It is not up to me or you to decide whether someone's suicide is rational. Only the individual can make that decision. If someone commits suicide for whatever reason it was justified from their point of view.
The lives of the passengers are not his to take. Only his life is in his hands.
As for some of your other statements I am not sure why you are giving extremely exaggerated scenarios in an attempt to prove your point. That is just seeking confirmation bias instead of engaging in open dialog. For someone who calls themselves 'Enlightened' I find your attempt to overwhelm others into submission by sheer volume of text very perplexing.
Are you trolling or do you actually believe your own nonsense? You did nothing but posit an absolutist dogma ('alle suicides are rational') with no empirical data or even logical argumentation to back it up (whether people 'own' themselves, which is beyond the realm of ascertainable fact anyway, has nothing to do with rational decision making) and yet you have the nerve of accusing me of bias while refusing to engage with my arguments except to contradict yourself. Yet Im supposedly refusing 'open dialogue'...
What you did prove is that you're completely incapable of sound reasoning: first you claim all suicides are rational then you claim it's up to neither you or me to ascertain that. Which you clearly did by assuming all suicides are rational. That it would be morally wrong for that pilot to kill others in his suicide attempt has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether that action is rational or not. According to your dogma that pilot acted rationally: 'all suicides' logically includes any suicidal pilot flying a loaded passenger jet into a mountain on purpose. Regardless of the morality of said action. Aslong as he considered his action rationally sound it somehow was rationally sound.
Why would you consider rationality to be merely in the mind of the individual and not morality? You clearly feel entitled to proclaim the action of our hypothetical pilot morally wrong. Why should that be the case?
This is nothing but a poor and ill-mannered attempt at rationalizing your own prejudice. You display the kind of rigid thinking psychological research found to be typical of suicidal individuals. Which is rather ironic given that the topic is the rationality of suicide. To top it off you seem to be under the impression that stating an ethical, i.e. normative position serves as an argument to settle an empirical question. That's like stating god exists because he needs to exist in order for the universe to be just, life fair etcetera. It's wishful thinking: plain and simple.
If you're not interested in proper, dispassionate debate why did you even bother to reply? I could present a 1001 examples drawn from reality (including by people who heard voices telling them to kill themselves or were drunk out of their mind and couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag) yet you would dismiss them all purely because they'd contradict your precious dogma. Which clearly rests on the wrong assumption that individuals define what rationality is (including logic which is as stupid as claiming mathematics is ideosyncratic) and are always capable of rational thought which is simply empirically untrue.
You're clearly heavily emotionally invested in your opinion which makes you blind to the obvious namely that reality isn't black and white and people do commit and attempt to commit suicide in an emotionally distraught state which precludes rationality. To deny that is to deny both everyday experience (including by people who admitted they acted rashly after surviving a very serious suicide attempt through sheer luck) and human nature itself. Even if it's doubtful rational suicide is as rare as some suicidologists claim it is.
Suicide by pilot resulting in the death of passengers is a certifiable cause of plane crashes and people do burn themselves to death: clearly my examples were not in any way 'exaggerated' as they are rooted in reality. That you refuse to acknowledge facts is yet another example of your systemic irationality.
Only fanatics deal in absolutes. This pro suicide rethoric is just as bad as the pro life BS: both are extremes while the truth lies somewhere between them. This is a hotly debated topic both in the medical and scientific community and in the philosophical literature yet you actually believe you have found the answer. To the point of completely ignoring any arguments to the contrary.
To my knowledge only one philosopher in history is rumoured to have claimed suicide is rational under all circumstances and his arguments are debatable at best not to mention his original work is lost and we only have a few fragments and interpretation by others which may or may not be correct.
There actually is a way to semi-reasonably defend the claim that suicide is always rational which you're clearly ignorant of. I'm not going to fuel your ego driven nihilism by explaining and even then it's not necessary to accept that conclusion since it rests on certain assumptions about reality which cannot be strictly proven.
Why on earth would you assume I'd call myself 'enlightened'? Or that I'd somehow attach importance to convincing people I don't know personally? Or that I'd somehow would make up a lot of arguments/use many words to confuse and overwhelm people like you?
You're rather fond of making assumptions, aren't you? You baselessly assume every one of the 800.000+ individuals who kill themselves the world over each year did so after cool and careful deliberation (which you cannot possibly know) just like you baselessly assumed I'd be callous enough to refer to myself as 'enlightened' (which in turn would rest on the assumption that I'd give weight to a religious concept) while it's simply a title automatically given for a number of posts. I don't need to convince anyone of anything least of all here: if someone presents a good argument or counter-argument I'll accept it and alter my original position as I value reason and the truth. You clearly don't: the world simply is as you want it to be... How is that working out for you so far?
You actually complain about having to read more than a few paragraphs... What could you possibly hope to achieve by admitting you either have difficulty reading or that you're simply lazy? Are you actually proud of either of those things? If you found reading that fairly short passage difficult (clearly you failed at understanding it) reading books must be excruciating.
Don't bother with more nonsense: I wouldn't want to hurt your fragile mind and brain with another unbearable volume of words let alone arguments. Fools are a dime a dozen and the bigger fool is he who wastes time on fools. There's an ignore button for a reason.
I do hope your mind will ever come into contact with reality and you'll realize dogmatic statements about reality are almost always wrong. If you had actually made sense, shown a willingness to argue and avoided silly ad hominem sneers I would have heard you out and would have gladly debated you hoping to learn something or think more nuanced about the matter but this is clearly impossible and therefore a waste of time.
The best of luck to you. I'm sure you have a valid reason for being here.
