What line do you believe when crossed, makes your life immoral, bad or takes away from ones soul?
Is suicide crossing that line? Or do you believe action against oneself is permitted, regardless of what that may be? It is our own life, our own body after all.
Surely all actions against others are not okay. We don't own other's lives. We should live and let live.
What if somebody were to cause horrible actions against others? Do they deserve other's respect? Should we live and let them live? Even if they killed our own Mother? Father? Brother? Sister?
So finally, if somebody who's family member died, avenged their family member, would they have crossed the line? Are they free from "sin" due to righteous intentions? Or is all of this just some bullshit made up concept, in a world of cause and effect, designed to control and limit the actions of the masses?
There's an idea I've been carrying around for a long time. However, it is completely unscientific. We are all the same consciousness. If you do something bad to someone else, you do it to yourself because you will live exactly this life eventually. So the grief that suicide brings to your loved ones you will experience yourself unless you are all alone.
I also believe in a certain sense that we are all one. So then if part of my body is trying to kill me, is it justified to amputate that part? Assuming we are one, we are God essentially, is it right to pass judgement on oneself? Do we have the right to take that right in this world and do as we please because "the ends justifies the means"?
Or perhaps we aren't mean to play God. We should never take the world into our own hands.
I think morality is an illusion. No one is really "immoral" because at the end of the day we are all victims of this world. Of course, people still do terrible things, such as restricting suicide methods, but it is foolish to suggest that they are going to suffer after they die. I hope I die as soon as possible, and that everyone gets what they truly wish for.
I think morality is an illusion. No one is really "immoral" because at the end of the day we are all victims of this world. Of course, people still do terrible things, such as restricting suicide methods, but it is foolish to suggest that they are going to suffer after they die. I hope I die as soon as possible, and that everyone gets what they truly wish for.
I'm not suggesting anything about the consequences of morality/immorality, but rather if you think you should or should not live based on being "good". So your take is still acknowledging that it's wrong or immoral to restrict suicide methods because you relate to the harm that does. So someone shouldn't infringe on another's free will or self-autonomy because it's not good, or nice is your opinion. Is there any circumstances you can imagine, where it is okay to infringe on another person and impact their life negatively for your own reasons, whether altruistic or selfish?
To share my views of the subject, I first must state that I am spiritual but not religious. I believe there are vast spiritual worlds, spirits, and beings that have been "guiding" humankind (or somewhat trying to) for various reasons: personal motives, altruistic motives, etc. So in my view, every religion got at least a little bit right. I do not believe we are all "one", for many personal reasons and experiences.
That was not said to make a discussion about, just my background. Now, onto my gnosis about moralism.
(Gnosis refers to knowledge based on personal experience or perception. In a religious context, gnosis is mystical or esoteric knowledge based on direct participation with the divine.)
I do not believe the act, per si, is morally wrong.
But I DO believe that YOUR personal morality may or may not condemn the act.
For example:
If you live in country A, where possession of an specific item is illegal;
And your friend lives in country B, where the same thing is licit;
For YOU it will be a crime, but for said friend, it will not.
Simplifying, we can say it would look very much the same; in if you do choose to follow any religion or moral code that condems CTB, yes, the act would be morally wrong.
Because moralism is NOT about "living like a nun for eternity", unless you are a nun. I am not. In MY moral code, to decide what one should or should not do with their life is their choice, including religion, philosofical alignments or CTB.
That said, now about what if, as you stated, someone else inflicted into someone elses "law", the subject can get messy. Because we do not all follow the same moral code, and some level of diplomacy is indeed required.
Because there are religions that do believe that you must "give the other cheek" when hit. And there others that state that "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". If you follow nordic paganism, for example, taking the life of an enemy is an honor. That does NOT mean someone just goes unaliving people (specially because of modern cultural views of this and laws), but would theoretic not be immoral to do so.
And with those final adds, I finished editing, lmao.
To share my views of the subject, I first must state that I am spiritual but not religious. I believe there are vast spiritual worlds, spirits, and beings that have been "guiding" humankind (or somewhat trying to) for various reasons: personal motives, altruistic motives, etc. So in my view, every religion got at least a little bit right. I do not believe we are all "one", for many personal reasons and experiences.
That was not said to make a discussion about, just my background. Now, onto my gnosis about moralism.
(Gnosis refers to knowledge based on personal experience or perception. In a religious context, gnosis is mystical or esoteric knowledge based on direct participation with the divine.)
I do not believe the act, per si, is morally wrong.
But I DO believe that YOUR personal morality may or may not condemn the act.
For example:
If you live in country A, where possession of an specific item is illegal;
And your friend lives in country B, where the same thing is licit;
For YOU it will be a crime, but for said friend, it will not.
Simplifying, we can say it would look very much the same; in if you do choose to follow any religion or moral code that condems CTB, yes, the act would be morally wrong.
Because moralism is NOT about "living like a nun for eternity", unless you are a nun. I am not. In MY moral code, to decide what one should or should not do with their life is their choice, including religion, philosofical alignments or CTB.
That said, now about what if, as you stated, someone else inflicted into someone elses "law", the subject can get messy. Because we do not all follow the same moral code, and some level of diplomacy is indeed required.
Because there are religions that do believe that you must "give the other cheek" when hit. And there others that state that "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".
That makes a lot of sense to me, I'm definitely going to condemn myself with my own moral code. I'm fascinated that through everything my moral code is the one thing that doesn't break. Even if I break my moral code, it's still the same moral code I know I've broken, which inevitably breaks a part of your own soul if you continue to do things you don't want to live with.
That makes a lot of sense to me, I'm definitely going to condemn myself with my own moral code. I'm fascinated that through everything my moral code is the one thing that doesn't break. Even if I break my moral code, it's still the same moral code I know I've broken, which inevitably breaks a part of your own soul if you continue to do things you don't want to live with.
I'm sorry to hear, but yeah, one's moral code is indeed hard to change. Somewhat I feel that throught life I mostly got to understand myself better, and so got more aligned with my own moral code (thus reinforcing my spiritual theories).
What can help someone is to expande your view of the world, understanding other moral codes, and some things kinda start to loose a bit of "importance" in the big picture, you know?
But I always believed that freedom to follow your true desires should be a primordial right. Quoting Wiccans, "An' ye harm none, do what ye will".
The interesting fact about this quote is, to harm none also means not harming yourself, and so in theory you always should search the "less harm". So what would harm more, to CTB or to keep living in a world that I only believe offers misery? What would harm more, to be hurt by someone or to take a stand against it? What would harm more, to be abused, or to unalive in self defense? What would harm more, to let a pedo live, or to end it and save others?
It is indeed complex, and I'm not talking only about immediate harm. Like to unalive someone would have a huge moral weight into someone's mind. So in long term, would it do more or less harm? It's an interesting debate.
I agree with the idea that one should strive to do the least harm. The only problem is can we essentially play "God". Are we to judge? Even if it's the right thing to do. Should we take that in our hands and sentence someone to death? Does anyone truly have that right? I wonder what it would do to the soul of someone who takes that right? I think freedom to follow true desires for the entirety of the human race would be a utopia, unless it was real, then it would be anarchy, showing the best and the worst of the human race.
Do you believe someone can break their own morality by continuing to go against it?
The only problem is can we essentially play "God". Are we to judge? Even if it's the right thing to do. Should we take that in our hands and sentence someone to death? Does anyone truly have that right?
Adressing this 1st. As I stated, i do NOT believe in one "higher" god above all else. I do not believe in one "true" power that rules over all. To better explain, I'll adress 2 beliefs systems here: Agnosticism and Gnosticism, to better explain my Gnosis onto all this.
"Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. It can be categorized as an indifference or absence of firm beliefs in Theistic religions and Atheism on that basis. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."
Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek 'having knowledge') is a collection of religious ideas and systems that coalesced in the late 1st century AD among Jewish and early Christian sects. These various groups emphasized personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) above the proto-orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of religious institutions. Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity who is responsible for creating the material universe. Consequently, Gnostics considered material existence flawed or evil, and held the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the hidden divinity, attained via mystical or esoteric insight. Many Gnostic texts deal not in concepts of sin and repentance, but with illusion and enlightenment."
I consider myself somewhat Gnostic. I believe that the material universe is somewhat of a lesser form of existence, maybe created for learning ground, maybe as somewhat of a prision or punnishment.
That said, I strongly believe in the permanence of the spirit, and thus, in somewhat of "eternal life". So theoretically speaking, how can one "play god" by killing a mortal vessel? It would indeed intervene with ones path in said life, but in reincarnation aligned beliefs (presenting fleshly worlds as a way of learning and evolution) that would only mean that maybe some learnings would be unfinnished, and the spirit would have to try it again. With this argument I only adress your "playing god" statement, specially since the material world is such a "kill or be killed" enviroment, as seen in nature. Life here is meant to end at some point. It is not a perpetual state.
This would NOT mean taking one's life would not "weight", because as our spirits "bond" with the mortal vessel, our consience do shift to this way of living, and perceives material reality as one's true reality. So yes, taking someone's life may do have weight. But onto what exactly is that weight, I cannot infer, since now we are back into the morality part.
A life taken in war, being a viking, a spartan, or from any culture aligned with this morality, may have no weight at all, may even be an honnor for defending your homeland, for searching glory, for defending your family, for many reasons. Because as our spirits "bond" with the mortal vessel, spiritually speaking, we not only carry our intimate impulses (the spiritual morality that our true self carry within) but we also learn our people morality, witch can impact in our own moral in a deep way (thus the "learning" properties of the material world experience to some). You "forget" who you are, and try to learn to be someone new, thus returning to the spiritual world you may have learned something.
This long tour among philosophic and spiritual views to say: is it really that big of a deal? Is it not? We cannot say, since it's a personal experience to each of us. I cannot say how CTB would impact in your "soul", and I cant even be sure how it would impact in mine. What I can do is to deepen my bonds with my own higher self through self knowledge and try to find out what I really want deep inside, and try to feel if it is a decision that I am ok with.
TLDR: Every journey is different, existence is complicated, moralism is not black and white, just try to do your best. To me, if someones best means try to escape this horrific experience that we all call "life", so be it. I am not to judge others, only myself.
I don't associate suicide with morality at all. Pro lifers want you to believe it is. Suicide is a choice. I only harm myself. It is more a victimless crime than it is a morality issue.
I don't associate suicide with morality at all. Pro lifers want you to believe it is. Suicide is a choice. I only harm myself. It is more a victimless crime than it is a morality issue.
I can totally understand that. As I stated, my POV is of someone who is spiritual, and believes in something after this life. And even so, I do not view it not even as a crime.
I agree with the idea that one should strive to do the least harm. The only problem is can we essentially play "God". Are we to judge? Even if it's the right thing to do. Should we take that in our hands and sentence someone to death? Does anyone truly have that right? I wonder what it would do to the soul of someone who takes that right? I think freedom to follow true desires for the entirety of the human race would be a utopia, unless it was real, then it would be anarchy, showing the best and the worst of the human race.
Do you believe someone can break their own morality by continuing to go against it?
It's SUCH a difficult topic. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty... Overall- I don't think it's a good thing because of the possibility of wrongful conviction. That aside- morally- it's still difficult... Should it be a life for a life?
Thing is- from what I've read- your viewpoint is of an individual sending that criminal to their death. Whereas- it's the law that does that. In the best scenario- only if the case is watertight would that happen. That person- with reasonable mental capacity commited that heinous crime- knowing it was wrong. Knowing what suffering they would cause and knowing what would happen to them if they got caught- yet- they still decided to do it. It's the system that would punish them- not an individual seeking revenge. Ok- yes- a human system rather than a divine one maybe but not any one individual.
If it was a case of an individual retaliating- or- simply protecting themselves or others- that's also a bit tricky. It's probably easy to use too much force when you are angry or scared. It's hard to say whether that is an immoral act or, a reflex reaction to a dangerous situation.
Plus, the whole idea of 'the greater good' is something difficult too. Would it really have been so bad if one of the early assassination attempts had succeeded on Hitler? Were those soldiers acting immorally? Are ALL soldiers acting immorally? Surely- people have the right to defend themselves and others. How can soldiers be sure they're fighting on the 'good' side?
As far as suicide goes. Again- difficult and largely dependant on religion for the individual morality perspective. If you believe your life belongs to God- then- yeah- it might be more of a problem if you reject it. I'm more of the feeling my life belongs to me. So morally for myself- there aren't so many issues. There are of course moral issues for the people left behind. I don't WANT to hurt them. All I can realistically do though- is to hang on for the few remaining people I am close to to die first and continue to isolate myself as much as possible from everyone else- to try and reduce the impact.
Thank you all for your insightful, articulate responses. I'm very grateful. I've been able to think through a complex situation thanks to everyone's help. I think I put a lot of weight on morality in every aspect of life, but that's just who I am. I don't believe in God as an omnipotent being, but rather use the terminology as a symbol. I do, however, believe in an afterlife and the soul. I care more for my spiritual being than my physical one. I don't place much value in any man-made laws, so I'll navigate life doing what I believe is right and/or justified. To anyone wondering, I never had a doubt that it's okay to take control of your own life and choose when to die. I think any merciful God would agree and understand that if the "gift" of life was too much of a burden to bear then it is okay to alleviate that burden.
Both the Bible and Qur'an seem to support this in some form and there is value in all teachings throughout history, regardless of faith. Although Buddhism seems to believe all suffering is brought upon yourself. Death would only be one of many solutions to the temporary suffering of life. The real goal then shouldn't be death but this quote from Buddha. "Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling… perception … fabrications… consciousness… birth … aging… death … suffering & stress… defilement, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness."
1 Corinthians 10:13
No test or temptation that comes your way is beyond the course of what others have had to face. All you need to remember is that God will never let you down; he'll never let you be pushed past your limit; he'll always be there to help you come through it.
"The Cow" Chapter 2 verse 286 of the Qur'an
God does not burden any human being with more than he is well able to bear: in his favour shall be whatever good he does, and against him whatever evil he does. O our Sustainer! Take us not to task if we forget or unwittingly do wrong! "O our Sustainer! Lay not upon us a burden such as Thou didst lay upon those who lived before us! O our Sustainer! Make us not bear burdens which we have no strength to bear! "And efface Thou our sins, and grant us forgiveness, and bestow Thy mercy upon us! Thou art our Lord Supreme: succour us, then, against people who deny the truth!"
The most noble moral action we as a society could take would be to create a culture in which medically assisted death was freely available and offered to anyone with no gatekeeping. People would also be getting all the "moral" permission they need to feel good about going through with it. So much suffering would be prevented in such a culture...it is simply unfathomable.
The most noble action in this world would be to value, love and take care of people. This delusional reality is so twisted that it is merciful to let those who are too good for this world die peacefully. Those that manipulate the way this world functions truly deserve death.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
