Discussion Suicide as a social responsibility

[CrazyDiamond04]

What do you guys think of suicide being seen as a sort of social responsibility/obligation? This isn't a new or particularly unique cultural idea, at least for the rest of the world, but it is a taboo thought in the west. Looking at who I am and examining my future in a rational and logical basis has led me to conclude that the most moral thing to do would be to kill myself. I don't believe that I can properly function in society; and it brings me great pain and anguish day after day. The only reasons I haven't taken myself out yet is because I don't know how I would and I'm still somewhat afraid of death. I can't continue on like this much longer though, eventually something's gotta give. I believe that, in the long-run, it would be best for everyone involved in my life if I killed myself. I believe that I have a social and moral obligation to do so given that I cannot properly contribute to this world in any meaningful fashion. I just really wish I had a gun; it would make this much easier.

 

[canthaveanicelife]

Egoistic suicide might be the form of suicide most applicable to suicide being an act made out of social responsibility-it being the form of suicide stemming out of the lack of social integration and alienation of outcasts-leading to some of the outcasts bearing the idea of suicide more as a responsibility and less of an actual choice they make autonomously. Personally though, I find suicide more as an autonomous "solution" from too much social integration, since the current construction of civil/political society is built to be overly demanding, designed in a manner in where we are alienated from our identity and any real sense of purpose, since, if given any real time to think about it, forty-to-fifty something years of dogging it for corporate interests isn't anything to really live for, let alone look forward to. That's not a responsibility I'm really looking forward to fulfill

 

[QueerMelancholy]

"Unfortunately, while we would like to believe there are universal truths, there is no one system of morality among humans. Moral obligations differ according to one's morality."

One could say your only moral obligation to society as a whole is success. Not monetary success, nothing financial, but simply accomplishing something it can be anything like simply living and what makes up the motions and actions necessary in and towards achieving that.

God to think we have a moral obligation to kill ourselves when we no longer have a purpose or benefit to society seems strange to me because you also have to consider that in that framework of ideology, society has a moral obligation to us to help us live, to thrive, and to further our opportunities of success.

We want to be good people, we all want to think we're good people, and we all want to feel like what we're doing is beneficial outside ourselves but that can be a little self-aggrandizing in my opinion because most of life is boring and mundane and most people are just average boring people living average boring lives.

It's rare that any of us are so important to society that our lives or our deaths have a great impact on anything beyond our personal bubbles and social circles such as family and friends. Millions of people are living lives that don't really have huge effects on society as a whole in the West. But if you focus on tying the need for meaning or even the definition of meaning to a value system that relates to money then you lose me there. My opinion on meaning is it has the most value in cause and effect, causality.

People with the power to influence and change the world have a moral obligation to those of us who are weaker with less power. They have a moral obligation to protect and serve for the betterment of society of which they benefit greatly from and can influence well beyond their lives in ways that ripples out and touches more people than are in their social circles.

As basic members of society, we have a moral obligation to be kind to ourselves and others and not much more than that. Being kind and polite is what is expected of us to buy our access to society. Society buys its access to us through our labor and investing in our well-being. But like what was said in that quote earlier moral obligations differ according to one's own morality and there is no overarching universal moral ideology that we are all tied to or obligated to uphold or anything.

If you believe that you have a moral obligation to society to CTB then I'd argue that society has a moral obligation to save and protect you but society has a harder time protecting and serving us than we do feeling guilty and miserable. There are a lot of middlemen involved in society while within ourselves we don't have a lot of safety nets to keep us from suffering. Society as a whole is a beast of burden as we all are the individuals who make up said society. We all share the burden of being good people and doing good things while society has the burden of protecting us and helping us to thrive and promoting our well-being beyond how valuable we are as people.

Haha I was rambling for a bit but the idea of having any moral obligation to anything so large and powerful as society kinda confounds my mind. Because in my head it sounds like we're taking the failure of society to help us upon ourselves when we are but one person in a sea of billions of people. It is easier to feel like we have failed society when in actuality society has failed us and why would anyone feel morally obligated to hurt themselves or to suffer for a society that has failed them? In America for example it can barely protect and serve us because there are a lot of middlemen involved and walls put in place to make it harder to seek help because of the idea that as individuals it is fully upon ourselves to build our lives in ways that benefit society while society benefits from us. I think a lot of the ideology behind individualism is the problem in the West. Collectivism is more important in the East but even then under capitalism, it's like a mixture of filial piety and individualism.

As a member of society your death does me no justice and I gain no benefit from it. You have no moral obligation to me to live or die. I want to live in a world where we all are safe and thriving but that world is an imaginary one. Focus on being a good person towards yourself and others and there is a lot of meaning involved in that in causality. Simply replying to your forum post has shaped my life in a small way. We all shape the world and others in small ways. So rethink your definition of meaning and please for your own sake remove the ties it has to anything financial or monetary. Everything already costs too much money and to even think that living is too expensive which it is is already so absurd you'll drive yourself mad. Capitalism has poisoned our minds under the crushing promise of opportunity. Break free of that.

 

[steppingoff]

I have no problem with the concept that it may be a good thing to have less people on earth -including me - on the earth to reduce our burden on the environment

 

[dyingslowly]

Suicide was never something that as humans or living beings we had since we were so hard programmed to fight for survival initially, but as we evolved into humans and started to live in groups or as a society, it started to become something that society hits at you but when you do it then they say "Oh my GaWd, damymmm, he kILLed himself?" like wtf why act like that when the catalyst of pain starts from the people around you. Do suicide for yourself if you want to do it, but never do it for the society that caused us this pain to being with. I blame 100 pc this society, if I was a caveman living alone and never gotten the bad treatment I got from the society I would never turn out to be suicidal. (Getting killed by another animal is fine since it is perfectly natural to die that way) Since I am making notes of the hints people give me about it either knowing it or not knowing it, last time my therapist said to me, we will talk again if we were alive ("Translated") like bruh is this something to be said to someone who is suicidal and on meds, I think she is a sadist who likes to enjoy my misery and I just can't fantom how many have gone after getting the treatment through her. F&&k this society and F&&k this morality.

 

[xinino]

Rationality and morals are determined by society

 

[Forever Sleep]

I suspect that even people who feel like they'e a massive burden on their families and society in many cases, do still have people who care about them and could well be impacted more negatively if they suicided. Not to guilt trip anyone but I suspect most parents- given the choice would choose to keep their children, even if they hadn't turned out to be the success they hoped they would be.

I agree with QueerMelancholy in that- we are born into societies. In theory- it should be a matter of give and take. We contribute and expect to be taken care of in return. In theory, our parents, their parents and so on have already contributed towards society. The hope is that we will too but, some won't be able to. We've been taught to accept that to some degree. People may complain about those on benefits but, it's not exactly like the natural world where we just leave our sick and injured to be killed or- kill them ourselves. We like to think at least that we are humane enough to help those in need. It's one of the things we have bypassed in a way- natural selection.

So, in terms of a societal obligation- I don't think the argument works too well. How would your or all our families react today if we told them we were going to kill ourselves tomorrow? That they shouldn't be sad because we're doing it in part for them and for wider society? How many do you think would agree?

Plus, if you're looking at it in terms of how society/capitalism/cosummerism works- even people who don't contribute via working a job, still consume services. They keep other people in jobs- doctors, therapists, pharmaceutical companies, farmers, teachers etc.

So in terms of human society- no. I think keeping suicidal people alive plays in to a lot of what we think we are as humans. We like to think we care about one another. You could argue that the most compassionate, humane thing to do would be to let people who are suffering leave but, I suspect pro-lifers think there genuinely isn't enough reason for most of us to suffer. Who is more delluded there is debatable but I suspect they think they're doing the moral thing. Plus, I'd say in many cases, suicide likely causes more upset in a family than someone going NEET. Although, I don't really know.

In terms of the wider world though- the environment and all the other creatures that are struggling to survive here- sure, I think there's definitely a strong argument that less humans here would be a good thing. So- antinatilism and allowing people to leave who actually want to I think would be beneficial to the world as a whole.

 

[xinino]

I have no problem with the concept that it may be a good thing to have less people on earth -including me - on the earth to reduce our burden on the environment

Eco-fascism vibe

 

[sserafim]

I would say the opposite, that staying alive is the social responsibility and obligation. Society wants to profit and make money off of you. Apparently it thinks that it's already invested in you and it's waiting for its ROI (return on investment). Society expects you to be a slave to the system for your whole life and to work your life away. It wants you to be a good cog in the capitalist wheel. If they made suicide easy, then people could escape this pipeline, which would be negative to the economy, so they restrict the right to die. I would say that suicide is actually a means of defiance against society and social responsibility. Also dude, society doesn't give a shit about you as an individual, so why would you care or kill yourself over it? It only views you for your productivity and as human capital. Society doesn't care about anyone at all, just what they can contribute. Just be a NEET or something. You don't owe society anything

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I always thought that me being an incel means that I should kill myself to help make the world a slightly place. I mean almost no one can deny the world would be much better if they all followed suit and wiped themselves off the face of the earth since some people would still feel guilty even with incel blood on their hands.

Same could be true for pedophiles or zoophiles to a more extreme degree.

I guess one way to fix that is to just not be those types of people but not everyone can be saved and it's better to just wipe out the ones who can't for their sake and for everyone else's.

 

[EmptyHeaded]

I suspect that even people who feel like they'e a massive burden on their families and society in many cases, do still have people who care about them and could well be impacted more negatively if they suicided. Not to guilt trip anyone but I suspect most parents- given the choice would choose to keep their children, even if they hadn't turned out to be the success they hoped they would be.

I agree with QueerMelancholy in that- we are born into societies. In theory- it should be a matter of give and take. We contribute and expect to be taken care of in return. In theory, our parents, their parents and so on have already contributed towards society. The hope is that we will too but, some won't be able to. We've been taught to accept that to some degree. People may complain about those on benefits but, it's not exactly like the natural world where we just leave our sick and injured to be killed or- kill them ourselves. We like to think at least that we are humane enough to help those in need. It's one of the things we have bypassed in a way- natural selection.

So, in terms of a societal obligation- I don't think the argument works too well. How would your or all our families react today if we told them we were going to kill ourselves tomorrow? That they shouldn't be sad because we're doing it in part for them and for wider society? How many do you think would agree?

Plus, if you're looking at it in terms of how society/capitalism/cosummerism works- even people who don't contribute via working a job, still consume services. They keep other people in jobs- doctors, therapists, pharmaceutical companies, farmers, teachers etc.

So in terms of human society- no. I think keeping suicidal people alive plays in to a lot of what we think we are as humans. We like to think we care about one another. You could argue that the most compassionate, humane thing to do would be to let people who are suffering leave but, I suspect pro-lifers think there genuinely isn't enough reason for most of us to suffer. Who is more delluded there is debatable but I suspect they think they're doing the moral thing. Plus, I'd say in many cases, suicide likely causes more upset in a family than someone going NEET. Although, I don't really know.

In terms of the wider world though- the environment and all the other creatures that are struggling to survive here- sure, I think there's definitely a strong argument that less humans here would be a good thing. So- antinatilism and allowing people to leave who actually want to I think would be beneficial to the world as a whole.

I think there are two types of people.
People who can't work. They still contribute by consuming goods and services and potentially improving the lives of others by being a friend or something else.
And people who won't work.
I'm one of them.
I can work, but won't. Since those simply unwilling to work don't get any financial support, they don't consume any goods or services. They don't help the economy in any way. If I don't work, I'll end up homeless. I don't have friends nor family whose lives I improve, so I don't even contribute in that aspect. This leaves me with two options. Work or die. Since I won't work, death is the only logical option. Not only would I avoid homelessness (and everything that comes with it), but I'd also, directly and indirectly, help improve the environment. The difference is tiny, unmeasurable, even. Yet it's still a difference.
I know one person who fits the first type, and she's trying her best to work again, even if it's just something simple.

 

[UKscotty]

Depends who is in charge. At the moment legal suicide assistance would be a terrible idea.

Too many right wing capitalist governments in charge. If they had their way they would massacre any of us who are suicidal and not productive.

First we need a proper mechanism for suicide prevention and recovery, then assistance for those the system fails or cannot help.

Making suicide the default would be genocide on those who are mentally unwell under current governments.

 

[Meteora]

Your thoughts resonate with me. I cannot become a person I am not in order to survive. That would be the only opition, though, somewhat adapting to this sick society. It's not only that I don't see the point in doing that, but also I guess, I'm incapable of doing so.

 

[sserafim]

I think there are two types of people.
People who can't work. They still contribute by consuming goods and services and potentially improving the lives of others by being a friend or something else.
And people who won't work.
I'm one of them.
I can work, but won't. Since those simply unwilling to work don't get any financial support, they don't consume any goods or services. They don't help the economy in any way. If I don't work, I'll end up homeless. I don't have friends nor family whose lives I improve, so I don't even contribute in that aspect. This leaves me with two options. Work or die. Since I won't work, death is the only logical option. Not only would I avoid homelessness (and everything that comes with it), but I'd also, directly and indirectly, help improve the environment. The difference is tiny, unmeasurable, even. Yet it's still a difference.
I know one person who fits the first type, and she's trying her best to work again, even if it's just something simple.

You must still be consuming goods and services though, considering the fact that you're alive. Where do you get your food? You should be buying it right? You're on SS. You should be paying for your Wifi right? Therefore, you still contribute by being a consumer. All consumers help the economy, and as long as you're still living, you will consume, because it costs money to sustain yourself

I suspect that even people who feel like they'e a massive burden on their families and society in many cases, do still have people who care about them and could well be impacted more negatively if they suicided. Not to guilt trip anyone but I suspect most parents- given the choice would choose to keep their children, even if they hadn't turned out to be the success they hoped they would be.

I agree with QueerMelancholy in that- we are born into societies. In theory- it should be a matter of give and take. We contribute and expect to be taken care of in return. In theory, our parents, their parents and so on have already contributed towards society. The hope is that we will too but, some won't be able to. We've been taught to accept that to some degree. People may complain about those on benefits but, it's not exactly like the natural world where we just leave our sick and injured to be killed or- kill them ourselves. We like to think at least that we are humane enough to help those in need. It's one of the things we have bypassed in a way- natural selection.

So, in terms of a societal obligation- I don't think the argument works too well. How would your or all our families react today if we told them we were going to kill ourselves tomorrow? That they shouldn't be sad because we're doing it in part for them and for wider society? How many do you think would agree?

Plus, if you're looking at it in terms of how society/capitalism/cosummerism works- even people who don't contribute via working a job, still consume services. They keep other people in jobs- doctors, therapists, pharmaceutical companies, farmers, teachers etc.

So in terms of human society- no. I think keeping suicidal people alive plays in to a lot of what we think we are as humans. We like to think we care about one another. You could argue that the most compassionate, humane thing to do would be to let people who are suffering leave but, I suspect pro-lifers think there genuinely isn't enough reason for most of us to suffer. Who is more delluded there is debatable but I suspect they think they're doing the moral thing. Plus, I'd say in many cases, suicide likely causes more upset in a family than someone going NEET. Although, I don't really know.

In terms of the wider world though- the environment and all the other creatures that are struggling to survive here- sure, I think there's definitely a strong argument that less humans here would be a good thing. So- antinatilism and allowing people to leave who actually want to I think would be beneficial to the world as a whole.

I don't feel like a burden, and even if I was, I don't give a fuck because I didn't choose to be born. Also, why should we be obligated to contribute to society? I never asked to be alive. Why should I be expected to contribute?

 

[EmptyHeaded]

You must still be consuming goods and services though, considering the fact that you're alive. Where do you get your food? You should be buying it right? You're on SS. You should be paying for your Wifi right? Therefore, you still contribute by being a consumer. All consumers help the economy, and as long as you're still living, you will consume, because it costs money to sustain yourself

It's only that way because my mother still gets child benefits for me. Once that'd no longer be the case, it'd be either working or becoming homeless. Not that I will wait for it to go that far.

 

[sserafim]

@CrazyDiamond04: you should read this

"OVERSOCIALIZATION

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people. [2]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another."

 

[All_is_in_vanity]

What do you guys think of suicide being seen as a sort of social responsibility/obligation? This isn't a new or particularly unique cultural idea, at least for the rest of the world, but it is a taboo thought in the west. Looking at who I am and examining my future in a rational and logical basis has led me to conclude that the most moral thing to do would be to kill myself. I don't believe that I can properly function in society; and it brings me great pain and anguish day after day. The only reasons I haven't taken myself out yet is because I don't know how I would and I'm still somewhat afraid of death. I can't continue on like this much longer though, eventually something's gotta give. I believe that, in the long-run, it would be best for everyone involved in my life if I killed myself. I believe that I have a social and moral obligation to do so given that I cannot properly contribute to this world in any meaningful fashion. I just really wish I had a gun; it would make this much easier.

Finally someone who gets it