Philosophy: Let’s verify a statement!

[Epsilon0]

If we approach the statement Suicide is not wrong from the point of view of logical positivism, the truth content of the sentence is unverifiable and therefore meaningless.

Just for fun, let's try and verify it in principle!

First of all, here's a little bakground to logical positivism. It is a branch within philosophy closely related to linguistics, especially pragmatics which is the study of the relation between sentences and context/the world/the user.

Logical positivism states that a sentence can only be regarded as true if we can, in principle, verify it though observation or experiments.


E.g.
If you bake the cake for 4 hours, it will burn.
The train is late.
SS does not have 100,000 members.

We can easily verify the truth content of all these sentences, either through a simple observation, or an experiment, and so they are meaningful and true.

Now let's look at a different set of sentences.

E.g.
How are you?
Ghosts are spirits caught between two realms.

The first sentence is a question, and it cannot be verified, since only assertions can convey factual information/knowledge that we can check through observation. The second, though, is a statement and could potentially have a truth value, only it does not, since there is no way to verify it.

So, can you think of an observation or an experiment which could verify the truth content of the following statement?

Suicide is not wrong.

 

[Jean4]

My brain is foggy right now. Can't concentrate to answer. Just wanted to say I U!

 

[NotMeant2B]

I would like to add that the original sentence might need some semantics in order to establish a frame in which "right" or "wrong" can convey any meaning.
Take for instance:

• Suicide is not morally wrong, in which suicide can be treated as a matter of respect towards the individuals closely involved, including yourself.
• Suicide is not biologically wrong, where we consider the impact of suicide in terms of reproductive success of the species, or the effects on the alteration of the gene pool.
• Suicide is not rationally wrong, that is assessed by our own personal experiences and values, or pondering the ones of society.

It can also be approached as a consensus of every aspect, and eventually we could draw as a conclusion: Suicide is, overall, not wrong.
Oppositely, we can also view this matter as a human right, disregarding the previous considerations and prioritizing human dignity and free will above all else.

All in all, labeling something as right or wrong is not straightforward, even in mathematics. Given an equation or any type of relation between two objects, we can evaluate the validity of that expression in terms of true or false... assuming it is well posed; otherwise, it's a meaningless statement. Sometimes we have to specify the conditions or possible cases when that statement is true.

In summary, I consider that by attempting to approach the problem in a formal context would necessarily cause the discussion to drift away from a purely positivistic standpoint, and will be adopted by others schools of thought.
However, my bias is inevitably coming into play, so I would gladly encourage more users to share their thoughts. The more, the merrier.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I agree with @NotMeant2B.

I would have to know the ethical framework. If it's Buddhist philosophy, there is no right or wrong. If it's Stoic philosophy, it is wrong if it goes against one's reason and virtue, if it is something the imaginary iconic wise man would not do. If it's Christian philosophy, is it the Bible or the dogma, because the Bible does not specifically prohibit suicide but various sects of the religion do. If it's political philosophy, which ones?

So, no, @Epsilon0, so far I can't think of any observation or experiment, because right, wrong, and morals are not observable, only suicide is. To observe its not-wrongness, it must be observed in a setting that makes moral judgments, which are not measurable or observable, but rather it is the human reactions which are observable. Until, that is, I'm done with the R&D of my Objective Wrong-O-Meter, which I'm actually just now waiting for CERN to allow me to test at their facilities.

 

[Ashtoash]

because right, wrong, and morals are not observable, only suicide is. To observe its not-wrongness, it must be observed in a setting that makes moral judgments, which are not measurable or observable, but rather it is the human reactions which are observable.

Mmm, yummy, so essential and so... true <3 Thank you for these sentences NotobservablePersonEffed;) unless your 'Good' stands for 'yummy' ;x shh. Hihi.

 

[faust]

I would approach the subject from a different angle. From an angle of music. Let's make a projection of suicide on different music genres.
Jazz: suicide is when the saxophone catches the last breath
Folk: suicide is when you stop dancing round the fire and can no more
Rock: suicide is when your concert ends
Country: suicide is when you will only see your farm for the rest of your life
Classical; suicide is when you can hear no more Chopin's "Funeral March"
Reggae: suicide is when your always happy and then you just die
Heavy Metal: suicide is when you are tired of majestic solos
Pop: suicide is when you are no more sensitive when watching "Titanic" and listening to Celine Dion

 

[notjustyetagain]

anyone else think that an ethical system is to philosophy as a goodstein sequence is to mathematics?

 

[MoreThanAFeeling]

Just wanted to say I U!

I want to be loved by a white peace dove called Jean flying with a olive branch in its mouth.

 

[Epsilon0]

@NotMeant2B
@GoodPersonEffed


Logical positivism is mainly concerned with how we can determine the truth content of a sentence; truth in the sense that what I say corresponds to a fact that can be observed.

Feelings, ethical problems, questions about metaphysics or theology are beyond the scope of verifiability.

This position has been abandoned by philosophers, but I feel a certain affinity to it. It sooths the tired, disillusioned interlocutor in me.

In my experience what we say is often devoid of meaning - our utterances, being non factual and often downright deceitful, are used as a means to fill the void of our lives, hindering genuine communication and distorting what little truth there is to find.

We talk volumes, yet say very little. Imagine a world in which we only utter propositions that are factually correct. Imagine a world where sentences are stripped of feelings, ethical values, desires, guesses and ambiguities.

A world where all our utterances convey empirical observations.

No doubt such a world would be devoid of figurative language and there would be no humour, no irony and no poetry either. But we would gain perfect communication because there would be no question of how to interpret emotional content, moral attitudes or subjective knowledge.



@GoodPersonEffed

So, no, @Epsilon0, so far I can't think of any observation or experiment, because right, wrong, and morals are not observable, only suicide is.

I agree with you.



@NotMeant2B


All in all, labeling something as right or wrong is not straightforward, even in mathematics. Given an equation or any type of relation between two objects, we can evaluate the validity of that expression in terms of true or false... assuming it is well posed; otherwise, it's a meaningless statement. Sometimes we have to specify the conditions or possible cases.

Ambiguity and the impossibility of accuracy are at the root at the problem.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Wow, you have fried my brain !

 

[Lastravel]

What would wrong mean ?

Comitting suicide is the ultimate freedom of a human being.

 

[Soul]

Disclaimer: I always flee from debates about Western philosophy; I lack the rigor for them; I pre-declare myself the loser (but it moves nonetheless!).

Examples of non-endangered animals committing suicide could support its biological and maybe even the moral not-wrongness.

Examples of people in terminal pain begging for mercy, with a lethal dose of N just out of reach ... will you nudge it closer to them or keep it for yourself away from them? I count on people rationalizing what they decide to do.

And @faust, blues suicide is when we let the Midnight Special pacify our worried minds — but rock & roll is here to stay. x

 

[MachinaArcana]

There's no way to "verify" that statement unless you specifically outline what the word "wrong" means, and there's dozens of angles to tackle that question, so there will be an equal amount of different ways to motivate an "answer' to them.

If I went to sleep and never woke up again, would I notice? Would it be "right" or "wrong" to be afraid of that? Is it right or wrong to secretely envy those who are lucky enough to simply die in their sleep, unaware of anything? I know I do, and if there was a possibility, I would sign up for that scenario right away.

From my perspective, suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia all are, despite being complex ethical issues, basic human rights. From someone else's, they could be completely "wrong". I guess that what you define as right or wrong in many ways depends on what you believe in, and where you stand in life - and what type of cards you've been dealt with, so to speak - or the position you hold, for that matter. Like, I remember reading an interview years ago with a catholic bishop who, obviously, was very much against euthanasia because it wasn't "God's will" - but what infuriated me the most was his statement that he felt there was "a far too large taboo on human suffering nowadays". Which implies that we're meant to suffer, and that suffering is jolly good until natural causes, or some sort of divine intervention, free us from all that pain and misery.

Wait. What... Come again?

Well, he can pick a number and get in line to kiss my ass, because people like him bring out the worst in me. I remember thinking - "dude... of all the sanctimonious pricks out there, you're the one who really, really should get cancer and be denied any form of pain relief in the final stages of your death struggle. Let us know how that "cleansing suffering" worked out for you. Like, give us a call from the afterlife or something to tell us how glorious, uplifting and virtuous your agony really was. Would love to hear from you."

But that's not gonna happen, I guess. Despite having "enjoyed" a catholic upbringing, I am not a religious, and not even a 'spiritual' person. I see no reason to believe we have a "soul", or that after dying we somehow continue to exist, in whatever shape or form. Yet I respect the opinions and beliefs of others - as long as they respect mine and don't impose theirs on me. I don't think they're "wrong" - I simply hold a different set of beliefs - or assumptions, if you wish. When I try to look at it objectively, if anything is "wrong", it's probably needless human suffering. Not suicide.

So, to finish my rant, and not having any of these spiritual or religious incliniations: I tend to believe that the "problem" lies herein: the act of ctb contains a true paradox in itself: we long for peace and a sort of "redemption" from the negative emotions and circumstances that makes our lives utterly miserable to the point where we just want to end it all and want "out" - but the problem is that, at least in my case, I am convinced that when I ctb I will simply cease to be, as a sentient being, and will therefore not be able to experience, let alone "enjoy" the fact that I have "freed myself from this existence". I won't know I'm "out". But I sure as hell will be gone, and will no longer suffer on a daily basis, struggling my way through an existence I don't want, and never asked for. I don't care how sacred some people think life is. For me, it was a poisoned gift.

In a way, thinking about that "paradox" is kinda bumming me out - but I can only hope that I am right: that I will lose consciousness, die, and that there will be nothing left except for my remains to be disposed of. Which is basically matter and energy that's being returned to the earth/universe. It's not a particularly great story, but neither was life for me, to be honest.