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.

 

[EmployedHikikomori]

I do find it a bit odd you didn't address my point where I stated that denial of the will to live would including denial of all desire, meaning the desire to not suffer in death is irrelevant. I'll admit I didn't go over that well. I did talk a lot of desire and the absences of various substances. However I do want to address a few more things

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.

I guess I should stop using metaphors and just state that death is the end of biological life and all functions. Where Entropy is maximized and the emerged body of systems, the once living being, decays and disbands. If you think that's still true nothingness, sure.

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).

In the cases patients who are terminally ill and suffering in great pain, is it not rational to offer of euthanasia or medically aid in dying? And in not just in those extreme cases. I believe we all have friends or relatives that have been in poor health for most of their lives and when they die we think to ourselves, 'at least they're not in pain anymore'. The alternative would be to hook them up to machines and artifactually keep them alive and in a constant state of pain. That can be seen as cruel and inhuman. To deny a terminally ill patient the option to die with dignity because they won't find non-suffering in death seems illogical.

We could spend days talking about the issue of reconciling unity with plurality, and being with movement.....

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.....

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.......

No, that's exactly my point. Remember, I'm a pessimist not a nihilist. I don't think the universe is random, purposeless, or meaningless. There is clear structure in the universe, a repeating pattern. It just doesn't favor us. In the same way our bodies don't favor any single cell that will replaced. The universe, the world, or even our societies don't favor any one man because they can be replaced.

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

The Ship of Theseus doesn't help me at all here. And oddly enough, an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation I was told about is the reason why. I'll admit, I'm not a Star Trek fan, so I haven't seen the episode so I could be wrong here, but the implication remains the same. Basically one of the crew members meets his younger self after the teleporter malfunctions and spits out a copy from years ago. It's explained that the teleporters don't actually teleport but make copies of people, so this could be the original person who was suspend in a state of non-existence while his clone grew older. Basically it showed how we change into different people over time and with new experiences. It was meant to be positive and show it's the experiences and memory that make us who we are, but I'm more focus on the metaphysics here. Since the continuity consciousness isn't tied to one element, and be past around to others, what does that mean for consciousness?

 

[Dandelion's]

Can something still be regrettable even if you're not alive to regret it? In my opinion, yes.
The point was never that you can't regret it once you're dead, but rather… if you could see the future and how much things would improve and all the things you'd get to do and be and enjoy, that you'd regret it (if you could, but being dead, you can't, unless you see how good your life would've been once you're in the afterworld, if that should exist).

The point is that if you CTB over problems that are temporary, maybe those problems would have gone away on their own, or you would've found a way to solve them. It could even happen the day after you CTB, and maybe you would have had a great life after that. Could you regret it? No. But that doesn't mean it's not regrettable. It's still regrettable even if you aren't alive to regret it.

The thing is suffering will always occur as long as you are alive, death is neutral or even positive to me.
Death seems rational to me, while living doesn't, living is like gambling yes you might've been happier in the future but there is no knowing that. you also might end up having it even worse than you had it initially.

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

I agree with this, some people come from a death is negative perspective, which is deeply ingrained in us since childhood that's why they don't deem it as rational .

 

[Canto XIII]

I do find it a bit odd you didn't address my point where I stated that denial of the will to live would including denial of all desire, meaning the desire to not suffer in death is irrelevant. I'll admit I didn't go over that well.

I must've missed it, I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to dodge an important point. I guess what you say could make sense, but wouldn't that entail a denial of the desire of death as well? Anyway, it sounds like a pretty extreme situation to me.

I guess I should stop using metaphors and just state that death is the end of biological life and all functions. Where Entropy is maximized and the emerged body of systems, the once living being, decays and disbands. If you think that's still true nothingness, sure.

Metaphors and logic parallels can be useful at times, I use them continously. I'm sorry if I got too caught up in them. Of course when I say death is nothingness I mean it from a subjective point of view. I don't think the subject's death coincide with the end of the world, in some sort of solipsistic or ultra-idealistic way. But that's not really relevant here, I agree.

In the cases patients who are terminally ill and suffering in great pain, is it not rational to offer of euthanasia or medically aid in dying? And in not just in those extreme cases. I believe we all have friends or relatives that have been in poor health for most of their lives and when they die we think to ourselves, 'at least they're not in pain anymore'. The alternative would be to hook them up to machines and artifactually keep them alive and in a constant state of pain. That can be seen as cruel and inhuman. To deny a terminally ill patient the option to die with dignity because they won't find non-suffering in death seems illogical.

I'm a supporter of the right of people of choosing euthanasia, and I'm even a supporter (if with more scruples) of their right of choosing assisted suicide. I think offering them these options is rational, within our ethical system. But here we're not talking about the rationality of offering suicide assistance, but about the rationality of committing suicide of your own volition. Whether doing it is a good choice I'm not really able, or maybe willing, to answer, but as for it being rational the way you framed it, I think it's not, based on my earlier arguments.

No, that's exactly my point. Remember, I'm a pessimist not a nihilist. I don't think the universe is random, purposeless, or meaningless. There is clear structure in the universe, a repeating pattern. It just doesn't favor us. In the same way our bodies don't favor any single cell that will replaced. The universe, the world, or even our societies don't favor any one man because they can be replaced.

I can't help but feel like, while we don't agree on some of the framing and the details, we don't really disagree on the ultimate consequences for human condition.

The Ship of Theseus doesn't help me at all here. And oddly enough, an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation I was told about is the reason why. I'll admit, I'm not a Star Trek fan, so I haven't seen the episode so I could be wrong here, but the implication remains the same. Basically one of the crew members meets his younger self after the teleporter malfunctions and spits out a copy from years ago. It's explained that the teleporters don't actually teleport but make copies of people, so this could be the original person who was suspend in a state of non-existence while his clone grew older. Basically it showed how we change into different people over time and with new experiences. It was meant to be positive and show it's the experiences and memory that make us who we are, but I'm more focus on the metaphysics here. Since the continuity consciousness isn't tied to one element, and be past around to others, what does that mean for consciousness?

I don't think the story of the Ship of Theseus as told by Plutarch is meant to help anyone, it's a paradox such as several others ancient Greek philosophers liked to formulate. But as with any paradox, the contradiction is only apparent: we're just giving phrases and words such as the same or identity two different meanings at the same time, while they λέγεται πολλαχῶς (are said in many ways).
As for the continuity of consciousness in particular, you're right in that it isn't tied to a single element, but that does not necessarily mean a continuity doesn't exist. The construction of a table requires various elements and actions, but does that mean the process of the production of that table does not exist as a fact or phenomenon? The development of a republic involves the actions and choices of a huge number of people, but does that mean that republic hasn't got a history? Even admitting consciousness to be an illusion, its existence as a perception is undeniable, because we continuosly perceive it. Of course, hypothetical clones would be separate individuals with separate consciousnesses, even admitting they had the same origin; and the experiences they'd make would be the predetermined experiences of two different consciousnesses with their own continuity (but I know you were just using that plot as a thought experiment).

Thank you for giving me your time and having this nice conversation with me!

 

[Hystearical]

Of course not

 

[EmployedHikikomori]

but wouldn't that entail a denial of the desire of death as well?

Yes and no. You can only desire death in life, you can't fulfill after death because there is nothing after (ignoring religious views). Once in death all desires are gone, including the desire of death. To fulfill the desire of death is also to deny it.

I'm a supporter of the right of people of choosing euthanasia, and I'm even a supporter (if with more scruples) of their right of choosing assisted suicide. I think offering them these options is rational, within our ethical system. But here we're not talking about the rationality of offering suicide assistance, but about the rationality of committing suicide of your own volition. Whether doing it is a good choice I'm not really able, or maybe willing, to answer, but as for it being rational the way you framed it, I think it's not, based on my earlier arguments.

I already sited Mainländer when it comes to rationalizing suicide. I did fail to mention that he committed suicide after publishing is book. There's many ways to read this, but I see it as him holding himself to his own words.

I don't think the story of the Ship of Theseus as told by Plutarch is meant to help anyone, it's a paradox such as several others ancient Greek philosophers liked to formulate. But as with any paradox, the contradiction is only apparent: we're just giving phrases and words such as the same or identity two different meanings at the same time, while they λέγεται πολλαχῶς (are said in many ways).
As for the continuity of consciousness in particular, you're right in that it isn't tied to a single element, but that does not necessarily mean a continuity doesn't exist. The construction of a table requires various elements and actions, but does that mean the process of the production of that table does not exist as a fact or phenomenon? The development of a republic involves the actions and choices of a huge number of people, but does that mean that republic hasn't got a history? Even admitting consciousness to be an illusion, its existence as a perception is undeniable, because we continuosly perceive it. Of course, hypothetical clones would be separate individuals with separate consciousnesses, even admitting they had the same origin; and the experiences they'd make would be the predetermined experiences of two different consciousnesses with their own continuity (but I know you were just using that plot as a thought experiment).

There's an uncomfortable implication when you bring up continuity in existence. Lets say we have a nation that's responsible for slavery, the US for example. You know the history, right? Black slaves bought over, treated horribly, until the civil war but segregation and racism still existed after generations latter. There's talks of reparations for the black community for the generational damage the government made. Who's gonna pay for that? The generations that had nothing to do with owning slaves? The immigrants who wanted to start a new better life but are now being asked to pay for something they didn't do? The rich black folks who managed to pull themselves from the bootstraps and don't really need the reparations themselves?

That's were the uncomfortable implication comes in, they're all still responsible to pay repressions for the black community because they're all carrying the continuity of the existence of the US government. They're all accountable and responsible for injustices they didn't commit.

And that's just slavery, what about the minorities who were segregated and recriminated against? The Native Americans, the Latinos, the Asians, the biracials, the multiracials? Or past war crimes? Or cover up? Scandals? Economic Failures?

All that being addressed by generations who had nothing to do with those injustices. It can be seen as unfair. And this is someone who is from a poor minority background. I didn't ask to be born into my situation and it's unfair to me to live in it. So why would it be fair to ask someone who didn't ask to be in a better state to come fix me?

The same can be said about the individual. A person who has to deal with the consequences of their past selves who were literally a different person. I didn't ask to be here, to have these memories and trauma. So it's unfair to me to fix them so that a new guy can come and reap the benefits.

All this to say, that life is unfair and the actions is demand from us can be seen as unreasonable. Death doesn't have that burden.

 

[Canto XIII]

Yes and no. You can only desire death in life, you can't fulfill after death because there is nothing after (ignoring religious views). Once in death all desires are gone, including the desire of death. To fulfill the desire of death is also to deny it.

I guess in a sense you're right.

I already sited Mainländer when it comes to rationalizing suicide. I did fail to mention that he committed suicide after publishing is book. There's many ways to read this, but I see it as him holding himself to his own words.

I agree it can be a sign of personal coherence (even though, going out of your way to write a book about this may seem contradictory). But I mantain my position about the rationality of the act.

There's an uncomfortable implication when you bring up continuity in existence. Lets say we have a nation that's responsible for slavery, the US for example. You know the history, right? Black slaves bought over, treated horribly, until the civil war but segregation and racism still existed after generations latter. There's talks of reparations for the black community for the generational damage the government made. Who's gonna pay for that? The generations that had nothing to do with owning slaves? The immigrants who wanted to start a new better life but are now being asked to pay for something they didn't do? The rich black folks who managed to pull themselves from the bootstraps and don't really need the reparations themselves?

That's were the uncomfortable implication comes in, they're all still responsible to pay repressions for the black community because they're all carrying the continuity of the existence of the US government. They're all accountable and responsible for injustices they didn't commit.

And that's just slavery, what about the minorities who were segregated and recriminated against? The Native Americans, the Latinos, the Asians, the biracials, the multiracials? Or past war crimes? Or cover up? Scandals? Economic Failures?

All that being addressed by generations who had nothing to do with those injustices. It can be seen as unfair. And this is someone who is from a poor minority background. I didn't ask to be born into my situation and it's unfair to me to live in it. So why would it be fair to ask someone who didn't ask to be in a better state to come fix me?

The same can be said about the individual. A person who has to deal with the consequences of their past selves who were literally a different person. I didn't ask to be here, to have these memories and trauma. So it's unfair to me to fix them so that a new guy can come and reap the benefits.

All this to say, that life is unfair and the actions is demand from us can be seen as unreasonable. Death doesn't have that burden.

I agree, life is unfair, or maybe more correctly non-fair, as fairness is entirely a human construct based in largely, if not fully, arbitatry moral paradigms. These paradigms, and a notion of justice, are useful and necessary to run a functional society, but when they are taken to their extreme consquences they reveal their conventional nature. They can create disadvantages for society and in the worst cases precipitate it into chaos. I once used to think justice could exist within a specifically human sphere, but now I think it's more lucid to say it doesn't exist at all, if not as a useful mirage. The impermanence of realities is one lens you can see this through.
Death does not bring the emotional burden of unfairness, but we always come to the same point: we suffer from something painful, and we end up seeking an end to that pain in death, which is illusiory and ultimately irrational.

 

[Manfrotto99]

When I look back over my life I think it certainly would have been rational - to continue as I have enduring nothing but suffering, grief, loss, loneliness with no opportunity to change or make a difference - while consuming resources and contributing towards pollution - is irritaional!

 

[EmployedHikikomori]

fairness is entirely a human construct based in largely, if not fully, arbitatry moral paradigms.

The way you work like that makes it seem like fairness is not real.Just because it's a human construct. By that logic race, and by extension, racism is not real because its a human construct. I reject this notion, fairness and injustice is real. Maybe not in the hard sense that it can be touched. But in the soft sense, in that it is a property that emerges from societies and communities forming.

we suffer from something painful, and we end up seeking an end to that pain in death, which is illusiory and ultimately irrational

I disagree. If the pain we suffer from is too much, to the point it outweighs everything else in life, then ending it in death is rational.