Act of suicide is an immoral thing to do, because it kills life. Even if it is one's own life. It is still killing which is the most evil act to commit.

It is also an evil act in the sense that committing suicide is not just killing one's own life, but also it destroys the world the one has lived in. The moment one kills oneself, the world one belonged to also evaporates with all the people in it and all the memories, and relations one has built in it.

Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths.

Moreover, one cannot kill oneself, if one has something or someone one loves. Love is a strong foundation for life to be keep going. Loving can only continue and is possible while one is living.

Act of suicide is an immoral thing to do, because it kills life. Even if it is one's own life. It is still killing which is the most evil act to com — Corvus

Are you a pacifist? Do you think killing is wrong in all situations? War; self defence?

in all situations? War; self defence? — Tom Storm

Yes, it is wrong in all situations. However, the situations force the wrong doings.
In those special situations, killings can and will happen, which are totally different cases from willful act of the wrong doing.

Are you referring to human life or all life?

Are you referring to human life or all life? — LuckyR

For the topic of this thread, the discussions should be limited to human life only.

Got it. The presence of life, necessitates the presence of death. Thus death itself is not abnormal or "evil" or "wrong". Assuming humans have agency, then causing someone's death against their will is, as you've noted, the most wrong of wrongs. As would be causing someone's death at their request if you either believed they were incompetent or under external duress or temporary internal duress in my opinion. However, assisting someone who is competent and under permanent internal duress, is an extention of the hospice process, in my opinion.

:100:

... the old folk who complained most about old age were likely the same folk who began whinging in their teens and never stopped. — Tom Storm

:up:

what has gotten better is my ability to live with depression — Moliere

Me too.

Act of suicide is an immoral thing to do, because it kills life. Even if it is one's own life. It is still killing which is the most evil act to commit.

It is also an evil act in the sense that committing suicide is not just killing one's own life, but also it destroys the world the one has lived in. The moment one kills oneself, the world one belonged to also evaporates with all the people in it and all the memories, and relations one has built in it.

Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths. — Corvus

A moral duty? Why?

This is spoken like someone who has never talked to someone who has chosen doctor-assisted death. How dare you judge them. I know someone who chose MAID (medical assistance in death) and they were the most moral person I ever knew.

A few weeks before his death, he told me, "I am excited about it, the way you get excited when you are going camping. You know that excited feeling you get planning a camping trip. That is how I feel."

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up?

Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths. — Corvus

I think that's a little sweeping. Most life on earth doesn't have a choice in the matter. That excludes choice, which excludes morality. (Incidentally, it also rules out the widely respected activity of defending one's family, etc.at the cost of one's own life.)
In fact, the idea that we have a moral duty to carry on until we drop acknowledges that we have a choice. The discovery of suicide by human beings is a radical difference from most other life forms in that respect. One cannot expect to simply rule out the choice if it exists, so the question "why carry on?" needs a response, not a ban.
True, in many cases, thoughts of suicide pass. They may be the product of circumstances or illnesses. But it does not follow from that that it can never be a sober, rational choice. The sceptical "Are you sure?" or "You can never tell what the future might bring" can be appropriate. But if it is not to dissolve into the arid wastes of philosophical scepticism, it needs to be backed up with solid answers - not mere gestures.

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up? — Questioner

I can't imagine that. But I've seen it. Twice.
In those cases, there was no choice available. But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness.
Now someone will ask me how I know that the choice was a real choice. The answer is, the same way that I know that the choice to stay alive until the bitter end is a real choice, when it is.

But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness. — Ludwig V

Thank you for that.

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up? — Questioner

Yeah dude. I have made multiple attempts on my life - two in succession, but the first weakened me too much to complete the second in short order.

I have a pretty nuanced view on suicide due to the above, coupled with two of my closest and best friends I have ever had killing themselves some years apart.

Suicide is devastating. It is harmful. It is almost unbearable for some of those left behind. One of my friends mother has never recovered. He died in 2009 and she still spends a certain amount of her time on her computer looking at his search history, his Facebook page and old messaged on his cell phone. It is horrible. It hurts.

But being in a position that you want to kill yourself hurts plenty more than I have ever felt as a reaction to a suicide. Forcing someone to endure what they perceive to unending misery, active, painful, scalding misery is immoral.

It is a lesser of two evils.

Until you come to the conclusion I have - which is that wanting to die is a product of the mind. Unless one is happy, and wants to die, it is, in a major sense, an illegitimate conclusion to draw about life.

So, do i blame those who kill themselves as immoral? No. It's a-moral. But I do harshly judge those who think its their right to enforce someone else's misery to save them the pain of that loss.

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up? — Questioner

The people who are supposed to have been suffering and decided to end their life could have been actually claims of the relatives who want to speed up their inheritance, or the media which are financed by the corrupt politicians who want to reduce the care expenditures, so that they can get bigger salaries.

But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness. — Ludwig V

Please read my post above with attention. Suffering cannot be a proper reason for ending one's life. Life itself can be viewed as suffering.

They aren't exclusive. One can consider life suffering, and thus want to escape it. I see no issue.

Just because some one said he/she is suffering, you think it is right to end their life? It seemed those who financially benefits when someone dies seems to supporting the idea. OK, it is not exclusive, but even 1 in 100 of possibility of the case, it doesn't sound right. Nothing is 100% exclusive. It is not excuse to end others life just because they are suffering.

I have made multiple attempts on my life — AmadeusD

Okay, so we both seem to be coming at this from subjective angles, through the lens of our personal experiences. I wonder if we can step back and examine it from a philosophical angle.

Some questions that are raised:

Who owns a life?

Do obligations to others supersede that ownership?

Is interference in one's desire to kill themselves morally sound?

I realize a lot of answers will begin with "it depends" - so please take the conditional statements wherever they lead you.

This is a more of logical thinking rather than anything to do with pacifist or whatever nonsense.
X is suffering, doesn't logically entail X must end life.

There is no rational connection on that thought process that X is suffering, therefore X must end life. It is a propaganda spread and pushed by some dark money grabbing intention claimed by the greedy relatives of the sufferers, legal and medical professionals, and of course the medias.

X is suffering, doesn't logically entail X must end life. — Corvus

Don't think anyone has said that. The point is about personal autonomy.

You seem to just be repeating yourself. Nothing was said about ending someone elses life. I get the feeling there's an emotional block here for you?

All i've said is that suffering is, in fact, a good reason to end one's life. We often do this in palliative care, whether legal or not. People being forced to suffer is morally wrong (on my view.. which I do not apply to others). I also think killing oneself is bad but I can't see why it would be morally wrong. Your point just seems to be "I don't think your suffering is a good enough reason to upset me".

1. Who owns a life?

2. Do obligations to others supersede that ownership?

3. Is interference in one's desire to kill themselves morally sound? — Questioner

Haha, yes, you nailed it: It depends. I'll have a go at each, nevertheless.

1. The owner. This seems to essentially mean between ages of about 0-16, the parents of that child (or, their caretaker/s. We seem to legally agree with this position). After that, it is the person who is living the life in question. They are free to do as they please with their life (hint: Not other's lives, which will come into play for 3.);
2. Usually, not, imo. I think you would have to have made a direct promise (broadly speaking) to not kill yourself for that obligation to supersede the overwhelming desire to end one's abject misery. But this is why it depends - if you're just some dickhead teenager who thinks being grounded and having a douchebag break up with you is reason enough to end yourself, maybe your obligations to not upset others do supersede your desire. But then, if you're a teenager, i've already stipulated you can't make that call within my answer to 1.. I presume I'm going to give some contradictions here, so bear with all the answers as they are.
3. Very carefully worded (i hope?). Yes, interfering with someone's desire to kill themselves is sound, imo. If you can alter someone's perception such that they are not longer suffering in the way that caused the desire, that's going to be advantageous to probably many, many people. So, That's fine with me. Actively preventing someone who is stuck in a cycle of utter despair with no end in sight, and having tried many options to ameliorate - I think best leave them to it. We all have to deal with loss. One less person suffering seems to perhaps be a good thing - and going out on your own terms seems even better.

My question would be imagine the 86 year old pancreatic cancer patient who wants to skydive without parachute to go out with a bang (you can come up with many similar situations). Are we wary of that?

Thanks - these were great questions, Questioner :P

Post-Script: I think I am committed to the idea that "I didn't ask to be brought into this life. I shan't ask when I want to leave it"

that X is suffering, therefore X must end life. — Corvus

No, I wouldn't advance this position. There is no "must" about it.

But if a person believes they have no quality of life and cannot live their life the only way that life would be acceptable to them, does it not become their decision?

Yes, interfering with someone's desire to kill themselves is sound, imo. — AmadeusD

Again ... it depends ...

My spouse, once very active, was made severely disabled by MS. Once they made their decision to use medically-assisted death, it took months to convince me of it. But finally, due to my deep respect for this person, I came to accept their decision.

Hmm. I was being quite careful there - interferring with the desire wouldn't be convincing her away from using (i presume?) MAID. It would have been attempting to adjust her worldview to not want to die.

That said, I am incredibly sorry for your loss and respect your journey there immensely. Thank you for sharing.

I was being quite careful there - interferring with the desire wouldn't be convincing her away from using (i presume?) MAID. It would have been attempting to adjust her worldview to not want to die. — AmadeusD

I tried. "We have to look for ways for you to live, not to die."

But they were quite set on it. Never a second thought. No fear of death. Once I said, "Look, we have to prepare to live for the next thirty years like this."

They got quite upset. "Don't tell me I have to live like this for thirty years!"

I want to emphasize that they were very at peace with their decision. They were filled with gratitude for the good years they had, but could no longer live in a body that had already left.

That said, I am incredibly sorry for your loss and respect your journey there immensely. Thank you for sharing. — AmadeusD

You're welcome.

X is suffering, doesn't logically entail X must end life. — Corvus

It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights".

Countries where medically assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal are basically telling people, "If you can't live up to our culture's standards, then it's better that you don't exist at all. And we are gracious enough to make options for this available to you." Some people internalize this and make use of those options. (And there is no shortage of those who will comment on this with, "Finally, at long last."

Nothing was said about ending someone elses life. — AmadeusD

What discussions of this topic so often so frustratingly lack is an acknowledgment that many people often have the desire that some other people would not exist or that they would die.

Have you ever been told, as a teenager, by another teenager, "Do me a favor and die!"?

Do you think that people magically stop thinking like that once they become legal adults?

Countries where medically assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal are basically telling people, "If you can't live up to our culture's standards, then it's better that you don't exist at all. And we are gracious enough to make options for this available to you." Some people internalize this and make use of those options. (And there is no shortage of those who will comment on this with, "Finally, at long last." — baker

I don’t know if that’s true. I am currently well and healthy, but I want to retain the option of ending my own life if circumstances deteriorate. If I were to develop a terminal illness that involved significant suffering, I would want that option available.

It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights". — baker

If your own son or daughter was suffering of some illness, then would you let them end their lives? Is it a logically coherent thought process? I find it impossible to understand that claim.

But being in a position that you want to kill yourself hurts plenty more than I have ever felt as a reaction to a suicide. Forcing someone to endure what they perceive to unending misery, active, painful, scalding misery is immoral.

It is a lesser of two evils. — AmadeusD

My friend's suicide in high school most likely triggered my brother's schizophrenia, which lead to his addictions, which lead to his OD death, which may have accelerated my mother's decline and death from stage 5 Parkinsons.

Do I condemn him as evil? Hell no. But in terms of total suffering? I have three chronic mental illnesses myself, his death their origin story. It is too complicated a topic to state that suicide is the lesser of two evils. It makes 'sense' sometimes, it doesn't in others, and most fall into the mushy grey moral middle.

I won't condemn the choice and agree with you that forcing a life of suffering is immoral. I am glad you have never felt that extremity of pain following a suicide. But my friend was bipolar - his life was objectively not all 'scalding misery'.

And some suicides are an escape from consequences, or cultural - I lived in Tokyo for years where the 'honourable' suicide tradition has a long history. Jump in front of a subway and your family gets the bill - to the extent that certain 'cheaper' lines were preferred.

If your own son or daughter, then would you let them end their lives? Is it a logically coherent thought process? I find it impossible to understand that claim. — Corvus

I asked my mom's nursing home manager when she reached stage five if we could consider the option. The manager was appalled, despite this having been my mother's stated wish. Had I had the power, I would have made it happen in a second.

And yes, were my own hypothetical child to suffer to such an extent, if I believed this is what they wanted, as I did with my mom, I would reach the same conclusion.

Life itself can be viewed as suffering. — Corvus

I think 'life is suffering' a human universal. But of course, some people suffer dramatically more than others. As one who, hopefully, is not in the latter category, where do you get the certainty to conclude those who are must continue?

Moliere and I were talking about 'better conversations' earlier in the thread. For me, suicide remains perhaps the most powerfully taboo topic we have in Western society, so kudos to you and all for the personal and philosophical contributions both.

Too many deaths of despair these days not to try something different.