Discussion The Hierarchy of Suffering

[Dür Ktulhu]

What do you think - strictly speaking - does a person deserve compassion if their motives are unworthy, someone who takes their own life due to base and material hardships (poor appearance, insecurities, etc.) rather than existential, metaphysical philosophical problems arising from the very fact of existence? Dostoevsky reflected on this, stating that no one commits suicide as a philosophical act, and concluded that although there have been hundreds of suicides, they are all petty and unworthy. He draws a distinction and devalues the act based on its causes and motives.

Does "unworthy" pain exist? I think it does. And you?
Is there a right to death?
Can we devalue another's agony if it lacks a lofty idea?
Should we respect despair that contains no philosophy?
Does "unworthy" grief deserve compassion?
Must suicide born of mundane pain transform into existential anguish and a philosophical act?

 

[MicahBell]

i think all suffering is worthy and deserves compassion. it takes a lot to compel a person not just want to die, but to defy their evolutionary imperative to survive and go through with it.

 

[dontwakemeup]

I think my pain and others pains are different, BUT we will probably value our pain the same!
For example: Person 1 doesn't have legs anymore due to a car accident. When he is depressed, everyone says, "You should be happy you're still alive, you almost died in that crash!" He now wants to ctb.
Person 2: Father has abused her since she was 7, and mother never knew. She runs away at 15 and lives on the streets and picked up an illegal drug habit. She is hopeless and tired of addiction but can't seem to stop. She now wants to ctb.

Pain when it pertains to suicide to me, is equal. Those 2 people will agree they have the right to ctb and nobody will be able to convince them differently. This is why I'm pro-choice. I believe there should be a hierarchy of suicide. After a few failed attempts, I definitely believe there are stages. During my attempts, wondering if others thought I made the right decision never crossed my mind at all. Others opinions of me I don't rank as important to me.

 

[Ilovemyteddies]

all those who ctb didn't have to worry about dostoevsky's judgements, and of course dostoevsky himself is dead now too, so he doesn't have to worry about mine or yours.

 

[SleeplessAndSad]

I think the reasoning for why someone ctb's is unimportant. No one just decides this out of the blue. It always takes some amount of suffering. And while there may be reasons that are easier to understand then others, they all suffered and all deserve compassion.

 

[Forever Sleep]

But then- what is the 'correct' philosophy? That we should automatically accept any form of suffering as part of life? Why?

And, suffering is palpable to the person feeling it. No matter the cause. Surely- the suicidal person's philosophy simply is: 'Why should I put up with this?... Perhaps I won't.' Is there a philosophical argument against that? A convincing reason why we should stay and suffer? I'm all ears! I'd argue here that religion is a personal belief and reason. Not a universal one. We don't all believe the same things.

Besides- I imagine most physical and mental pain that results in passive ideation does cross into philosophy when it comes to active ideation. When a person has concluded their life is shit enough and without redeeming qualities that they want to end it- won't they then be thinking about all things philosophical?

What is life and consciousness? What's the meaning of it? What's my meaning? Can I fulfil it? Is suicide an immoral act? Was birthing me here in the first place a moral act? Should I be expected to stay here? Why?

I'd actually argue that if philosophers had done a better job of giving us convincing reasons and a meaning to live- maybe that would be something to hold on to. As religion has been for some people. As it is, we seem to still be struggling with basic questions that seem to have no definite answer. Only different perspectives and, some of those are very negative! That, for example, there is no meaning to anything. In which case- what does any of it even matter?

Surely- the requirement to stay and suffer here hinges on it being important. That staying alive is important. To who though? And, do they have the right to demand that of us? But- it assumes life in itself is a precious and valuable gift. That's a perspective surely- not a fact.

Dostoevsky was apparently a devout Orthodox Christian- which I would argue gives a very strong bias to his views. Surely, if you believe this is all God's will and wish- with a possible reward at the end- suffering is perhaps more acceptable as part of the plan.

If we could all be sure that suffering was for a greater good- perhaps we would endure it but- how many actually believe that? To many- they are suffering for no reason at all, other than they have a body that malfunctioned or, they're living in a corrupt society which they would unlikely be able to change.

But no- I think suffering is suffering- full stop. What's important is what can be done to reduce or stop it. That will vary, person to person. But- I think it's that we ought to focus on. Whether and how a person might be helped. Not- stop whining about your stupid little problems. They aren't serious enough! I don't think that actually does help all that many people. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. Ignoring a person can make them go away though.

Plus- it's down to perspective. Some people will argue that no amount of suffering gives the person the 'right' to suicide. It kind of depends who you think your life belongs to and who it will offend to use your autonomy to end it.

I personally think we shouldn't have been given autonomous life by either a God or our parents- if they weren't willing to accept that our experience may not be the same as theirs. Or, how they intended. That if things end up too bad, we may actually wish to end it and they'd be utterly selfish to deny us that. It's not moral or fair to give a sentient being choice and then throw a hissy fit when they choose something you don't agree with.

I'm curious though- have you decided your reasons are good enough, while other people's aren't? Do you think everyone would agree your reasons are good enough? Would Dostoevsky have do you suppose? Does that matter even? Do you want to be dictated to by another person's beliefs? Maybe if they are yours, I suppose. But, they don't even make philosophical sense to me. Only from a religious standpoint do they seem to make sense.