Discussion Is suicide always rational?

[nettspend]

Suicide is the only morally correct action a human can take. Therefore I think it's rational in every case.

 

[kunikuzushi]

Suicide is always rational because suffering is guaranteed in everyone's life. Dying sooner than later reduces suffering.

 

[EmployedHikikomori]

Not the big Schopenhauer himself arguing for the rationality of suicide What about noluntas!?

(jk, I respect your opion and see where you come from, even if I don't really agree with you).

You actually made me pause and think a little.
I'm aware of Schopenhauer's notion of noluntas the denial of the will goes against suicide, which he argues is a surrender of to the will, since it's a huge 'want' of not suffering. However, I want to disagree with him here.

I'd site Philipp Mianländer, when he argued that, suicide is the ultimate denial of the will to live.
Not only are you opting out of life, but you're sending or continuing a trend of rejecting life, rejecting the cycle of the will, and to increase entropy in the universe and bring the will closer to the end.

 

[hughmun9]

no decision is always rational, it's always contextual

 

[Canto XIII]

You actually made me pause and think a little.
I'm aware of Schopenhauer's notion of noluntas the denial of the will goes against suicide, which he argues is a surrender of to the will, since it's a huge 'want' of not suffering. However, I want to disagree with him here.

I'd site Philipp Mianländer, when he argued that, suicide is the ultimate denial of the will to live.
Not only are you opting out of life, but you're sending or continuing a trend of rejecting life, rejecting the cycle of the will, and to increase entropy in the universe and bring the will closer to the end.

Is increasing the entropy of the universe really negating life if that is the natural conclusion of life? Is death itself truly a negation of life in this perspective? Isn't it all a manifestation of the universal irrational will to live, in its ontological sense? But I'm really getting lost in sophisms here. I must admit I don't know too much about Mainländer, I've never studied his work, but from the little I know he seems a bit too rhetoric for my tastes (but who is a half-wit like me to judge a great intellectual?). Of course, he replaces Schopenhauer's will to live with his will to die, but the result is the same: suicide is not a negation of the underlying reality but its confirmation. And it is not an escape from reality because such an escape does not exist: reality is just what it is, and men as part of reality act just as they are expected to do (Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?, Job 40,8-9). I simply don't believe a thing such as denying the will to live is possible for human beings. We're always doing what we think is going to bring us the most pleasure (Plato, Symposium 205a: «Ταύτην δὴ τὴν βούλησιν καὶ τὸν ἔρωτα τοῦτον πότερα κοινὸν οἴει εἶναι πάντων ἀνθρώπων, καὶ πάντας τἀγαθὰ βούλεσθαι αὑτοῖς εἶναι ἀεί, ἢ πῶς λέγεις;» «Οὕτως,» ἦν δʼ ἐγώ· «κοινὸν εἶναι πάντων.»). As you said, Schopenhauer states that suicide is not in fact caused by a will to die, and in this I still align with ol' grumpy daddy Arthur. Of course, we can not desire death itself, as desire's always got an object (Plato, Symposium 199d-e: «(...) πότερόν ἐστι τοιοῦτος οἷος εἶναί τινος ὁ Ἔρως ἔρως, ἢ οὐδενός; ἐρωτῶ δʼ οὐκ εἰ μητρός τινος ἢ πατρός ἐστιν (...) ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πατέρα ἠρώτων, ἆρα ὁ πατήρ ἐστι πατήρ τινος ἢ οὔ; Εἶπες ἂν δήπου μοι, εἰ ἐβούλου καλῶς ἀποκρίνασθαι, ὅτι ἔστιν ὑέος γε ἢ θυγατρὸς ὁ πατὴρ πατήρ· ἢ οὔ;» «Πάνυ γε» (...) «Πειρῶ δή (...) καὶ τὸν Ἔρωτα εἰπεῖν. Ὁ Ἔρως ἔρως ἐστὶν οὐδενὸς ἢ τινός;» «Πάνυ μὲν οὖν ἔστιν.»), and an object has to be something, while death is nothing. When we choose suicide because of suffering we're committing the logic mistake of equating experiencing the absence of suffering with the absence of suffering which we see in death; or if you want, we identify suffering with what produces suffering, that is life, thus opting for death. But there isn't non-suffering within death, because there is nothing within death: death is absence in its purest form. It's like a farmer who's unsatisfied with his apple tree's production and consequently cuts it down believing he'll get more apples this way. If non-suffering is to be found somewhere, that's in life, like everything else. Suicide is therefore irrational, at least in its typical form. I must admit I'm not the biggest fan of the concept of noluntas either, though: it's still a quest for the most pleasant option, and ultimately a confirmation of life.

 

[Necro_Kitty]

I think suicide is only "rational" when you're facing a concentration camp imprisonment or terminal illness or something. But I still support the right to do it of course, or else I wouldn't do it.

Are you using those examples because of the suffering that comes with it or because death is already inevitable in the near future? Because I feel like either reasoning could be put onto almost all circumstances of suicide.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think it's very difficult to put on a scale. Because it involves the future- surely? Isn't that what we're ultimately asking? Will this person's life improve to the extent they are pleased to be alive or, will they continue to suffer? How rational can we be about predicting that?

We can look at their current situation. Their prospects, their capabilities and willingness to change. We can create a kind of probability scale of them getting better or not. Even that can't be entirely accurate though. They could win the lottery tomorrow or break their collar bone.

It also largely relies on them and their motivation to live. That can be affected by things like depression. But then- is all depression curable? How many treatments should they be expected to go through to determine whether they can be helped? That isn't an exact science either.

So, it kind of feels unfair to call even emotionally/ depression driven suicide irrational- if that person can't be helped. If they are going to be expected to go through years- perhaps decades of treatment with possible nasty side effects- to even determine whether they have an incurable condition- how is that fair or rational?

Put it another way- is it ever rational to euthanise an animal/ pet? We like to see it as the kindest thing to do- to end their suffering but- it's effectively murder every time. The animal doesn't get to choose. Yet, I'm sure most pet owners would like to think they made the rational, compassionate choice- based on observing the animal suffer and the vet saying their isn't much more they can do to help.

I think maybe the bigger problem in human society is- we aren't honest. We're simply not encouraged to behave how we truly feel for starters. We've often learnt to mask the worst of it.

Plus, I imagine there are many more treatments for human conditions than there are for animals. All of which are promoted as being cures when it's possible- none of them will be! So- how do you even find the logical choice in that? Will taking effectively placebos forever help someone? Is that a logical choice to make? Try absolutely everything before knowing it's ok to quit. How practical is that even?

 

[bipolar22]

What means rational anyway? A Word. Made up by humans. What in life is rational when the sun will swallow the earth and burn it all down. .

 

[EmployedHikikomori]

Is increasing the entropy of the universe really negating life if that is the natural conclusion of life? Is death itself truly a negation of life in this perspective? Isn't it all a manifestation of the universal irrational will to live, in its ontological sense? But I'm really getting lost in sophisms here. I must admit I don't know too much about Mainländer, I've never studied his work, but from the little I know he seems a bit too rhetoric for my tastes (but who is a half-wit like me to judge a great intellectual?). Of course, he replaces Schopenhauer's will to live with his will to die, but the result is the same: suicide is not a negation of the underlying reality but its confirmation. And it is not an escape from reality because such an escape does not exist: reality is just what it is, and men as part of reality act just as they are expected to do (Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?, Job 40,8-9). I simply don't believe a thing such as denying the will to live is possible for human beings. We're always doing what we think is going to bring us the most pleasure (Plato, Symposium 205a: «Ταύτην δὴ τὴν βούλησιν καὶ τὸν ἔρωτα τοῦτον πότερα κοινὸν οἴει εἶναι πάντων ἀνθρώπων, καὶ πάντας τἀγαθὰ βούλεσθαι αὑτοῖς εἶναι ἀεί, ἢ πῶς λέγεις;» «Οὕτως,» ἦν δʼ ἐγώ· «κοινὸν εἶναι πάντων.»). As you said, Schopenhauer states that suicide is not in fact caused by a will to die, and in this I still align with ol' grumpy daddy Arthur. Of course, we can not desire death itself, as desire's always got an object (Plato, Symposium 199d-e: «(...) πότερόν ἐστι τοιοῦτος οἷος εἶναί τινος ὁ Ἔρως ἔρως, ἢ οὐδενός; ἐρωτῶ δʼ οὐκ εἰ μητρός τινος ἢ πατρός ἐστιν (...) ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πατέρα ἠρώτων, ἆρα ὁ πατήρ ἐστι πατήρ τινος ἢ οὔ; Εἶπες ἂν δήπου μοι, εἰ ἐβούλου καλῶς ἀποκρίνασθαι, ὅτι ἔστιν ὑέος γε ἢ θυγατρὸς ὁ πατὴρ πατήρ· ἢ οὔ;» «Πάνυ γε» (...) «Πειρῶ δή (...) καὶ τὸν Ἔρωτα εἰπεῖν. Ὁ Ἔρως ἔρως ἐστὶν οὐδενὸς ἢ τινός;» «Πάνυ μὲν οὖν ἔστιν.»), and an object has to be something, while death is nothing. When we choose suicide because of suffering we're committing the logic mistake of equating experiencing the absence of suffering with the absence of suffering which we see in death; or if you want, we identify suffering with what produces suffering, that is life, thus opting for death. But there isn't non-suffering within death, because there is nothing within death: death is absence in its purest form. It's like a farmer who's unsatisfied with his apple tree's production and consequently cuts it down believing he'll get more apples this way. If non-suffering is to be found somewhere, that's in life, like everything else. Suicide is therefore irrational, at least in its typical form. I must admit I'm not the biggest fan of the concept of noluntas either, though: it's still a quest for the most pleasant option, and ultimately a confirmation of life.

Not gonna lie, you actually got me to pause and think a bit. I actually found myself collecting my thoughts and rewriting my response to you. With that all being said, I'm gonna have to with you ultimately disagree with you.

You say that you can't desire nothing, because a desire needs an object to act upon. However, the whole idea of noluntas, that I know you're not fund of, is to deny the will and in turn deny all desire. This is the main reason why I disagree with Schopenhauer and align with Mainländer.

Than again, we are assuming that it is impossible that you can't desire nothingness. Would it be insane for me to say not only to we desire nothingness, but different types of nothingness. Or as I like to call them, insubstances? Examples of insubstances what we view as entities are coldness which is the absence of heat, shadows which is the absence of light, silence which is the absence of sound, stillness the absence of motion, vacuum the absence of mater, and dryness which is the absence of water. Some of these examples don't make total since. Most people don't want total coldness, darkness, or vacuums unless you're a scientist or an engineer. But there is a degree we'd like, don't we?

In the case of death, it's the total absence of life and in turn absence of everything. It is purely cold, dark, and silent void. It's free of everything, including suffering. This also means it's free of pleasure, which I assume you were trying to convince me when talking about non suffering, correct? I assume so, otherwise, I do see why you would bring up a famer cutting down his tree to harvest more apples. Man moves to maximize his pleasure and minimize his pain, but those two aren't always include with another. I must affirm here, that if you wish to stay alive because you believe your pleasure out weighs your pain, sure you're free to do so. However, It's been proven that pain and suffering are almost guaranteed. Mean while pleasure is forever fleeting, coming after wanting and before boredom.

I also want to touch on your statement of man not being able to escape reality. I'm gonna have to disagree with you, because saying we can't escape implies we never entered reality we always been. This is a beautiful philosophy to hold, the idea that God is existence and the universe itself and we're all literally made in his image. However I'm gonna go against with view, by stating man has indeed entered reality, via emergence.

I've talked about emergence before, I believe you're the one who linked me an article about it, correct? Regardless, the individual didn't come to be from the beginning of the universe, but rather is a result of elements, tissues, and systems collaborating to form something, or some one, that's more than the sum of their parts. Again, sound beautiful, but as a pessimist I tend to focus on the dark implications of this. One being that you're not the same person you are seven years ago, because your atoms, cells, tissue, organs, and the like are replaced and cycled out constantly. "A man cannot step into the same river twice, because it is not the same river, and he is not same man." - Heraclitus. I'm literally not the same man I was ten years ago. And theoretically, in ten more years I'll be replaced by a completely different man who's conduced to live my life, But "I" will be still in existence. It's only when I die and my body decayed, is when I would've truly have left reality. Emergence is the entrance to reality, entropy and decay are the exit.

 

[Lamentice]

I actually believe humans are strictly emotional creatures and there's no such thing as strictly "rational" decision making among them.

 

[Canto XIII]

I believe you're the one who linked me an article about it, correct?

Actually no, that was @bagel12. I'm too ignorant for that stuff.

Than again, we are assuming that it is impossible that you can't desire nothingness. Would it be insane for me to say not only to we desire nothingness, but different types of nothingness. Or as I like to call them, insubstances? Examples of insubstances what we view as entities are coldness which is the absence of heat, shadows which is the absence of light, silence which is the absence of sound, stillness the absence of motion, vacuum the absence of mater, and dryness which is the absence of water. Some of these examples don't make total since. Most people don't want total coldness, darkness, or vacuums unless you're a scientist or an engineer. But there is a degree we'd like, don't we?

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree again. The things you describe are nothingness, or rather absence, only in words, not in reality. From a phenomenological point of view, they are not less real than their opposite, even at their highest degree. You can perceive cold just as well as you can perceive heat, you perceive darkness with the same eyes you perceive light with. From this point of view, it's not important if a specific sensation is originated by the presence or the absence of a certain physical entity. I'll admit you made me wonder a bit whether I am committing a logical mistake about death, but I don't believe I am: death is true nothingness. The most I think I can concede you is that it's possible to desire the idea of death, but in the terms I've described in my previous comment.

In the case of death, it's the total absence of life and in turn absence of everything. It is purely cold, dark, and silent void. It's free of everything, including suffering. This also means it's free of pleasure, which I assume you were trying to convince me when talking about non suffering, correct? I assume so, otherwise, I do see why you would bring up a famer cutting down his tree to harvest more apples. Man moves to maximize his pleasure and minimize his pain, but those two aren't always include with another. I must affirm here, that if you wish to stay alive because you believe your pleasure out weighs your pain, sure you're free to do so. However, It's been proven that pain and suffering are almost guaranteed. Mean while pleasure is forever fleeting, coming after wanting and before boredom.

Death is neither cold nor dark nor silent, since all of those attributes pertain to existence, and death is non-existence. But I believe you were just using them metaphorically here. As for suffering and pleasure, I think (and this may be an intellectual limitation of mine) that the distinction of the two concepts, arguably originated in Greek philosophy (Epicurus etc.), is ultimately inconsistent. Suffering and pleasure exist in a spectrum, and the absence of suffering can be considered a mild form of pleasure, just like the lack of heath can be considered a mild form of cold (I'm rather Cyrenaic on this). But this spectrum as a whole is based in existence, because how can there be any suffering or pleasure without an existence perceiving them? Therefore non-suffering can't exist within death, because death is, as I said, non-existence. Choosing suicide in order not to experience pain is therefore, in my opinion, irrational (even if I agree with you, as a good Leopardian, that pain greatly outweighs pleasure in life). I don't think I can manage to persuade you on this now, but if your ideations are based onto these considerations on the ratonality of the act, I'd advise you to have a serious reflection about it before. I probably sound very conceited rn lol

I also want to touch on your statement of man not being able to escape reality. I'm gonna have to disagree with you, because saying we can't escape implies we never entered reality we always been. This is a beautiful philosophy to hold, the idea that God is existence and the universe itself and we're all literally made in his image. However I'm gonna go against with view, by stating man has indeed entered reality, via emergence.

(...) Regardless, the individual didn't come to be from the beginning of the universe, but rather is a result of elements, tissues, and systems collaborating to form something, or some one, that's more than the sum of their parts. Again, sound beautiful, but as a pessimist I tend to focus on the dark implications of this. One being that you're not the same person you are seven years ago, because your atoms, cells, tissue, organs, and the like are replaced and cycled out constantly. "A man cannot step into the same river twice, because it is not the same river, and he is not same man." - Heraclitus. I'm literally not the same man I was ten years ago. And theoretically, in ten more years I'll be replaced by a completely different man who's conduced to live my life, But "I" will be still in existence. It's only when I die and my body decayed, is when I would've truly have left reality. Emergence is the entrance to reality, entropy and decay are the exit.

We could spend days talking about the issue of reconciling unity with plurality, and being with movement, trying to identify the best system to frame these antitheses and quoting the greatest philosophers of any age, but is it truly relevant to the problem at hand? Whether being is one and all-encompassing, or mankind, or rather the single man (as you seem to intend), is a distinct element or a clog within a more complex, plural reality instead, his destiny remains chained to said reality anyway (just to be clear, I quoted Job as a metaphor only: I don't believe man is made in the image of God, if not maybe through Feuerbach's dialectical inversion). For sure, the single elements of reality come into it and eventually perish, and so does man, but this perishment does not constitute an escape from their natural condition. Well, you could say this doesn't really matter for the single subject, whose existence is effectively over with their death, but this is beside the point. And I've already expressed my opinions about the death of the subject above. On a side note, I think you've found by yourself the solution to the problem of cycling, which is the same as the Ship of Theseus (Plutarch, Θησεύς 23,1: Τὸ δὲ πλοῖον ἐν ᾧ μετὰ τῶν ἠϊθέων ἔπλευσε καὶ πάλιν ἐσώθη, τὴν τριακόντορον, ἄχρι τῶν Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως χρόνων διεφύλαττον οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰ μὲν παλαιὰ τῶν ξύλων ὑφαιροῦντες, ἄλλα δὲ ἐμβάλλοντες ἰσχυρὰ καὶ συμπηγνύντες οὕτως ὥστε καὶ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις εἰς τὸν αὐξόμενον λόγον ἀμφιδοξούμενον παράδειγμα τὸ πλοῖον εἶναι, τῶν μὲν ὡς τὸ αὐτό, τῶν δὲ ὡς οὐ τὸ αὐτὸ διαμένοι λεγόντων), I mean that continuity can persist through change, and here in particular, what matters for the subject, persists the continuity of consciousness, that is Kant's transcendental unity.

Sorry if I sound arrogant, that's not my intention.

 

[Strangerdanger7]

It's really easy to get stuck rationalizing death, for me especially. But I also want to make sure that I give the same attention to rationalizing life—or I guess, as much "rationality" as I can truthfully have.

It appears to me you are a stable grounded thinker. I do the same thing I weigh every side of the argument.
There is a common purpose behind why we support this movement.

 

[808sandheartbreak]

It appears to me you are a stable grounded thinker. I do the same thing I weigh every side of the argument.
There is a common purpose behind why we support this movement.

That's kind of you to say, thank you! And I agree, it does seem we share a lot of the same views about this. I'd never want someone to die, but the most important thing is each person's right to a dignified existence (or non-existence). Only each person can decide what that means for them; most else is cruelty disguised as caring.

 

[Ashu]

It's as rational as any human action, which is to say, partially.