[ummdhibun]

(Original post by Kiss)
Can you explain why??? Not that I'm interrogating you, I just want to know why you think it is.

ll, i was a very suicidal person a few years ago. I used to involve myself in self harm and suicide ran thorugh my mind like wildfire at almost... every bad instance that occurred to me.

And thats what it was all about; me, me, me, me, me, me.

It didn;t occur to me that there were people who went through worse things that i was going through and were still hanging on. It didn;t occur to me that the people who did wrong to me were having their own problems. It didn;t occur to me that by harming myself i was harming members of my family that did actually care.

But that again is just my experience i suppose... there could be different cases

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by concubine)
Yes.

But so is forcing someone to live an unhappy life because you want them in yours.



So... Whatever.

True, but aren't the needs of many more important than the few? Especially if that could mentally affect others and lead to more suicides?

[NYU2012]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
True, but aren't the needs of many more important than the few? Especially if that could mentally affect others and lead to more suicides?

That assumes a utilitarian-esque meta-ethic.

Some people, such as John Taurek, would argue that the number of people in any given situation is not relevant to the morality or rightness or wrongness of any particular action, X.

[ilem]

Every single suicide attempt is highly individual and influenced by many different factors which makes it very difficult to comprehend the emotional state of a person attempting suicide without being in their shoes. In general such individuals are in a very irrational state of mind and genuinely believe that they are lifting a burden from their friends/relatives by killing themselves. So even though the intent of suicide may be selfless, the result is the absolute opposite of the intention, causing intense grief and incessant blame and guilt to those affected by the suicide.

[buchanan700]

(Original post by kka25)
And how do you define this 'ultimate point of despair'? Is it when no one reply to your post on TSR? Your cooking is horrendous? Your pizza was burnt in the oven? etc?

Well here's the thing - I don't know, I don't ever want to find out. I can only sympathise with people for whom life seems so hopeless and devastating that death is a better option. Your lack of any compassion is astounding and childish. I hope you never reach that desperate point either - I'd never wish it on anyone.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by NYU2012)
That assumes a utilitarian-esque meta-ethic.

Some people, such as John Taurek, would argue that the number of people in any given situation is not relevant to the morality or rightness or wrongness of any particular action, X.

yea, I'm beat... then again I would say, that assumes John Taurek is correct, surely lets just say for example you could kill 1 person or 100 (famous Nazi choice I think?) which would you pick, of course lets say for arguments sake each person is worth the same to society X

[NYU2012]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
yea, I'm beat... then again I would say, that assumes John Taurek is correct, surely lets just say for example you could kill 1 person or 100 (famous Nazi choice I think?) which would you pick, of course lets say for arguments sake each person is worth the same to society X

I do not subscribe to Taurek's views, I was merely stating that such arguments exist.

However, in the case of Taurek, he would say that the numbers alone, all else being equal, do not matter.

If you're familiar with Judith Jarvis Thomson's Trolley Problem, then suppose that the trolley can either run over 1 person, or 10 people -- Taurek would say that it doesn't matter which option one chooses because the number of people does not matter.

It's a bit of complicated argument for some people to understand but, essentially, it goes something like this: Each individual person has an equal right to life. To make this more simple, let's say each person has 1 right to life.

On the one side, the one person has 1 right to life.
On the other side, each of the ten people has 1 right to life.

Now, most people are inclined to say that the side with ten people has 10 rights to life -- But now you've added together each individuals right to life. According to Taurek, you've done something very strange because if each individual has an equal right to life, why are you, essentially, adding together their rights to life and stating that the ten have a greater right than the one? That doesn't make sense because the right to life is equal for all of the 11 people involved.

This explanation is weak at best, but it's not a very easy concept to attempt to portray over a short online post -- it's even difficult to attempt to discuss or lecture about due to some of the more 'annoying' nuances. But, this is the best I can do.

If you're genuinely interested, you can see his paper "Should the Numbers Count?"

[Dippy Dip]

Suicide is one of the most selfish acts imaginable, as is abortion.

But just because it's selfish it doesn't mean it's bad.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Dippy Dip)
Suicide is one of the most selfish acts imaginable, as is abortion.

But just because it's selfish it doesn't mean it's bad.

How is abortion a selfish act? There are hundreds of imaginable cases wherein abortion would be far from selfish.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by NYU2012)
I do not subscribe to Taurek's views, I was merely stating that such arguments exist.

However, in the case of Taurek, he would say that the numbers alone, all else being equal, do not matter.

If you're familiar with Judith Jarvis Thomson's Trolley Problem, then suppose that the trolley can either run over 1 person, or 10 people -- Taurek would say that it doesn't matter which option one chooses because the number of people does not matter.

It's a bit of complicated argument for some people to understand but, essentially, it goes something like this: Each individual person has an equal right to life. To make this more simple, let's say each person has 1 right to life.

On the one side, the one person has 1 right to life.
On the other side, each of the ten people has 1 right to life.

Now, most people are inclined to say that the side with ten people has 10 rights to life -- But now you've added together each individuals right to life. According to Taurek, you've done something very strange because if each individual has an equal right to life, why are you, essentially, adding together their rights to life and stating that the ten have a greater right than the one? That doesn't make sense because the right to life is equal for all of the 11 people involved.

This explanation is weak at best, but it's not a very easy concept to attempt to portray over a short online post -- it's even difficult to attempt to discuss or lecture about due to some of the more 'annoying' nuances. But, this is the best I can do.

If you're genuinely interested, you can see his paper "Should the Numbers Count?"

you have actually explained it well, I can fully comprehend the idea. That life isn't algebra to a degree...everyone has a right to that 1 life that they have, however I must say the idea seems somewhat selfish and I would still pick the need of the many of the few, unless the needs of the many were purely on a selfish basis, but we seem to have digressed off the topic ever so slightly, but I will take a look at the book! thank you.

[darthgirlie]

My dad has taken attempted to take his life a few time and yes i do think its selfish. But having suffered with depression i understand why he feels like that is the only option for him sometimes. People with mental health problems need to look after themselves and if taking care of yourself is selfish, some one who is suicidal is selfish but i think the negative feel of the word 'selfish' isnt useful in this context. You would say someone who has a stroke and needs to cared for in hospital as selfish and it just comes back to the fact that mental illness is seen as being avoidable and not an illness.

[Becca94]

To be honest, most people who committ suicide are in desperate need of help and the last thing on their minds is how selfish they are being. I don't think we can judge unless we truly know what it's like to be in that position...

[Kiss]

(Original post by NightBear)
Well, clearly, this is why you need to empathise. Just because you might not have been in such a position does not mean others have not/will not.

I'm not wasting any more time replying, because you obviously seem to be incapable of comprehending any sort of emotion beyond a certain level.

I think one of the best quotes I heard from Malcolm in the Middle was this:

"Hal: Reese, do you know what empathy is?

Reese: No.

Hal: Well, empathy is putting yourself in other people's shoes so you can feel what they do. If you hurt someone, empathy makes you hurt as well.

Reese:.........Then why would you want empathy?"

[Komakino]

Frankly I don't like applying the term selfish to suicide. Some people have so much pain that they may feel forced to do it just to lessen the pain. To then call them selfish seems very wrong to me.
Of course other people may genuinely be acting if not selfishly then certainly without much consideration to others. I personally think that no one wants to die so if they feel it's necessary to do so you have no right to judge them.

[Fallen]

Not in and of itself, but I think a single parent who committed suicide would be selfish for leaving their kids without a family. Wasn't their fault they were born, and parents have a responsibility to look after their children almost unconditionally until they can be expected to look after themselves.

[G50]

Vague question is vague. The act alone can't be selfish. It's the context in which it is done that matters. There's a difference between someone taking their life with the support of their family (e.g., terminal illness) and someone taking their life and leaving their family behind who will then wonder why and will have to pick up the pieces.

[Kazbian]

Yes, I think ultimately it is a selfish act, but I don't think it means the person is selfish.

If I were to kill myself, it would hurt so many people around me, whilst putting my own pain to an end. But if I was that depressed and that desperate that I didn't see any other way out, then it doesn't mean I'm a selfish person; it just means I'm really suffering to such an extent that I see it as an option.

I think it really depends though. There are so many reasons for committing suicide - depression, guilt, terminal illness etc. It doesn't feel like kind of thing you can make a sweeping, general statement about.

[gagaslilmonsteruk]

To me it's a sign that a person has needed help for a period of time and has been ignored. They have little self-worth, believe that nobody would notice, and therefore they make the decision that it is for the best, or if they are very sick and want to end the pain. I feel very sorry for them, and I think people should open the eyes to the suffering that is going on (leading to the suicide). If you look at how high the rates are as a result of being gay in America, it's disgusting. Homophobia is a threat to society and it should not be tolerated. Gay people have the right to live a life like any other person with no suffering etc. It makes me angry how wrapped up in ourselves we are, and how our eyes are not open to the wider world.

[NightBear]

(Original post by Kiss)
I think one of the best quotes I heard from Malcolm in the Middle was this:

"Hal: Reese, do you know what empathy is?

Reese: No.

Hal: Well, empathy is putting yourself in other people's shoes so you can feel what they do. If you hurt someone, empathy makes you hurt as well.

Reese:.........Then why would you want empathy?"

Haha, that's sort of funny but it follows logic if you think about it

[Belowski]

I think it's selfish for everyone around someone who is suffering and tried everything to expect and/or force that person to live. How cruel is that? Isn't what you do with your body your choice? You can't live for other people and other people can't live for you. That would be too selfish and too ridiculous. If you base your happiness and existence on someone else, how do you expect to survive when they do inevitably leave you or die from natural causes? Emotional pain inhibits quality of life.