When is it morally right to feel relieved that someone has passed?

[noname223]

I am not only thinking about suicide when I had this thought. Okay now I will explain why I thought about that. I read a story of DFW this day. It was heartbreaking. The story was short. There is an accident happening to a very young baby. It gets boiled from hot water in a kitchen accident. The parents are shocked and want to save the child. They try to cool it but they forgot something. The diaper of the baby was full with boiling water. They realized that way too late. It was a very emotionally intense story and cried a short time after I read it. There is an open ending. We don't know whether the baby dies or whether it has to live with severe permanent injuries being in pain for most of its lifetime. It was also hard because I experienced child abuse and know how damaging this can be. Of course this case is different.

I read some possible interpretations. When I finished the story I rather believed the baby did not survive. One person on the internet said that people who believe that make it themselves too easy. He rather thinks DFW wanted depict the beginning of a long tormentng journey of an individual. I think both interpretations have good arguments. I recognized I could better cope with this story believing the child died. And the guy on the internets wrote that is rather a thought that shall comfort the reader.

This raised questions in my mind. Why can I cope with this story better when I think the child is dead? Maybe it is because of my personal experience in life. I was target of bullies, got abused etc. I am just scared this child could experience the same just worse. I think the answer most people will say depends on their own values and life experiences. I think many try to imagine oneself in a similar position. But it is one thing to thinking it through as such a thought experience in theory or really experiencing it.

I think this happens when we hear stories about humans in comas. it is a difficult question when to stop the machines. And the answer will depend on our own value systems. I think many imagine themselves in a similar position and decide on the wish of one's own beliefs. But there is a common mistake in my opinion. For example when religious people want to force their religious beliefs on atheists or other people with a different faith.

But this baby had no religion. One cannot ask about its values or beliefs. One cannot ask their friends and family what could be his or her own wish. This makes it more difficult. I asked myself if my interpretation was kind of selfish. On the other hand it is a fictional story but that is another point. It was rather a thought experiment about a real baby at this moment for me.

I don't really have a good answer. But it reminded me of something that happened to me in real life. My granddad died after a tragic family argument. I think many of us coped with it by saying at least he does not have to suffer dementia. It was a thought that comforted us. But I am not sure if that is the easy way out. I think he wanted to live on. And honestly thinking about that makes me pretty sad. It was a coping mechanism. But dementia is a horrible illness with often very bad life quality. We were not glad that it happend. But this thought could comfort us. He does not have to suffer.

A whole different perspective on this discussion would be how this relates to suicidal people. Or when dangerous people like terrorists die. (I have made a thread about the latter one). I don't want to dive into that now. It is really a complex issue. With many possible biases. There is probably no true answer. This was only a short abstract on my thoughts. They are not necessarily right and can contain mistakes. It is ethically a very difficult topic.

 

[Source Energy]

when you know they were in great pain physically or emotionally, with no relief in sight. Some ppl suffer mentally for decades until they call it quits. It is ok to be happy for them.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Whenever that person was suffering greatly- or wanted to go themselves- I think it's fine to feel 'happy' for them. I think we'll still likely be sad but that's likely a selfish sadness- because we miss them. Ideally- it's best if it's their wish of course. It does complicate things when you can't get the person's consent but it is obvious they are suffering.

Also- not exactly moral but there are some people this world would likely be better off without. If they themselves bring about pain, misery and death- why wouldn't people be at least relieved when they meet their demise? As in- dictators.

With the baby story. That's horrific. That poor child. I think all it is is just relief that the child's suffering was hopefully short. If the story had been fuller and you learned that the baby had become unconscious early on, got rushed to the hospital, was saved, had continuing problems but managed to thrive in spite of this- I expect you'd be 'happy' for them in that case. Even if the child had survived but struggled- you perhaps wouldn't exactly wish it dead. I expect- seeing as death seemed probable in such an awful circumstance, it likely is a relief. Plus- given your circumstances, I'd say it was a sign of compassion- you didn't like the thought of the child suffering at the time- or, after.

While I'm not exactly generally 'happy' for people who die- most especially if they didn't want to- I also wonder what they might have spared themselves by going at that point. That's obviously my twisted, pessimistic bias but to me- those who are out of all this are the lucky ones! Of course- the ideal would be for us to be able to trade places. (If they indeed wanted to live.) Still- like Dumbledore said in Harry Potter: 'Don't pitty the dead... pity the living.'

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Morality is irrelevant when it comes to feelings or thoughts. What matters is actions. Feelings aren't electrical charges anyways; they don't cancel each other out and you can have polar opposite feelings about something.