of "won't matter after they're gone," that's also a bad argument, because you could use that same logic to justify torturing someone for 50 years and then since they eventually die, you could say "Well it didn't matter anyway, because they're dead now."

The "infinite" universe, "infinite" timeline thing is really wrong. When people talk about infinity, they are not talking about the Marvel Multiverse or anything like that. What you say makes no sense.

What you are saying about failing, tho, it's correct. I think it's definitely correct in any case to stop a kid to CTB if they are going to fail.

And about the torture argument, no, it's not the same. It's obviously not the same.

Yes, the problem with allowing children to kill themselves is that they do not have the full capacity to grasp outcomes,effectively process emotion, or create intricate problem solving methods. Period.

I'm sorry to all you young adults that feel very offended by this but that's the reality.
Especially when we are getting into the logic of allowing children 10 and under to make a decision that ends their life. The consequence to them is that they do not get to experience what life has to offer them, and many of them will grow to be happy and successful adults.

I'm not going to engage in this anymore because it's ridiculous but I really hope you will take the time to educate yourself on the Brian's development. Good luck!

I detect certain condescension in this comment, so I think I should say that I'm not a "kid", I'm over 25.

You say that they won't experience what life has to offer them, but you are assuming life has value by itself. Once they die, they will stop existing. Nothing else matters. You could use the same argument against the abortion of a embryo since they won't be happy adults either. Or even to criticize the people who don't have kids, since those hypothetical kids won't be happy adults.

And please, stop using the brain argument. It's an extreme simplification. There's not enough evidence. Even if it was true, they would be kids from a scientific point of view. But someone who is in their early 20s is considered a fully grown adult by our society. You can't apply that to moral or law.

People can change. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean that all teenagers who want to die are the same.

Someone who isn't suicidal may change too and starts wanting to CTB, so maybe we should kill them (I'm not serious of course). You are assuming that living is the correct decision, but that is not true.

In any case, I feel like this discussion is getting weird. I'm not saying that we should start killing kids. "What if a 8 years old child is going to CTB" is a hypothetical that won't happen without context. If I see a suicidal kid, I will try to know their problems to help them. Maybe tell them to go to therapy or to the cops, once I know their problems. But if I'm with a kid in a fascist concentration camp, then I won't stop them if they want to do it.

My opinion in this topic is simply that there shouldn't be an absolute limit to the right of dying, since nobody has the obligation of living.

 

[amomentspeace]

Once they die, they will stop existing. Nothing else matters.

Your point seems to boil down to "kids can do it because when they're dead nothing matters" (tell me if I'm wrong). But you don't know that. You don't know that it won't matter.

 

[grapevoid]

The "infinite" universe, "infinite" timeline thing is really wrong. When people talk about infinity, they are not talking about the Marvel Multiverse or anything like that. What you say makes no sense.

What you are saying about failing, tho, it's correct. I think it's definitely correct in any case to stop a kid to CTB if they are going to fail.

And about the torture argument, no, it's not the same. It's obviously not the same.

I detect certain condescension in this comment, so I think I should say that I'm not a "kid", I'm over 25.

You say that they won't experience what life has to offer them, but you are assuming life has value by itself. Once they die, they will stop existing. Nothing else matters. You could use the same argument against the abortion of a embryo since they won't be happy adults either. Or even to criticize the people who don't have kids, since those hypothetical kids won't be happy adults.

And please, stop using the brain argument. It's an extreme simplification. There's not enough evidence. Even if it was true, they would be kids from a scientific point of view. But someone who is in their early 20s is considered a fully grown adult by our society. You can't apply that to moral or law.

Someone who isn't suicidal may change too and starts wanting to CTB, so maybe we should kill them (I'm not serious of course). You are assuming that living is the correct decision, but that is not true.

In any case, I feel like this discussion is getting weird. I'm not saying that we should start killing kids. "What if a 8 years old child is going to CTB" is a hypothetical that won't happen without context. If I see a suicidal kid, I will try to know their problems to help them. Maybe tell them to go to therapy or to the cops, once I know their problems. But if I'm with a kid in a fascist concentration camp, then I won't stop them if they want to do it.

My opinion in this topic is simply that there shouldn't be an absolute limit to the right of dying, since nobody has the obligation of living.

I believe you said what is wrong with a child CTB so I answered that question, that is what is wrong with allowing children to ctb. Not saying you're a child, and specifically, noted my apologies to young adults to who make take that as a jab at them. A young adult is not a child. And as I stated in my original message- it's my opinion that people should at least TRY into their mid 20s I never said that a young adult shouldn't have the right to do so, only that I think some of them would benefit from giving life time, exploring treatment options and allowing their prefrontal cortex time to complete structural development.

I'd also argue that a person who never creates a child has no place in this discussion? Why even bring that up? And there is quite a large difference between a fetus and an 8yo.

I don't agree with you, I believe we have a moral obligation to guide children until they have the capability of fully understanding life and the world. Even in the wild, a mother (animal) will guide her young, prevent them from doing things that put them in harms way and protect them.

 

[ForeverCaHa]

Suicide at any age is tragic, that's just a fact. Of course, it's even sadder when it's a child/someone generally young - honestly below the age of 30/35 is awfully young in my opinion (and I say that as a 29 year old on the edge of chugging the entire 100g of SN in my side drawer). It's sad at any age, just for different reasons: for the young it's, "they had so much life ahead of them", for the elderly it's "why couldn't society care for them?". Any age is too young, frankly. The question really should be why these age groups are pushed to such an extreme. I don't care what anyone says, CTB is an extreme choice.

The discourse on this site around this kind of stuff always feels a bit icky to me. So many threads on this topic go to such a gross, weird place. I'm not going to say certain comments here are supporting the concept of kids offing themselves just because they feel like it, but some of these comments come across as very callous. (Actually I take that first point back, just saw the "I would be fine with an 8 year old killing themselves" comment ... that's really something to commit to writing)

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

The "infinite" universe, "infinite" timeline thing is really wrong. When people talk about infinity, they are not talking about the Marvel Multiverse or anything like that. What you say makes no sense. (We don't know how long time exists or has existed. Look up the apple in a box youtube video.)

And about the torture argument, no, it's not the same. It's obviously not the same. It is the same if the argument is "it doesn't matter after their dead." If that statement is true, then it must also be true that it doesn't matter what happens to people at all, since when they're dead, it won't matter. Hence, you cannot logically use the claim "It won't matter after they're dead," unless you're also agreeing that nothing matters prior to death.

And please, stop using the brain argument. It's an extreme simplification. There's not enough evidence. Even if it was true, they would be kids from a scientific point of view. But someone who is in their early 20s is considered a fully grown adult by our society. You can't apply that to moral or law. If you want evidence, look at the size of a baby's brain and its capabiilities. Then look at a 35 year old's head size and its capabilities. The thing that doesn't make sense here is you claiming brain maturation doesn't exist.

Someone who isn't suicidal may change too and starts wanting to CTB, so maybe we should kill them (I'm not serious of course). You are assuming that living is the correct decision, but that is not true. (How is it not true?)

(I'm just gonna do you the favor of deleting that sentence for you) "What if a 8 years old child is going to CTB" is a hypothetical that won't happen without context. If I see a suicidal kid, I will try to know their problems to help them. Maybe tell them to go to therapy or to the cops, once I know their problems. But if I'm with a kid in a fascist concentration camp, then I won't stop them if they want to do it. (Sure, this might be fair enough. So it's justifiable in order to avoid greater suffering, to you. However, you cannot, certainly, claim, that an 8 year old has the capacity to understand their choices reliably enough to make the determination one way or another. They don't know anything yet. How are they supposed to make an informed decision when they're by nature uninformed?)

My opinion in this topic is simply that there shouldn't be an absolute limit to the right of dying, since nobody has the obligation of living. Evidentially parents have the obligation to live for their children, as Namelesa stated. Do you also believe this?

Bolded my responses.

 

[amomentspeace]

Suicide at any age is tragic, that's just a fact. Of course, it's even sadder when it's a child/someone generally young - honestly below the age of 30/35 is awfully young in my opinion (and I say that as a 29 year old on the edge of chugging the entire 100g of SN in my side drawer). It's sad at any age, just for different reasons: for the young it's, "they had so much life ahead of them", for the elderly it's "why couldn't society care for them?". Any age is too young, frankly. The question really should be why these age groups are pushed to such an extreme. I don't care what anyone says, CTB is an extreme choice.

The discourse on this site around this kind of stuff always feels a bit icky to me. So many threads on this topic go to such a gross, weird place. I'm not going to say certain comments here are supporting the concept of kids offing themselves just because they feel like it, but some of these comments come across as very callous. (Actually I take that first point back, just saw the "I would be fine with an 8 year old killing themselves" ... comment that's really something to commit to writing)

Great point. Though some people just dont attribute inherent value to life, as you are doing by saying that suicide is always tragic. Which I think is the case with the person talking:

You say that they won't experience what life has to offer them, but you are assuming life has value by itself.

If life has inherent value or not, I think people will never agree about that

 

[platypus77]

Great point. Though some people just dont attribute inherent value to life, as you are doing by saying that suicide is always tragic. Which I think is the case with the person talking:

If life has inherent value or not, I think people will never agree about that

The answer for any question will always depend on the values of who you're asking.

In a thread like this one, there no point in debating like there will be a winner.

I see such discussions more about revealing values and sharing opinions.

 

[grapevoid]

Those are great points. I guess whether life has inherent value or not would heavily guide opinions here.

Regardless, @ForeverCaHa is really asking the most important question: why are people pushed to this point, no matter their age.
Side note: I honestly, before it was mentioned, never even considered in my mind a young child committing suicide. My mind didn't even go that young because the thought of it is .. almost incomprehensible for me. I assumed this was going to be a healthy discussion about adults choosing to ctb LOL

 

[platypus77]

Those are great points. I guess whether life has inherent value or not would heavily guide opinions here.

Regardless, @ForeverCaHa is really asking the most important question: why are people pushed to this point, no matter their age.

Human nature, we'll never be able to agree in a single societal model which properly addresses these issues. Not so soon at least, we're still too young as a species to figure this out.

 

[Saponification]

...This thread is getting a little extreme, to say the least.

I do concede that the idea that even 5 year olds should be allowed to make the decision to kill themselves is a little outrageous. But unless they have some kind of mental retardation, most people above the age of, like, 15 (sometimes even less than that) have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. Drawing the line at the age of 25 because the brain fully develops at this age seems arbitrary and based on an unproven myth. I say this because, personally, I have had my mind set on CTBing since I was around 13, after constant, rigorous thinking that always led me to the same conclusion, and my decision hasn't changed yet.

If it produces no effect, what bearing does consent have on it? You don't need my consent consent to brush your teeth, to open a checking account, or to seek a medical treatment - consent is only a factor in the circumstances that action being taken will impact a third party. If death were devoid of consequence, then killing a person would have no impact on them, thus there would be no moral foundation to prohibit or punish the act of murder.

Murder causes suffering to the victim's loved ones. It also is most of the time an inherently violent action. There's plenty of reasons for why murder is morally wrong, even if we were to assume that death in itself is devoid of negative consequences.

to ctb? I would say there isn't an age to be too young to ctb at as we were forced here without choice and so shouldn't be forced to go through more pain just to maybe POTENTIAL recover. We should be allow to exit anything we were forced into. Also someone can't regret killing themselves as when they are dead as in non-existence they can't feel or desire anything.

How do you know you were forced into it? For all we know, we all made the explicit decision to come into existence at the exact point and time we did and knowing exactly the kinds of lives we would lead.

What evidence is there of the existence of some kind of spiritual plane previous to our life on earth in which we willingly chose to live our life with full knowledge of what it would entail? This idea is asinine.

 

[SchrodingerIsDed]

Human nature, we'll never be able to agree in a single societal model which properly addresses these issues. Not so soon at least, we're still too young as a species to figure this out.

That's why I brought my brain saw. Wait, on a site like this someone might take that literally. It's a joke. I'm kidding. There is no brain saw. Only a metaphorical brain saw filled with gene editing with AI to make all humans adhere to the same exact societal model so we stop killing each other so damn much.

Why are people pushed to the point of suicide? The pain becomes to great to bear.

So if you wanted to minimzie their suicidalness, you increase their pain threshold or you reduce the amount of pain they experience.

What evidence is there of the existence of some kind of spiritual plane previous to our life on earth in which we willingly chose to live our life with full knowledge of what it would entail? This idea is asinine.

I never said there was evidence. I said that human understanding of the universe--as infinitesimal as we are--is only relative to our own limited understanding. We are less than a speck upon a speck upon a speck, but think we know things about the universe.

What would we say humans 1,000 years ago understood about the universe? Fuck-all pretty much. They didn't even know they were on a rock hurdling through the sky.

What more is there that we simply do not know that in 1,000 years will seem to be obvious? It's very possible that could be the existence of a spiritual world. Who knows. I'm not making the argument that it exists. I'm making the argument that we can't really know, so making the claim that nothingness is all that exists after death is equally untenable.

I also made the Apple In The Box argument for our bodies and minds.


If you want to talk about asinine ideas, that would be thinking it's fine for 15 year olds to CTB. That is an asinine idea. Mine is quite sound. And besides, there's very little respect in claiming an idea as asinine. That's just being aggressive for no reason. The idea is either sound or it is not sound. I'd appreciate your respect. My idea was very sensitive and you hurt its feelings.

 

[ForeverCaHa]

Just popping back into this thread one last time because I've been tossing and turning all night, and the "suicide has no consequences" remark is gnawing at me. I know it's off-topic and I'm at risk of getting on my soap box again, but c'mon, geez, suicide has so many consequences. Me being on this forum is one of them (that sounded so over-dramatic, but I kinda love it). I'm not going to list the ways suicide impacts society because, 1) I know how I'm sounding (annoying, preachy, maybe a little bit cute and fun for the right people?), and, 2) If you're denying the consequences, nothing I can say will change your mind anyway. If you're in the second group I'm just going to assume you're being edgy for the sake of it.

Anyway it's 6am now so I'm going to try to sleep. Hopefully the consequences of that will also be numerous (mainly achieving sleep though that would be fab)

 

[Worndown]

This is entirely dependant on the situation of the person exiting.
Some of them have a life that is so terrible we cannot fathom it. They die young for a reason.

 

[iamrealandyouarenot]

My life is very different now. I'm still the same person, but the difference between 21 and 26 is so stark. I'm probably going to give it until 30 to level out. I wanted to do it at 15, I didn't at 19. Idk what I want now, but I'm glad I didn't at 15.

 

[wiggy]

Murder causes suffering to the victim's loved ones. It also is most of the time an inherently violent action. There's plenty of reasons for why murder is morally wrong, even if we were to assume that death in itself is devoid of negative consequences.

You are conditioning the right to live to the potential suffering death would cause to the living. That again runs you into all manner of absurdities. For one, the implication is that the right to live is not universal among all humans - someone who is well liked by friends and family has a strong right to their own life, whereas someone who is estranged from their family and does not have as strong friendships has a weaker claim to their own life. A vagrant would have no right to his or her life at all.

Secondly, if murder is immoral only insofar as it causes the suffering of others, a person taking their own life would be just as immoral as homicide, if it were to cause the same amount of grief. You cannot have a claim of autonomy over your own life when its value is not autonomous, but dependant on others.

Your idea to reconcile the logical conclusion of the claim that death has no consequence is that murder would be wrong because it is still inherently violent. This is a contradiction - violence necessitates a negative consequence, not simply the violation of one's will via physical means. Consider these two scenarios. If you hit someone in the back of the head with a steel pipe that would be an act of violence, because it carries both the violation of their will through physical means and the negative outcome. If you were to hit that same person in the back of the head with a thin silk strand that may still be an implicit violation of their will(if they could even notice), but it would not be violent as it would carry no meaningful outcome. The assertion that death has no consequence places murder in the same camp as the second example.

 

[Rymrgand]

I'd also argue that a person who never creates a child has no place in this discussion? Why even bring that up? And there is quite a large difference between a fetus and an 8yo.

I don't agree with you, I believe we have a moral obligation to guide children until they have the capability of fully understanding life and the world. Even in the wild, a mother (animal) will guide her young, prevent them from doing things that put them in harms way and protect them.

An embryo and a kid are really different indeed. But both will potentially be happy adults. But an adult who doesn't exist yet has no right to exist yet.

I agree with your last paragraph, even if you say that you don't agree with me. I think we have a moral obligation to guide children and give them happy lives. The problem is that we are already not doing that. If I could save every children, then I would do it. I would love to give them happy lives. But I can't. There are thousands of children who are extremely poor, don't have any (non abusive) family and live in terrible countries. And of course, their health is horrible as a consequence of the other factors. And nobody is going to save them. In these cases, even if they are not rational, they have a lot of valid reasons to CTB. I feel like saying that they shouldn't CTB because "suicide is tragic" is selfish. Their lives are even more tragic.

Your point seems to boil down to "kids can do it because when they're dead nothing matters" (tell me if I'm wrong). But you don't know that. You don't know that it won't matter.

But I know! If you are implying that there are some kind of afterlife, we know it doesn't exist.

Of course, we don't really know. We don't know anything. Maybe you don't exist. Maybe I'm crazy and none of you exist. But our decisions should be based in the most likely possibility. And the most likely possibility is that our conscience is connected to our body, and therefore we will stop existing once our body stops working.

Bolded my responses.

I'm not going to talk about the universe argument. It's too abstract. We should focus in what we know, in our lives and our world.

"It is the same if the argument is "it doesn't matter after their dead.""

When you are torturing someone, they are currently living. When someone dies, they are not living. That's the difference. I think we all agree in that CTB should be as peaceful as possible.

"The thing that doesn't make sense here is you claiming brain maturation doesn't exist."

I'm not saying that brain maturation is not a thing, I'm saying the opposite. The brain keeps developing constantly.

"(How is it not true?)"

I'm saying that living is not necessarily the "most" correct choice because life has not value by itself. But, as someone else said, we won't agree in this point.

"They don't know anything yet. How are they supposed to make an informed decision when they're by nature uninformed?"

They know a lot of things, they are not "idiots". Especially if we are talking about teenagers. I understand your point, however. Yes, they are not fully rational and they don't understand our world. But in the example I used, that kid has valid reasons to do it. And they have all the information they need. What they don't know? They are in a horrible place and they will die anyway after a lot of suffering. They don't want to do it because of a misunderstanding or because of ignorance.

You can't compare CTB to a kid touching a hot stove because touching a hot stove is always bad. In some cases, however, CTB is a valid choice.

"Evidentially parents have the obligation to live for their children, as Namelesa stated. Do you also believe this?"

Parents don't have an obligation to live. Parents have an obligation to protect their children. And they need to live to do that. But children don't have any obligation that requires them to live, so they don't need to live.

 

[Saponification]

I never said there was evidence. I said that human understanding of the universe--as infinitesimal as we are--is only relative to our own limited understanding. We are less than a speck upon a speck upon a speck, but think we know things about the universe.

What would we say humans 1,000 years ago understood about the universe? Fuck-all pretty much. They didn't even know they were on a rock hurdling through the sky.

What more is there that we simply do not know that in 1,000 years will seem to be obvious? It's very possible that could be the existence of a spiritual world. Who knows. I'm not making the argument that it exists. I'm making the argument that we can't really know, so making the claim that nothingness is all that exists after death is equally untenable.

The claim that nothingness is what awaits after death and the claim that there's some kind of spiritual realm after it are not equally untenable.

We know that consciousness is a brain function—we don't exactly know how consciousness really works but at the very least we know that.

And thus, logic leads us to believe that after the brain stops functioning, consciousness ceases. The part of yourself that you identify as "you" ceases to exist.

So, whilst both claims have no evidence to support them, at least the claim that nothingness is what follows after death is backed up by some sort of logic. They're not equally untenable.

If you want to talk about asinine ideas, that would be thinking it's fine for 15 year olds to CTB. That is an asinine idea. Mine is quite sound. And besides, there's very little respect in claiming an idea as asinine. That's just being aggressive for no reason. The idea is either sound or it is not sound. I'd appreciate your respect. My idea was very sensitive and you hurt its feelings.

I can understand why you might think that the idea is extreme. But, personally, I just find that thinking young people can't make decisions for themselves is just condescending, based on my own experience.

Lastly, not sure if you're joking at the end, but sorry if your idea felt disrespected—I'll make sure never to call it asinine again, lol.