The "What if death is worse?" Argument

[Foreverix]

Out of curiosity I was watching a prolife psychologist on YouTube talk about his four powerful "coping tools" for fighting suicidal ideation and came across this argument in his fourth "coping tool." The argument is that by committing suicide, one is essentially trading in their existence for a "mystery box" that could potentially be an even worse experience than one's life already is. He validates this with the fact that no one knows for certain what happens after death. Due to this uncertainty, he claims that suicide is a "risky gamble" that largely banks on the hope that death is the end of all suffering, or that it is at least less painful than life. He asks, "What if you die and it's worse? Would you risk losing a valuable possession for a surprise?"

Ultimately this "coping tool" made me want to die even more. If this is as good as it gets, and death is not the end, we're all fucked.

What do you think?

 

[CantTurnBack]

Personally, I do find it to be one of the more compelling and scary arguments.

How can we know for sure, that death would be the end of all suffering? Food for thought.

 

[annointed_towers]

Hell exists. We exist forever.

 

[Foreverix]

Hell exists. We exist forever.

Which hell?

 

[Himalayan]

Bold of whoever proposed this to assume I would care or fear it

 

[MatrixPrisoner]

I'll take my chances. Ultimately by choosing to live, you're just delaying the inevitable. Whether this myserious inevitablilty is better, worse or nothing at all, which it most likely is.

 

[spinningmyself]

If he is pro life he would probably say anything to scare people into thinking stuff like that. Everyone dies eventually so everyone will go to whatever/nothingness anyway. I think its just a scare tactic really.

 

[PinkyStat]

it wanted to believe in christianity, from my point of view we just disappear and it does not seem to be bad, i mean what could be worse? (If you dont believe in hell/heaven of course)

 

[Foreverix]

If he is pro life he would probably say anything to scare people into thinking stuff like that. Everyone dies eventually so everyone will go to whatever/nothingness anyway. I think its just a scare tactic really.

He definitely is prolife. That's what I thought too, it's just fear mongering.

 

[passivethought121]

Made me think for a second until I remembered we'll all end up in this "worse" place. And how exactly could it be worse? Even if it's just hell— that makes the mental pain into physical pain.

 

[DeadlineDialer]

Thinking about the natural laws in the universe we've come to understand, once we die, the neurons in our brain shut off. By all means of the phrase, we cease thinking. There's nothing left to transmit any feeling of pain, nothing to form thoughts of worry or misery. There is no conscience, which is alien and scary to think about in the realm of our current being, but it's a metamorphosis we will inevitably experience. It's as you say, just a scare tactic. We're innately inclined to believe that conscience continues after the end, because there's no way for us to truly grasp the feeling or thought of an alternative.

Bit fucked up if you think about it, scaring someone with something like that. Trapping someone who's already suffering within their own thoughts, already haunted day and night, just to coerce them into thinking how you want. I feel science is our way of communicating with our reality, and to me, I hear it telling me it won't hurt when it's over. I'll take my chances on word from the source, not from some second hand peddler trying to sell me on "living".

 

[Cloud Busting]

This right here is why suicide prevention efforts in my opinion should be handled by people with lived in experiences who ended up recovering from their suicidal crisis. At the very least, suicide prevention should be led by people who respect the dignity and liberty of human man. Pro-lifers have no business counseling the suicidal, yet they are the ones who primarily do. That this is not so is a fundamental flaw in contemporary suicide prevention funding and advocacy, as well as the mental health system generally.

Suicidal people are just that- people. They are not monsters, criminals, or a danger to society. I understand that due to survival instincts, people naturally want to save humans. To those who have never seriously considered CTB, it is a scary and foreign concept to them. I honestly don't think a lot of pro-lifers are trying to be malicious. They merely value self-preservation and do not know what else to do when they encounter someone who does not. Therefore they resort to extreme measures.

Too bad they are the loudest of the bunch when it comes to suicide prevention, as they're not meeting people where they're at. Most suicidal people are not afraid to die and do not want to delay the inevitable. Most believe what comes after death is better than current reality. This sort of rhetoric will merely condescend a suicidal person than make them reconsider.

This is no better than Pascal's wager (believing in God because being wrong that god exists has less consequences than being wrong about being a non-believer [i.e. Hell]. Surrendering yourself to an action or philosophy out of fear is a horrible way to live.

 

[Foreverix]

This is no better than Pascal's wager (believing in God because being wrong that god exists has less consequences than being wrong about being a non-believer [i.e. Hell]. Surrendering yourself to an action or philosophy out of fear is a horrible way to live.

Well said!

 

[alivefornow]

Does not scare me. I don't know how I could possibly have feelings without a brain. What keeps me from doing the deed is fear of the pain I would cause others.

 

[Foreverix]

Does not scare me. I don't know how I could possibly have feelings without a brain. What keeps me from doing the deed is fear of the pain I would cause others.

I agree. It seems almost self-evident to me that consciousness is dependent upon the brain being alive and functional and that without it, there is no experience. Moreover, anesthesia can directly induce an unconscious state. So how could consciousness be some sort of nebulous ghost in the machine?

 

[betternever2havbeen]

Calling life a "valuable possession", I'm wondering if he really ever has had suicidal ideation? It's such pro-lifer speak, I agree with @Cloud Busting about why the pro-lifers shouldn't be leading the suicide prevention efforts. Just out of interest did he mean it's one of HIS coping tools, because he's been there, or one he simply advises others to use? Lump it in with "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem"-I hope who ever came up with that platitude gets it right back at them every single time they have something tragic happen. "Oh your kid died? Temporary problem, get over it" makes my blood boil. I'm all for listening to people and letting them vent and try come up with ways to get them through whatever they're going through rather than CTB but it's not always possible. I think that's the best shot there is though, I mean unless platitudes work on anyone?

The pro-lifers, they seem to have all these super easy fixes-oh just a sentence will change everyone's mind! Temporary problem! Life's a valuable possession and death might be worse! Jesus, do they put ANY effort into their cause at all?! How long does it take them to come up with these lightbulb moments? I guess listening to people and offering heartfelt genuine empathy and advice is too much effort. Unless his other three coping tools are anything like that? I'd LOVE to know his other pearls of wisdom lol.

I also agree that feeling trapped here because death could be worse does NOT make me appreciate life more.

 

[Foreverix]

I'd LOVE to know his other pearls of wisdom lol.

You can search Scott Eilers on the YouTubes to get an earful. I think it's a lot of clickbait and self promotion honestly. He never said they were HIS coping tools, but he does say in multiple videos that he "used to be depressed" and "had passive suicidal ideation," so he "knows what you're going through."

 

[betternever2havbeen]

@Foreverix thanks I'll look it up, might be entertaining lol.

 

[HappyForever?]

No one knows. It might be significantly worse, but it can also be significantly better. No one knows anything about it. So why bother? If you are contemplating CTBing, chances are you have a subpar life here. Would you take a unsatisfactory life that will go into the unknown sooner or later, or take the leap early and try for a better life? I think the choice is obvious.

 

[CrazyDiamond04]

This argument seems salient on its face but kind of falls apart when you think about it. First off, there's nothing to suggest that there's any sort of existence or experience after this one. Secondly, one could also just as easily argue that a life beyond this one could be much better; there's just as much evidence to support that claim, which is none at all. It's like a crappier version of Pascal's Wager.

 

[Foreverix]

This argument seems salient on its face but kind of falls apart when you think about it. First off, there's nothing to suggest that there's any sort of existence or experience after this one. Secondly, one could also just as easily argue that a life beyond this one could be much better; there's just as much evidence to support that claim, which is none at all. It's like a crappier version of Pascal's Wager.

Yes! A crappier version indeed: Keep living, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. When in reality, plenty of people gain the world and still kill themselves.

 

[Eudaimonic]

Well, the issue with this argument is that life is also a "mystery box" of sorts in that one never truly knows what future harms will befall them. So it's a gamble, yes, but so is existing. So imo the logical conclusion of this argument is to forego life since you know for a fact it will generate future harms which may make your life a living Hell (I am not arguing this, to be clear--I am saying that's what the logical conclusion of this argument is). And one could argue the opposite, that death could lead to salvation.

Although, a potential counterargument is that bad is arguably worse than good is good, but idk because good would in this case be the alleviation of the harms of life. Maybe one could argue that maintaining the status quo is worth the risk of foregoing greater happiness if the s-risk of this hypothetical is mitigated. But I would think that because there's no precedent to believe this, it's not a very strong argument.

I can relate to despairing over death potentially not being an out (I won't mention the catalysts for that bc I think they're infohazards), but ultimately you either have to choose what you believe or accept that you can't know. To think that one can indeed know what lies beyond is hubris. I guess I cope by convincing myself that there's nothing afterward. But that's really all it is, a cope.

This is really a terrible "coping tool" lol. It seems like a good way to trap yourself in even more misery and could in some cases make one more suicidal, paradoxically. For me, these kinds of pessimistic thoughts only increase that imminent sense of doom and the feeling of being helplessly trapped like a caged animal.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yes, I have thought about this and I do worry about it to some extent. I grew up around someone who believed that suicides go to hell. I'm doubtful hell or heaven exists but it's a troubling nagging thought to have.

Still- the next assumptions are 1) You won't be destined to experience something unpleasant even if you die naturally and 2) Suicides in particular are punished with something especially nasty. It may be regardless that we end up sonewhere worse. Then, it's a matter of when rather than if. No one escapes death eventually. Probably depends on whether you believe in a God/ religion as to whether your actions on earth influence where you go next.

 

[Inthewind]

Man, what about the people who die from accidents, or lived to full age and are elderly.( I mainly jus thinkin it sad for old people cuz they jus oldys, silly little oldys.) But anyway, man that stinks for just all who lived. if this was true that we died and went to a worse place, man I just hate unfair scenerios. Where we get no control and are forced into hurtful things against your will.

Uh, upon this question I do recommend watching The Good Place it is a little religious but has good twists, and a peaceful ending that sort of relates to this, and I would want a after life that worked like how it works in the show.

 

[SpiritualDeath]

Death's inevitable. By staying in life you're just delaying the inevitable instead of escaping from death. Even if death is really a worse place you're gonna end up there anyway, and since life's already fucked and there's still a chance that death is the end of suffering, I don't see why not just give it a go and see what happens.

Hm, really not convincing as a "coping tool".

 

[snowcloud9]

Yes I've thought about that, what if there's only hell and no heaven? I mean my idea of dying hinges on happiness > death > misery but what if death is more miserable? I just try to keep in mind that since I don't know about how happy death is, I shouldn't ctb until I don't think a state of more misery is possible.

 

[Cloud Busting]

Calling life a "valuable possession",

I hate the sanctity of life argument. There is no inherent value to human life. The earth is a living, breathing organism that can sustain itself. One may even argue it would better off without humanity destroying it. The history channel had a documentary that explored this idea.

Nothing has inherent value. The earth could perish and it wouldn't matter as it would no longer exist. It is beautiful enough that I believe it is worth conserving, but its an aimless pursuit. Then again, that life is aimless is kind of what I like about it. It's a once in a life time experience I can relish in, and eventually be freed from. By existing you get to experience cool things you wouldn't if you were never born, and when die, you have freed yourself from suffering. It's unique, that's for sure.

All these sanctity of life appeals are just a sexier way of admitting to being a slave to evolutionary desires. Lol

Pro-lifers only care about the quantity of life. They don't care about the quality of it. They also only think in the short term. Long term, they aren't thinking about you. They're hypocrites. After all, abortion restrictions increase suicidal ideation. If they saved a 'baby' now, they won't care or even know if the mom CTB later. They're too busy saving the next 'baby.'

I'm wondering if he really ever has had suicidal ideation?

I wondered the same.

The pro-lifers, they seem to have all these super easy fixes-oh just a sentence will change everyone's mind! Temporary problem! Life's a valuable possession and death might be worse! Jesus, do they put ANY effort into their cause at all?! How long does it take them to come up with these lightbulb moments? I guess listening to people and offering heartfelt genuine empathy and advice is too much effort.

My therapist argued that pro-lifers behave this way because they don't know what else to do. I think he may be onto something. If true, it further solidifies my argument that pro lifers should stay out of suicide prevention.

I also agree that feeling trapped here because death could be worse does NOT make me appreciate life more.

You could argue that living is just prolonging suffering that will follow you after death, so you may as well CTB to shorten the duration.

You can search Scott Eilers on the YouTubes to get an earful. I think it's a lot of clickbait and self promotion honestly.

Those are the worst sort of YouTubers. "Buy my book!" "Take this quiz on my website!" "Sign up for our newsletter!" I'll have to look him up for a laugh.

He never said they were HIS coping tools, but he does say in multiple videos that he "used to be depressed" and "had passive suicidal ideation," so he "knows what you're going through."

That explains everything. While they're related, passive and active suicidal ideation are not the same. From personal experience, neither are fun, but having the desire to act on your thoughts is it's own beast.

Honestly, my thoughts on suicide altered when my thoughts shifted from passive to active. People with passive ideation only shouldn't speak for people with active ideation.

Is he religious by chance?

@Eudaimonic

You could also argue that non-existence is a peaceful, blissful, unconsciousness nothingness. This is what I personally wish for.

I can relate to despairing over death potentially not being an out (I won't mention the catalysts for that bc I think they're infohazards), but ultimately you either have to choose what you believe or accept that you can't know. To think that one can indeed know what lies beyond is hubris. I guess I cope by convincing myself that there's nothing afterward. But that's really all it is, a cope.

Beautifully put. No matter how you slice it, living against your will and knowing it will one day end sucks. I agree that one's view of what happens when we die is a cope. I think it says a lot about a person too.

Yes, I have thought about this and I do worry about it to some extent. I grew up around someone who believed that suicides go to hell.

I'm sorry you've had a similar experience. Threatening people with hell is wrong in my opinion.


It says in Psalms to not worry about sinners and non-believers because they will perish under God. People should focus on their own sins. It's not their job to condemn wrong-doers. It's God's (FYI: I don't believe in God. I'm acting as if he exists for the sake of my argument).

 

[Dying Knight]

This is no better than Pascal's wager (believing in God because being wrong that god exists has less consequences than being wrong about being a non-believer [i.e. Hell]. Surrendering yourself to an action or philosophy out of fear is a horrible way to live.

It's worth noting that the Pascal's wager has a logical error in it. If the god exists, there are actually 3 possibilities:

1. The god rather helps believers than non-believers,
2. The god doesn't care if you're believer or not,
3. The god rather helps non-believers than believers.

The wager focuses solely on the first possibility and ignores the others, while the third one has equal chances to be true.

The same applies to death: if we assume that some form of afterlife exists, the odds that it's worse are the same as that it's better than the life.

 

[lwlaiet8887]

I think this is nonsense. Personally, I don't see the nature of the world as spiritual at all it's purely nature. Many people will embellish the virtues of humanity to make us seem larger than life, but if you look at humanity from an objective standpoint you realise we're no better than animals, we're simply a force of nature with higher cognition and thrice the brutality. Spiritually inclined people will argue that struggling or the inate sin is what gives us soul, so I suppose we're like a morbid art exhibition and the mass suffering of individuals is justified as long as there's some higher power behind it. You ever think about all of the innocent souls in this world who cry out for God in agony yet he never responds? Or do we only see things from a perspective of survivorship bias and acknowledge the winners who managed to overcome their hardship like most sheeple do (what about xyz)? That's what you're arguing if you see the world as spiritual in my eyes.

On the topic of humanity, what do I think is most defining about humanity is our sheer brutality. Human history is defined by divisiveness and exploitation even in the modern day when we're supposedly enlightend. Animals kill out of survival instinct, man inflicts violence out of malice and the desire take. What makes us superior to this nature? Why does humanity deserve salvation when we're the truly evil one's who have brought about the destruction of this earth, the mass murder/torment of one another, an industrial genocide of animals to sustain us, destructive ideology, evil individuals. Man is the bastard of this world and earth is the closest thing to hell we know of.

Death is bad in the sense that you'll lose your cognition, no more experiences, no more sensations, no future, it's difficult to overcome your SI and hope. Death is incomprehensible nothingness but it's freedom from concusiousness. For all the suffering in the world I hope there's respite in death but I know that to be extremly unlikely.

 

[Cloud Busting]

It's worth noting that the Pascal's wager has a logical error in it. If the god exists, there are actually 3 possibilities:

1. The god rather helps believers than non-believers,
2. The god doesn't care if you're believer or not,
3. The god rather helps non-believers than believers.

The wager focuses solely on the first possibility and ignores the others, while the third one has equal chances to be true.

The same applies to death: if we assume that some form of afterlife exists, the odds that it's worse are the same as that it's better than the life.

The reason why the wager focuses on the first possibility is because it's the one with the worst consequence, and thus the one you'd want to avoid the most, even if the third option is just as likely.

Of course, believing in a possibility that has no solid supporting arguments or evidence out of fear is not a good reason to believe. Where is the evidence that hell exists? As many have pointed out, there is more evidence for death being a thing we are unconscious of than there is for an afterlife at all; let alone hell.