• Hey Guest,

    We wanted to share a quick update with the community.

    Our public expense ledger is now live, allowing anyone to see how donations are used to support the ongoing operation of the site.

    👉 View the ledger here

    Over the past year, increased regulatory pressure in multiple regions like UK OFCOM and Australia's eSafety has led to higher operational costs, including infrastructure, security, and the need to work with more specialized service providers to keep the site online and stable.

    If you value the community and would like to help support its continued operation, donations are greatly appreciated. If you wish to donate via Bank Transfer or other options, please open a ticket.

    Donate via cryptocurrency:

    Bitcoin (BTC):
    Ethereum (ETH):
    Monero (XMR):
ImogenHeap

ImogenHeap

realtime
Aug 29, 2025
33
Assume some agent S is considering suicide (i.e., is suicidal), and another agent T wants to prevent S from committing suicide. T might say, as many do: You shouldn't CTB, as things could be better than they are right now.

However a symmetric case where T knows that S, while being extremely euphoric in the moment, will become worse later and experience debilitating pain. Assuming the pain is at a similar threshold to the threshold at which T thinks S' life getting better means they shouldn't kill themselves for, then T would have to tell S to CTB, or at least that T would think that S should CTB under the circumstances. That you should kill yourself while euphoric is clearly a bizzare position to people like T who will likely disagree with the same.

Such a circumstance could happen when a patient seems to be getting better, says he's never felt better, all the while the doctor knows the patient has high stage cancer, and will likely die in a few months despite feeling well in the moment. The doctor shouldn't tell them you should kill yourself or hold that the patient should kill themselves, and just the same the doctor shouldn't tell the person to not kill themselves because things will get better, or hold the same.

If you take suffering/pain of any kind to be conclusively be OK (rationally) in most cases to CTB, it's fine for you to CTB in both cases. Of course, I didn't have to write this out, it was an internal critique after all.

Of course, CTB isn't always rational, just that this particular reason to not CTB is very bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PanaxMan
H

Hvergelmir

Elementalist
May 5, 2024
825
The core argument is:
You should NOT end 'life', IF 'life' will be good in the future.

What you claim is that it implies:
You should end 'life', IF 'life' will NOT be good in the future.

That implication is illogical. You're inverting arbitrarily.

If you're 'driving', you should NOT be 'intoxicated'.
Does not imply: If you're NOT 'driving', you should be 'intoxicated'.

The core argument says nothing about when to end ones own life.
 
ImogenHeap

ImogenHeap

realtime
Aug 29, 2025
33
The core argument is:
You should NOT end 'life', IF 'life' will be good in the future.

What you claim is that it implies:
You should end 'life', IF 'life' will NOT be good in the future.

That implication is illogical. You're inverting arbitrarily.

If you're 'driving', you should NOT be 'intoxicated'.
Does not imply: If you're NOT 'driving', you should be 'intoxicated'.

The core argument says nothing about when to end ones own life.

How is it 'illogical'? It isn't inverting "arbitrarily" (whatever that means here).

The "should" aspect is doing a lot of work that's hard to get around for the driving case, ~should implies OK to do but not obligatory, or not okay to do. I think we should probably use "it is OK" instead of "should" (which is still problematic for T).

I interpret it more or less as a biconditional instead of just a conditional. That is, you ought end life iff it is not the case that life will be good in the future. I think most non-cooky people hold this view as I take anti assisted-suicide (much less suicide) when it comes to terminally ill people as cooky.

Similarly for the driving case: you ought drive iff you aren't intoxicated.
 
F

Forever Sleep

Earned it we have...
May 4, 2022
15,354
The problem is- you can't know for sure whether a person will suffer horribly in the future. Maybe you can be more certain if they currently have some dreadful illness but, for most people- the future is unknown.

I agree that: 'It will get better' is a stupid statement- given that no one can know for sure. But then- 'It will 100% get worse' is also a guess.

What seems reasonable for me- is a person to have the right to say: 'I don't want to risk it.' Plus- we surely have a better idea personally of what we want/ value in life, what we suffer with and how likely it is we'll experience either.
 
H

Hvergelmir

Elementalist
May 5, 2024
825
How is it 'illogical'?
¬[(A⇒¬B)⇒(¬A⇒B)]

If
A THEN NOT B
does not imply
IF NOT A THEN B.

The fallacy is in how you assume the original statement where A = 'life will get better', says something about NOT A.

The "Life will get better"-argument is opinionated, and it's not logically true or false on it's own. It is however a clean assumption. It doesn't carry any nonsensical implications.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads