Discussion Piece of (anti-suicide) reasoning logic that makes no sense

[TAW122]

This is one piece of logic that I just don't get...

Anti-suicide/pro-lifer logic:

1) If you have the capacity (means/ability) to ctb, then you should live so you can improve your life.

2) If you do NOT have the capacity (means/ability) to ctb, then you should still live because life (can) get(s) better.

Ok before I continue I just want to say I do NOT agree with the anti-suicide people or pro-life people, but their first scenario makes logical sense (even if I disagree with their position). However, the second scenario is where things become messed up and tricky.

At least in the first scenario, a person in such circumstances have the ability to improve things or choose not to (ctb). Furthermore, someone who has the means to ctb may/not also have the ability to retaliate, resist, defend oneself (Note: I'm not condoning illegal acts or violence). Thus in essence, has an ACTUAL choice rather than an imaginary one. He/she can choose to live or ctb.

In the second scenario, a person would not have the ability to ctb, depending on the severity of the impairment, disability, or illness. So by default, the person is at the mercy and control of others, dependent on others, and regardless of whether the person wants to ctb, the person would not be able to ctb without assistance (at least not actively, but only passively, which even then could still be stopped. For example trying to starve to death or do VSED, a healthcare professional or pro-life would just force-fed or provide nourishment forcibly such that the patient is kept alive, but in horrible conditions.). Furthermore, assuming the impairment, disability, or illness is crippling/disabling enough, the person also is not able to resist or defend oneself. In short, the person doesn't have an real choice into staying alive, but is rather the default state (until other causes or natural causes takes his/her life) of being kept alive.

Could anyone explain or perhaps elaborate on why this is the case? Is there really any sense or logic at all in that argument/claim? If there is, I'm certainly not finding it. The only differences are that in the first scenario, the person at least has a real choice, to decide to ctb or to improve his/her situation, but in the second scenario, the default is to live (assuming unable to ctb without assistance). This isn't even getting at the ethical and moral issues of the treatment of people by the mental health system/society (that's another topic altogether).

 

[ReadyasEver]

I think you summed it up pretty well. Concise and logical. Very valid and lucid argument.

 

[Misanthrope]

This is one piece of logic that I just don't get...

Anti-suicide/pro-lifer logic:

1) If you have the capacity (means/ability) to ctb, then you should live so you can improve your life.

2) If you do NOT have the capacity (means/ability) to ctb, then you should still live because life (can) get(s) better.

Ok before I continue I just want to say I do NOT agree with the anti-suicide people or pro-life people, but their first scenario makes logical sense (even if I disagree with their position). However, the second scenario is where things become messed up and tricky.

At least in the first scenario, a person in such circumstances have the ability to improve things or choose not to (ctb). Furthermore, someone who has the means to ctb may/not also have the ability to retaliate, resist, defend oneself (Note: I'm not condoning illegal acts or violence). Thus in essence, has an ACTUAL choice rather than an imaginary one. He/she can choose to live or ctb.

In the second scenario, a person would not have the ability to ctb, depending on the severity of the impairment, disability, or illness. So by default, the person is at the mercy and control of others, dependent on others, and regardless of whether the person wants to ctb, the person would not be able to ctb without assistance (at least not actively, but only passively, which even then could still be stopped. For example trying to starve to death or do VSED, a healthcare professional or pro-life would just force-fed or provide nourishment forcibly such that the patient is kept alive, but in horrible conditions.). Furthermore, assuming the impairment, disability, or illness is crippling/disabling enough, the person also is not able to resist or defend oneself. In short, the person doesn't have an real choice into staying alive, but is rather the default state (until other causes or natural causes takes his/her life) of being kept alive.

Could anyone explain or perhaps elaborate on why this is the case? Is there really any sense or logic at all in that argument/claim? If there is, I'm certainly not finding it. The only differences are that in the first scenario, the person at least has a real choice, to decide to ctb or to improve his/her situation, but in the second scenario, the default is to live (assuming unable to ctb without assistance). This isn't even getting at the ethical and moral issues of the treatment of people by the mental health system/society (that's another topic altogether).

You are a smart person trying to apply logic to an absolutist stance that there is no good reason to kill yourself. That stance in of itself rejects the variability of mankind, their experiences and self autonomy. There is nothing logical there to begin with.

 

[throwaway_2620]

I'd hate to become disabled and lose my capacity (means/ability) to ctb as well as my physical ability to resist/fight back/defend myself. It would be a living hell to try and ctb via VSED, only to be force-fed involuntarily and forcibly kept alive in such a horrible state. Just thinking about it makes me sick to the stomach. I seriously don't get their pro-life "logic" as to why they literally think it's better to be a vegetable than be allowed to ctb. Btw, good argument, @thrw_a_way1221221.

 

[ThinkingAboutThis]

Anti-suicide/pro-lifer logic:

1) If you have the capacity (means/ability) to ctb, then you should live so you can improve your life.

2) If you do NOT have the capacity (means/ability) to ctb, then you should still live because life (can) get(s) better.

The logic is very interesting. I think the rationale is that one needs to attempt to get better to leave category #2 and climb up to category #1. And once a person gets to category #1, the idea would be to somehow "upgrade" them to category #0, or people who are not interested in ctb.

That's at least "theoretical". Most pro-lifers who do not suffer to the extent that they're planning to ctb usually leave people from category #2 as far from their conscious awareness as possible. They may use a few "vegetable in a wheelchair" examples to dissuade people from category #1 from trying to ctb, and they know that those in category #2 are too ill to ctb, so some sort of a "meaning for their suffering" is quickly created to give the pro-lifer some peace of mind.

 

[GeorgeEastman]

I always thought if I had the courage to kill myself, I'd have the courage to make life worth living.

I just don't have the courage. Biggest coward ever. At least I have the courage to admit I'm a weak bastard.

 

[ReadyasEver]

I always like bringing up quality of life issues to absolute pro-life people. Not their definition of quality of life, but the true meaning of it. By that I mean, it inherently has a very subjective component for each and every undividual. For a pro-life person, this requires them to move to very empathetic state without judgement. This where the conversation usually ends.

 

[Rsuicidal]

This is one piece of logic that I just don't get...

Anti-suicide/pro-lifer logic:

1) If you have the capacity (means/ability) to ctb, then you should live so you can improve your life.

2) If you do NOT have the capacity (means/ability) to ctb, then you should still live because life (can) get(s) better.

Ok before I continue I just want to say I do NOT agree with the anti-suicide people or pro-life people, but their first scenario makes logical sense (even if I disagree with their position). However, the second scenario is where things become messed up and tricky.

At least in the first scenario, a person in such circumstances have the ability to improve things or choose not to (ctb). Furthermore, someone who has the means to ctb may/not also have the ability to retaliate, resist, defend oneself (Note: I'm not condoning illegal acts or violence). Thus in essence, has an ACTUAL choice rather than an imaginary one. He/she can choose to live or ctb.

In the second scenario, a person would not have the ability to ctb, depending on the severity of the impairment, disability, or illness. So by default, the person is at the mercy and control of others, dependent on others, and regardless of whether the person wants to ctb, the person would not be able to ctb without assistance (at least not actively, but only passively, which even then could still be stopped. For example trying to starve to death or do VSED, a healthcare professional or pro-life would just force-fed or provide nourishment forcibly such that the patient is kept alive, but in horrible conditions.). Furthermore, assuming the impairment, disability, or illness is crippling/disabling enough, the person also is not able to resist or defend oneself. In short, the person doesn't have an real choice into staying alive, but is rather the default state (until other causes or natural causes takes his/her life) of being kept alive.

Could anyone explain or perhaps elaborate on why this is the case? Is there really any sense or logic at all in that argument/claim? If there is, I'm certainly not finding it. The only differences are that in the first scenario, the person at least has a real choice, to decide to ctb or to improve his/her situation, but in the second scenario, the default is to live (assuming unable to ctb without assistance). This isn't even getting at the ethical and moral issues of the treatment of people by the mental health system/society (that's another topic altogether).

Morally I likely have the means to ctb, I guess in many ways I could as I can walk and do things with my hands.
The assumption being that I shouldn't because of improvement stops with my mental illness. As I know there is no cure, and that I will experience symptoms and relapse no matter what as no pill is designed for this. I will be forever performing symptom management.
Also, my illness is one that gravely affects my relationships with people, and so even though I know some people will be sad, I have to end my bloodline. Either genetic or environmental I cannot allow for any child to experience growing up with this illness around them to end up with it. According to a reliable medical resource I am in the highest level of psychological pain possible.
So noone sees my pain, no one knows how bad it really is. And if I act out I am seen as attention getting, or if I express this deep pain I am seen as emotional hypocrondias.

I cant win so it actually is better to put myself down knowing I can never be rid of this

 

[TAW122]

I always like bringing up quality of life issues to absolute pro-life people. Not their definition of quality of life, but the true meaning of it. By that I mean, it inherently has a very subjective component for each and every undividual. For a pro-life person, this requires them to move to very empathetic state without judgement. This where the conversation usually ends.

Sadly, that is what happens a lot of times. No actual rational and objective conversations, just emotional blackmailing and insistent of life is a virtue, gift, and other drivel. Sometimes, they say they can understand the difficulties of poor quality of life yet they still refuse to at least acknowledge how absolutist their stance of life is.

Morally I likely have the means to ctb, I guess in many ways I could as I can walk and do things with my hands.
The assumption being that I shouldn't because of improvement stops with my mental illness. As I know there is no cure, and that I will experience symptoms and relapse no matter what as no pill is designed for this. I will be forever performing symptom management.
Also, my illness is one that gravely affects my relationships with people, and so even though I know some people will be sad, I have to end my bloodline. Either genetic or environmental I cannot allow for any child to experience growing up with this illness around them to end up with it. According to a reliable medical resource I am in the highest level of psychological pain possible.
So noone sees my pain, no one knows how bad it really is. And if I act out I am seen as attention getting, or if I express this deep pain I am seen as emotional hypocrondias.

I cant win so it actually is better to put myself down knowing I can never be rid of this

I agree with your last sentence. I shared the same thoughts as well, that if I can't win, I might as well take my own life so I don't have to deal with constant shit until some natural disaster, accident, or nature takes my life.

 

[Redt2go]

Morally I likely have the means to ctb, I guess in many ways I could as I can walk and do things with my hands.
The assumption being that I shouldn't because of improvement stops with my mental illness. As I know there is no cure, and that I will experience symptoms and relapse no matter what as no pill is designed for this. I will be forever performing symptom management.
Also, my illness is one that gravely affects my relationships with people, and so even though I know some people will be sad, I have to end my bloodline. Either genetic or environmental I cannot allow for any child to experience growing up with this illness around them to end up with it. According to a reliable medical resource I am in the highest level of psychological pain possible.
So noone sees my pain, no one knows how bad it really is. And if I act out I am seen as attention getting, or if I express this deep pain I am seen as emotional hypocrondias.

I cant win so it actually is better to put myself down knowing I can never be rid of this

What's the condition you have?