Does anyone owe anyone else his or her life? — Natherton

To my parents, yes I do.
At least, by my standards

Does anyone have a duty to suffer for anyone else's benefit (or to forestall anyone else's prospective suffering)? — Natherton

In general, I don't think so but if you had a sensible and appropriate responsibility in the cause of their suffering then I think that you should have a responsibility to suffer for their sake. Keep in mind, just because their suffering was caused by you doesn't mean you have a responsibility to suffer for them, it has to be a sensible responsibility which you have.

Does the mere fact (i.e. imposition) of being born render each one of us a slave -- to family, to community, to the species? — Natherton

To some extent, YES. If you are born into this world, then you do have a responsibility to obey your family, community and the species as a whole. It is a social contract. You have your parents to thank for everything they did for you when growing up, your community for providing a safe environment and facilities which your parents couldn't have afforded without them and your species for being at the top of the food chain and all the inventions that give you this comfortable life.
Now if you view this as slavery then that is your opinion.

There's a clause in hospitals according to which you can sign a document in which you refuse to receive a CPR (Cardiopulmonary resuscitation), e.g. during your operation, etc., if this is would be needed. On a less official basis, you can also refuse to do chemiotherapy (for cancer), a Coronary bypass surgery, etc. Can these cases be labelled as "suicides"? — Alkis Piskas

I'm not sure, I think that it might depend on how a person thinks. If it was me, who refused any such thing then I would have done so with the expectation of death but I don't think that everyone thinks that deep. They might refuse to do so because they think that it is inappropriate or that the side-effects are too adverse but the thought that they might die doesn't even cross their mind.
So, if they didn't even thinks about their death while they decide to refuse these services then it is practically a suicide but you can't really blame them for it.

Also, I am sorry for such a delayed reply. I had more free time until a few days ago but now my tests are here so I am a lot more busy.

There are cases of loss in which just realizing that you have lost everything is enough to put an and in your life. In Greece, there have been hundreds of suicides at the peak of our economic crisis in 2010-2014, committed only because persons lost suddenly everything and mainly their houses seized by tht state or banks because of unpaid taxes, loans, etc.) This kind of losses don't involve grief. They lead to "cold" suicides. — Alkis Piskas

I think that the person who lost his/her property probably surmised that whatever happens now, after he/she has gone bankrupt , will be too much for him. He/she doesn't want to work hard to get back to his/her initial socioeconomic standing. Maybe, he/she just thought that, " what was it all for? Didn't I work so hard to get a nice and peaceful life." The person suffered in the past with the promise of a happy future which because of the economic crisis, they feel like they have not been paid back for the pain they endured. In which case we can conclude that the their suffering has been meaningless. If their suffering has been meaningless then I don't know.
I feel like the I have made this whole argument redundant because I said that suicide is wrong but one can do it even if it is the wrong thing because we can't suffer too much. Then where does my argument of ethics begin, what do I decide the ethnicity on. Rationality alone is not enough, I have to have a reason which becomes the foundation of the ethics I promote but that foundation will be based on feelings.
If I say that the foundation is to not suffer meaninglessly, then it should be alright for that person to kill themselves.
I am not so sure about my statement that Suicide is wrong, no matter the circumstances. I haven't changed my mind but I am wavering.

It is too much! Objectively so. The global distribution of happiness and suffering is unequal and this is true for even within smaller subdivisions of the human family - you can't expect a person to undergo torture and be ok with it when someone in another house, neighborhood, community, state, country pops pills for just a headache.

As for morality, feelings, and rationality, remember suffering and happiness are emotions. — TheMadFool

Oh sh*t, I see. I am not wrong in saying that he should not kill himself but I think that that doesn't mean that he shouldn't die or live. I get what you mean. I think that the person who is suffering can't decide whether he should decide to live or die, but it can be decided by a third-party. I a heads up, I am not saying that he should not kill himself. I am saying that if he kills himself then it is a sin but he should commit that sin instead of placing his hope a promise of a better future which may or may not happen.

I said earlier that a suicide is right only if your situation is objectively wrong.
— I love Chom-choms
But the title of your topic is Suicide is wrong, no matter the circumstances. Have you changed your mind in the meantime? :smile:
Anyway, you maybe mean what I also thought, that is there are cases where there is no meaning in staying alive, e.g. extreme suffering, being in a coma, incurable disease, etc. But no would call a "suicide" stopping life in those cases. — Alkis Piskas

Read the whole thing, I say that suicide is right only if the situation is objectively wrong but then proceed to say that by the standard of rationality, it is impossible to judge any situation to be objectively "right" or "wrong".

But there have been also cases in which people have committed suicide because they have lost their whole fortune (big depression in 1929) or evrything valuable in their life (their partner in life) so their life had no meaning anymore for them. — Alkis Piskas

I think we can say that they are suffering emotional pain, which still is pain. So my argument should hold.

Another case is the Japanase who were committing seppuku (harakiri) --I don't know if they still do-- which was a kind of ritual or tradition and it showed bravery rather than a psychological problem. Kamikazie also were a similar case, an act of bravery. Soldiers, in general, can behave like that in wars. But all these acts of "bravery" are moments of "madness" (not as a disease, but just "going nuts"). They are simply irrational acts. — Alkis Piskas

This one is interesting. The reasoning behind seppuku is that it is better to die than to live is shame. To live in shame would be painful and hell-like for an honorable samurai, which is to say that it is better for a honorable warrior to die than to live a painful life and endure it. Again, just because that samurai thinks that he can't or that he shouldn't doesn't mean that he is right. It is more like for the samurai, both living or suicide is a sin. So whether he kills or doesn't kill he would be doing the wrong thing. Same for the Kamikaze.

I'm with you on suffering (in the present) for happiness (in the future). Notice however that the best-case-scenario is happiness (in the present) for (more) happiness (in the future). That says a lot, doesn't it? — TheMadFool

Well, if that was the case, then why would anyone commit suicide in such circumstances?

I guess what you described of suffering-happiness is about meaningful suffering - to come out of it knowing it (suffering) was worth it. Again, it doesn't have to be that way, no? Simply put, suffering of any kind, a little or a lot, is meaningless. There's no necessity, as far as I can tell, for suffering to be a part of happiness. — TheMadFool

I understand what you mean but can one truly know pleasure without knowing pain? Just think about your most happy memory, I bet that the circumstances surrounding the memory involved pain.

Given all that, a suicider reasons thus: not only is all forms of suffering empty of meaning, I (the suicider) have to bear more than that which is due to me and can endure. That's just too much, right? — TheMadFool

Yes, to that is too much but by the standards of the suicider and I have reasoned that the suicider is mentally unstable, he is depressed and pessimistic. Just because he thinks that it is Too much doesn't mane it too much.
Empathetically speaking, yes I would want to let him die if I can't help him any other way but I have said this before, morality based on feelings is unreliable as it changes and my morality is based on rationality.

I never claimed nor implied that I "believe in the supernatural". Your OP references it ("God"). Reread what I wrote. Tell me why, without reference to "supernatural" anything, "suicide is wrong, no matter the circumstances." — 180 Proof

I just used God because I thought people would roll with it. Without reference to supernatural, my argument is that: TOOOO LOOOONGG!!!! :rage:
Seriously though, the only supernatural element I used was God and my argument holds without it. I say that the judge of morality should be rationality independent of emotion. I argued that if a person endures pain, it does so with the promise of future pleasure. Killing yourself is an option which means that the present pain outweighs the extent of the future pleasure that the depressed can imagine but the depressed person can't think straight and thus just because he thinks that he can't doesn't mean that he actually can't. Therefore I have made it clear(I think) that his reason for suicide is flawed. So, he should not do so.

For the nonbeliever in a naturalistic terms, what makes suicide "always wrong" (i.e. categorically immoral without exception)? — 180 Proof

Please elaborate. I don't understand. If you believe in the supernatural then how does it relate to suicide being always wrong.

1. (Some kinds of) suffering are unbearable
2. We don't want unbearable things
Ergo,
3. We should do something to reduce/eliminate such forms of suffering — TheMadFool

Ok, but why should suffering be prevented?
Because suffering is bad, of course. We all want to avoid pain and suffering, it is the core of any action. All actions originate from this desire to avoid pain. That is absolute for us, we the living beings will avoid pain. Still, we don't live just to avoid pain, we live to feel pleasure. So, we also recognize that pain is necessary for pleasure. Winning a tournament after practicing very hard gives us pleasure, which is heightened by that pain we went through to achieve it.
With the above analogy, suicide is like a person who tried harder than anyone else to win the tournament but he still lost. He tried harder still for the next tournament but in the end he still lost. He finally gave up and quit.
That person who tried harder that anyone did so because he believed is the promise of greater pleasure that would come if he won, that it would all be worth it. Just like a suicidal person who believes that if he keeps on living then all his pain would end, then it would all have been worth it.
However, even after trying so hard, he still loses twice at this point, he is convinced that maybe there is pleasure waiting for him at the end or even if there is, he won't be able to get there, so he quits. Similarly, a suicidal person is also convinced that there is nothing waiting for him at the end , even if there is, he can't handle it anymore, so he too quits, i.e., he kills himself.
Does this change the fact that the pleasure waiting for that person after all the pain disappears. No, if he had lived, if had had tried at the next tournament, then maybe he would have won and would have felt the pleasure that he suffered for. Even by your logic, anyone who lives to avoid pain should not kill himself because that person lives for pleasure and to avoid pain( if he claims that he lives only to avoid pain, then he is hypocritical) and if he bears the pain then that sufferer is guaranteed immense pleasure that suffered for.

There is no rule book to life. I think suicide should be an unstigmatized personal choice. There are many reasons why suicide might be preferable to life - pain, illness, war, old age.... However, people who want to kill themselves are often making the decision based on a situational crisis and with some support through the mess they may find equanimity and joy again. — Tom Storm

My empathy for people agrees with you. I too believe that suicide is a preferable end to the pain that might come from living but I don't see it as "the right thing to do". Earlier, I said

I imagine this is what goes through a suicidal person's head. I am not sure though, but if it is then I can understand why he would want to die and I think that I might even help him die. However, I have thought about it many times but always, and I mean always, after a few days later, after my feeling of this matter have died down. When I look back at it, I question then decision and my conclusion is that it was wrong. I shouldn't have killed him neither should I have just watched him die. Maybe if I helped him then even if he had lost all hope, he would feel happy again.
My point is that, the empathy on which your argument is based, I have felt it and wanted to do something but that feeling disappears and I question the answer I found. So I find empathy to be an unreliable judge of morality and opt for a rational judge. — I love Chom-choms

So, for me, the right thing to de is based not on my feeling but on my rationale independent of emotion. I accept that I feel emotion and am compelled to pity and empathies with a tortured soul but as the judge of whether to save a life or not, if I find a reason that does not depend on feeling, which is absolute and independent of the changing moral beliefs of the people then that action is right.

Why 'coerce' someone to live (or demonize a person) who compulsively needs to cease living? — 180 Proof

↪180 Proof Yep. I suspect Christian thinking influences these sorts of positions. — Tom Storm

You are misunderstanding. Just because I believe that suicide is always wrong doesn't, for me, mean that it should not be done. I empathize with those people who are suffering and I would not stop a person if they were trying to save a tortured person neither would I try to stop a person from committing suicide. I am not telling you to de the right thing, I am just telling you what the right thing is. You are free and welcome to do the wrong thing. If you kill yourself then I would regard that as being wrong but I would understand what compelled you to do that. I am not forcing my beliefs of morality onto you. I judge the morality of an action on basis of reason but I am human and thus my emotions will affect my decisions when I have to make them but I want to, at least, recognize that I was wrong.

Suppose at this very moment, God visited you ...
— I love Chom-choms
Can you answer the question without bringing in God or any other external source, but by applying only reasoning? Why? Because the existence of God is not really established and/or universally acceptable. — Alkis Piskas

Fair point, then consider it like this: If before being born, your were to learn, by some unknown mean, everything that was going to happen in your life, would you still chooses to be born?

This is basically the same scenario, I made God the one telling you because I just thought that people would roll with it. It was a problem for you so you can see it like this. I am not trying to argue about the existence of God.

In other words, is there a rationality and sound ethical principles that supports your statement? That is, principles that are based on pure logic and not on some abstract idea of "good" or "bad".
That would be much more "fruitful" from a philosophical viewpoint, don't you think?

For example, if you define ethical behavior as one that "promotes survival and well-beingness" (both physical and non-physical) or "doing major good for the most", can this support your statement?
I believe yes. These principles, by definition, reject an action such as suicide, don't they? — Alkis Piskas

I said earlier that a suicide is right only if your situation is objectively wrong. I assume that you mean to say that you don't completely agree with this statement. So I'll elaborate.
A person commits suicide because he/she believes that his life is so bad that it is not worth living with the hope that someday you will be saved, which I understand as, the pleasures that one might experience are not worth all the pain that you would suffer to reach those pleasures. However, this statement is weak because the pleasures that you might experience are dwarfed by the pain you suffer now, like how you become pessimistic after losing many games. You are pessimistic but if you win the next few games then your outlook would change.
My point is that, no matter what we decide as right or wrong, it would not be objectively "right" or "wrong" because that "right" or "wrong" will change depending on the circumstances in our lives and how we feel. Therefore, a suicidal person's judgement of his life's worth is wrong because it is influenced by the circumstances on his life and his depressed outlook on life. At this point, it doesn't matter what is right because I have shown you that, at the very least, suicide is wrong.

Also, you speak of third person perspective as being more important than the subjective. I believe that both aspects are worth thinking about. The third person analysis is a useful way of looking at the objective aspects. However, I think that looking at the individual person who is on the precipice of suicide is not necessarily about sympathy, but about empathy, in trying to understand the suffering of the person at the moment when they chose to take their own life. — Jack Cummins

Oh I see what you mean. I won't say you are wrong but I think that it just doesn't sit well me. I mean like you said, a person with suicidal tendencies is in a difficult place emotionally and can't think properly. He is just suffering too much to care about what will come afterwards, if he is saved then so what? He doesn't want to suffer now. It's too painful. It's too much to handle for him. Salvation won't cure him. He has suffered too much. If salvation won't cure him then he should just stop feeling. If he doesn't feel, doesn't think, doesn't want then surely he won't suffer this much.

I imagine this is what goes through a suicidal person's head. I am not sure though, but if it is then I can understand why he would want to die and I think that I might even help him die. However, I have thought about it many times but always, and I mean always, after a few days later, after my feeling of this matter have died down. When I look back at it, I question then decision and my conclusion is that it was wrong. I shouldn't have killed him neither should I have just watched him die. Maybe if I helped him then even if he had lost all hope, he would feel happy again.
My point is that, the empathy on which your argument is based, I have felt it and wanted to do something but that feeling disappears and I question the answer I found. So I find empathy to be an unreliable judge of morality and opt for a rational judge.

I have known a few people who have committed suicide and try not to be judgemental in seeing what they did as 'wrong'. However, I do see suicide as being one of the worst possible ways to die and would like to find better solutions than to kill myself, if found my life to be completely unbearable.

One of the aspects of it seems to be that it is an act which often occurs in a moment of rash panic. Also, often people who do make a suicide fail and end up disabled or with long lasting health problems. One of the worst scenarios is that of people taking overdoses of Paracetamol and making some kind of recovery, often glad to be alive, only to discover they are likely to die through liver failure — Jack Cummins

That is why I think that the best way to discuss the "right" and "wrong" of an action is from the third person perspective. If you have stakes in a situation then you are bound to be biased. This thought was the beginning of this thought experiment which then led me to conclude that suicide is wrong in all circumstances.

However, it is likely that the person who commits suicide is in such a difficult place emotionally that they are not able to stop and think clearly. Also, there may be a difference between the person who has fleeting suicidal thoughts and the person who has recurrent or almost permanent suicidal ideation. I believe that there may be better ways forward for managing suicidal unhappiness, but I would not go as far as to say that suicide is absolutely wrong in all circumstances. — Jack Cummins

From this, your reason for suicide being right sometimes seems to be one relating to sympathy for that person but I think that sympathy is a bias because not everyone will feel sympathy for that person. So please, dig deeper for a reason against my claim.

My argument is not based on votes. If you fail to see the logic of putting an end to suffering by any means possible, sorry, I can't help you. — TheMadFool

I knew you would say something like that. Well, then please tell me your logic for saving a suffering man's life.

Would you or would you not put someone out of faer misery if the occasion arises? Would you be able to witness a person being broken on the rack, a person being tortured mercilessly, without feeling the urge to put a quick end to this person's life? — TheMadFool

I would, if I won't be judged for it afterwards and I don't have any duty to save the person in question, just walk away like nothing happened.

Suicide is not wrong. Would you or would you not put someone out of faer misery if the occasion arises? Would you be able to witness a person being broken on the rack, a person being tortured mercilessly, without feeling the urge to put a quick end to this person's life? The answer to both questions is an emphatic "yes" I believe. — TheMadFool

Yes, but that is your opinion, I am sure there is some psycho out there who would have the urge to torture that guy more. You may believe that your opinion is better but whatever the reason for you opinion may be, there is someone who would disagree with, I think, a very plausible reason that it is just more fun to see that guy suffer than to save him.
By saying this, I mean to say that the empathy which compels you to save or kill him is not present in everyone. You are in the majority of those who are sympathetic to the tortured person but being in the majority does not make you right.

You're beginning to sound like an evil genius, crafting all sorts of psychological conundrums to torture people to [mental] death and worse, resuscitate them again so that you could do it all over again. :chin: — TheMadFool

Please elaborate. I pride myself at being more of a voyeur that just likes to watch people react to funny scenarios than a sadist. It just so happens that most interesting peoples tend to have sad backstories and the funniest scenarios tend to involve suffering. Watching a person get tortured is dull to me but if that person has a red button in front of him while being tortured then "Ooh boy, what will he do?"

Oh that is an interesting perspective but as I said your decision is only possible because you have lived your life which before living you would not have.
— I love Chom-choms

What's the point then if my choice won't make a difference? Is this God just trying to get some cheap thrills at our expense? — TheMadFool

No, what is meant was that the thought process by which you decided that the re-runs could be fun was molded by your life experiences which before being born would not have formed. That is what I meant.
Also if you think that God might be having fun at our expenses then that is alright but, again, you can only think that because you have experienced living.

You would choose to exist but then you wouldn't remember about it
— I love Chom-choms

Again, in addition to the amnesia that would make the whole exercise pointless, if there's just too much pain involved, count me out. — TheMadFool

But, with amnesia, it would mean that after every run of your life, your soul remains, which then decides to have another run at life but I want the decision made to be purely rational so that is a big no.

Thanks, I realized that I was not clear with what I meant this discussion to be about. I am sorry but I was just too excited. this is the first discussion that I started. I wanted it to sound cool :wink:
I hope it is clear now.

Oh that is an interesting perspective but as I said your decision is only possible because you have lived your life which before living you would not have.

Having foreknowledge of one's life kinda takes the fun out of living - you would know in advance what would happen to you and it would be like reruns of a TV show. — TheMadFool

That's not what would happen. You would choose to exist but then you wouldn't remember about it. Otherwise, it would apply that something lingers after death with gets reincarnated and that is the basis of your beliefs. That would be an interesting, your soul is your moral compass but not not the point I am trying to make.

It is an argument against suicide. Hear me out, please.

What's your point?

Why not skip the God/Harry Potter stuff, which adds nothing, and just ask: If you had a choice never to have lived at all, knowing what you now know about your life events, what would you choose?

What are you hoping this question would reveal?
Incidentally, how on earth can God talk to you if you have never been born? Your identify, your sensibilities are moulded from your lived experiences, so there would be no one for God to talk to. Unless you are putting forth an argument regarding some kind of eternal, pre-birth soul - in which case you have, I think, a rather different philosophical question requiring further elaboration. — Tom Storm

That is my point, it is impossible to make a purely rational decision. If in the third scenario you say that you would rather not be born then then that would mean that what happened in your life is objectively wrong, the judgement of which is independent of your personal feeling but since our decisions are based on our beliefs, which are based on our life experiences therefore it is impossible to judge a life to be objectively good or bad.

The reason that this is an argument against suicide is that I think that the basis of the thought," I would rather not be born" is that my life is not worth it, the pain outweighs the pleasures. I also don't believe it reincarnation, which let's assume to does not happen. If I can say that it is objectively impossible to judge your life's worth and since I believe that you only live once therefore all arguments against suicide seem a bit wrong to me. I think that one should only commit suicide if their life is bad and the above argument makes it clear that your life may or may not be bad, So suicide is wrong, no matter how much you suffer.

I don't understand how I read it wrong.
At the very least, you claim that it is wrong the have children if you cannot take care of them financially and emotionally. I argue that it is wrong only when you are aware of that but still do so. Even if you were forced to have a child knowing you can't care for him/her, you would still be wrong but you would be pardoned a little, like in Buddhism you can lie to save a life, you would be rewarded for saving a life but also punished to lying, the same thing.

It's wrong to have children iff you are compelled to have them, or you're having them transactionally, or you deliberately have them even though you either (A) cannot financially afford to feed cloth shelter & educate them or (B) cannot emotionally afford to care for and cultivate them lovingly. — 180 Proof

I don't think it is wrong to have children.


The action in itself is neither right or wrong whatever your intentions may be.
I say this because I think that a couple can choose to have no children or have many children, the right or wrong is decided by the awareness of the couple. Even if the couple are poor and they choose to have children whom they cannot support but they don't have awareness then they are not wrong.(I won't say that they are right but they are not wrong)
If they are aware that they cannot support their child and still have one, for whatever reason, then they are wrong.

Yeah but you can't just disregard my point because I said that those who follow Christianity wouldn't question the teachings of Christ. The story makes my point more clear. Please comment on it.

Why would one want to question Jesus,s saying to love your neighbor. you either agree with his ethical teaching or you don't — Ross

Read this story.
Rajesh is a 2nd grader who hates algebra. He hates algebra partly because he finds it difficult and pointless, as he is not really going to use it IRL, but mostly because of Mr. Monty, his teacher. Mr Monty is a terrible teacher and always bullies Rajesh, even when he hasn't done anything. For Mr Monty, Rajesh's existence is a problem.
He comes home everyday and cries. He complains about it to his mother everyday. Her mother is a very busy lady, from taking care of her 3 children of which Rajesh is the oldest to being the sole bread-earner of the family, her hands are tied.
One day, Rajesh decides that he had had enough and next time he will punch Mr Monty and yell that he has had enough but when he tells his mother about his resolution, she is very imperative and explicate that he should not do that. Even if he thinks that he is right in doing this, he should not. He shouldn't even make passive resistance because his teacher is an elder and every elder should be respected.
Rajesh is, of course, taken aback by his mother's disapproval of his actions, he cant understand why his mother would say such a thing but regardless, his mother is the world to him, she is like a God to Rajesh. So he doesn't question what his mother said.
2 years later, his sister Priya is now in 2nd grade and Mr Monty hasn't changed. Priya comes to Rajesh, cries and tells him that she will punch him. Rajesh scolds her and tells her that she should never do that, IT doesn't matter what she thinks, no matter what happens she shouldn't disrespect his elders. Priya complains and shouts at him saying that he is wrong and he just likes to see her suffer. Priya, against her brother's advice punches Mr Monty. This doesn't end well, her mother is called to school and she has to make time in her busy schedule which then forces her to take a loan to pay the monthly rents. At the very least, Mr Monty is punished for unfair treatment of his students but now Her mother has to work day and night and doesn't even get a day's rest. All her irritation and anger is felt by Priya when she shouts at her. Rajesh too now ostracizes her, she should have listened to him. Look, because of what se did, her mother is so angry all the time. Rajesh still doesn't understand why her mother said what she said. He still thinks whatever mother says is right. Priya, on the other hand, doesn't regret her actions. She thinks that that is what should have been done.
Later in life, Priya now has 2 children and a divorced husband. She decided to become a teacher who doesn't discriminate against his student but her salary is not enough for her family.
Rajesh is now an adult and is living a satisfactory life with his wife and two daughters and is financially safe. He now understands the workings if the world much better than as a child. He realizes that it would have been wrong to punch Mr Monty no matter how much of a scumbag he was because if he had done so then all the other teachers would have started scrutinize him and his friends would not want to be with him because if he can punch a teacher that pisses his off then no one in the class is safe. So even if he hates it, he should suck it up because otherwise things will be worse.
One day, his elder daughter, Rani, who is in 2nd grade comes to him and tells him that her english teacher bullies her and treats her unfairly and that today she shouted at him. Rajesh scolds her and tells her that if she had any problem she should have told her father and that it is wrong to disrespect elders.
THE END

The early Rajesh is like a guy who just believes Jesus with faith and starts to spread the faith while the father Rajesh is like a guy who doesn't understand why someone would believe what Jesus said for reasons other than blind faith. So he questions Jesus and then comes to understand what Jesus meant. Then he goes around spreading the faith.

It's not a matter of debate. It's not a philosophical theory. without it it doesn't make sense. — Ross

Bro Bro Bro, how is this not a philosophical theory. I mean, Jesus is telling us how to live. IF that is not a philosophical question then I don't know what is.

If one starts to question these in my opinion one is not really a Christian

I think that it is not about not believing in the sermon or not. Rather it is not accepting the words of Jesus at face value but asking why?
Like, if my teacher told me that I shouldn't shout at my elder then I would ask," OK but why?" It's not that I don't believe in my teacher but I don't understand the reasoning.

Before this you stated that the purpose of wisdom is to improve one's life. So I assume that your argument for saying that poverty is not an intrinsic virtue comes down to you arguing that being poor will not improve your life if you are busy just scrapping by.
I agree with that but doesn't this just mean that there is a minimum level of socioeconomic success. That's all your argument entails. Your argument that Christianity is wiser because of its socioeconomic success is flawed because you assume that the minimum level of socioeconomic required by any person is the same. A Buddhist monk might not need the same level of success as you or anyone living in a developed country needs more socioeconomic success that one who is not.
I don't think that you are wrong but I think that being above socioeconomic success margin is important is analogous to being satisfied with your conditions that's all.