"I've struggled to find a good argument against suicide ...."

Your OP lists some kinds of answers you would consider *not* acceptable, but it is not clear to me what kind of answers you *would* accept.

You received many responses, most within the framework of hedonistic materialism, and you've rejected all of those, maybe with good reason. By hedonistic materialism, I mean: pleasure is good, pain is bad, nothing else is good or bad except as leading to pleasure or pain; there is no God, no immortal soul: when we die, we cease to exist. Is that the framework you also are operating under? Would you be open to answers that question or deviate from those ethical premises---for example, Kantian or other deontologies, virtue ethics, natural law, non-hedonistic consequentialism? Or questioning the materialistic assumptions? It seems you've poo-pooed metaphysics, but it is important to realize that materialism, too, is a metaphysic.

Or maybe you are not looking for an ethical answer at all, but only considerations of "self-interest":
egoistic, what some would call "prudential" reasons? Do you think there is an objective rightness or wrongness about suicide, and if there is, do you care?

"How dare you judge them." People who judge that suicide is wrong are judging a kind of act. They are not necessarily judging any *person*. You yourself, I hope, will agree that judging an act is morally okay, because in that very sentence you were judging an act of judging.

"they were the most moral person I ever knew."

Seems to me this is begging the question. "They" may be the most moral person you ever knew *except* (possibly) in the matter of suicide. So then *if* suicide is okay, then yes, they were very good. But if suicide is horribly wrong and they did it, then they also did something horribly wrong. Same as a man who is morally upright in every way except that he rapes young girls. I won't deny that your person was very conscientious and did what they *thought* was right, but so do people who commit horrible crimes against humanity for the sake of some twisted political ideology.

"[Who owns a life?]. 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.);"

Yet parents do not "own" their children in the same way they own material things. If I own a book, I may cut it up, beat it without mercy, burn it, sell it to another. I may not do that with my child.

If I may not kill the child whose life I "own", it's not clear why "owning" my "own" life as an adult would mean I may kill myself.

Perhaps it is not safe to assume that any of us owns *any* life, even the one we call our "own."

People who judge that suicide is wrong are judging a kind of act. They are not necessarily judging any *person*. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Good point - separating the person from the behavior

"They" may be the most moral person you ever knew *except* (possibly) in the matter of suicide. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

And this begs another question - in what circumstances is suicide moral?

I few posts upthread I shared my personal experience with my spouse, and I am very satisfied with the morality of his decision to use MAID

And this begs another question - in what circumstances is suicide moral?

It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering.

↪Questioner It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering. — LuckyR

Agreed.

Did you understand that by "begging the question" I meant the logical fallacy of assuming what was to be proved? For it seemed to me you were making an implicit argument concluding that suicide is (sometimes) morally permissible. But then in your reply you used "begs the question" in another sense.

Did you understand that by "begging the question" I meant the logical fallacy of assuming what was to be proved? For it seemed to me you were making an implicit argument concluding that suicide is (sometimes) morally permissible. But then in your reply you used "begs the question" in another sense. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Sorry if I used the phrase incorrectly. I meant "raises another question"

Run the same argument with a pet and you get my position, legally.

If I may not kill the child whose life I "own", it's not clear why "owning" my "own" life as an adult would mean I may kill myself. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Because one is you, and one is not. By analogy. when you hold funds in trust, you cannot bankrupt the trust. You can bankrupt yourself at leisure.

It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering. — LuckyR

How can a person be free from "external coercion" when they are living in a culture telling them that by failing to live up to the culture's standards they have lost the right to live?

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. — Corvus

Some people (perhaps even most people) do hold those additional premises mentioned above. With those additional premises, it all makes for a coherent thought process.

It's not one I personally share, but it does help me understand others who do.

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. — Tom Storm

In other words, you have internalized your local cultural standard of what makes life worth living and from when on life isn't worth living anymore.

In other words, you have internalized your local cultural standard of what makes life worth living and from when on life isn't worth living anymore. — baker

Maybe that's a projection on your part. Certainly an overly complicated frame. If I experince irreversible pain I would like to die.

I can't see what relevance this has here? Other people's utterances or desires aren't relevant here until we talk about the desire to not have your friend/family member die. But that's not what's in your response. Hmm.

But, to respond: Yeah, obviously. Its not a serious claim. Its edge-lord nonsense. I can see why a particularly vulnerable person would be harmed by those words. But the idea that it would lead to actual suicide is extreme. Yep, it happens, but then the desire was not that of the actor.

Is that what you're getting at? I think that's prima facie a totally different conversation. — AmadeusD

On all levels, humans actually wish that certain other humans would die or not exist.
From children telling other children "Do me a favor and die!" to governments acquiring massive amounts of weapons and starting wars.
It's normal. It's normalized. Even if tacitly.

I can't see what relevance this has here? Other people's utterances or desires aren't relevant here — AmadeusD

Why on earth not?? Can you explain?

If other people want you dead, should you not kill yourself?
By staying alive, you are offending them!

Can we unpack this? Because other people's desires that someone should die or not exist certainly play a part in how worthy of life someone deems themselves.

Maybe that's a projection on your part. Certainly an overly complicated frame. If I experince irreversible pain I would like to die. — Tom Storm

It's not a projection, it's a fact. Not everyone thinks the way you do, it's not universal, it's not a given, it's not something that can or should be taken for granted about people.

How much suffering someone experiences along with the pain they're feeling is not the same for all people. This is kind of the whole point of Buddhism: to distinguish between pain and suffering. Pain is unavoidable, but suffering isn't. Suffering is that which, arguably, hurts more than the pain.

Some people (perhaps even most people) do hold those additional premises mentioned above. With those additional premises, it all makes for a coherent thought process.

It's not one I personally share, but it does help me understand others who do. — baker

It is just emotional response rather than logical thought process. There is no logical entailment from.
X is suffering, therefore X must end life. No added premises can justify that nonsense.

It's not a projection, it's a fact. Not everyone thinks the way you do, it's not universal, it's not a given, it's not something that can or should be taken for granted about people. — baker

Two things. 1) not everyone thinks like you do either. 2) I am not speaking for others, I am talking for myself.

How much suffering someone experiences along with the pain they're feeling is not the same for all people. — baker

Of course. People ought to make their own decision on this. But the option should be available for those who, like me, would probably prefer that option even if not ultimately taken..

The secondary question of whether this idea could be twisted through "peer pressure" or by unscrupulous relatives is distinct from the question of its usefulness.

But this idea -

you have internalized your local cultural standard of what makes life worth living — baker

Still looks like a projection, or appears to be a patronising dismissal of someone else's' view. The implicit assumption that someone is unable to make an independent assessment of this scenario for themselves.

After thinking about it it's not that I want to die, it's that I don't another way of dealing with my present situation.

On all levels — baker

Rejected. Perhaps we have no more to discuss...

Can you explain? — baker

I.,..did? If it wasn't moving for you, that's fine.

If other people want you dead, should you not kill yourself?
By staying alive, you are offending them! — baker

As noted, and supporting my slightly quippy response above, their beliefs, utterances and desires are irrelevant. The idea this hinges on is that i want to die.

Can we unpack this? Because other people's desires that someone should die or not exist certainly play a part in how worthy of life someone deems themselves. — baker

Well, they can. But quite often do not.

How can a person be free from "external coercion" when they are living in a culture telling them that by failing to live up to the culture's standards they have lost the right to live?

You seem to be conflating influence with coercion, I meant the latter.

Who owns a life?
Do obligations to others supersede that ownership?
Is interference in one's desire to kill themselves morally sound? — Questioner

1. The question is badly formulated. If someone owns a life, that is slavery. The idea that I might or might not own my own life is meaningless. But if you are asking, who has the right to make decisions such as ending a life, it seems crystal clear to me that only I can decide to end my own life. What about capital punishment? I oppose that. What about the life of someone who is not competent? That's much more difficult. But this thread is about suicide, so those situations are off topic.
2. DIgnitas are very clear that people contemplating their euthanasia should talk to their nearest and dearest and do their very best to persuade them to accept their decision. But there's a corresponding obligation, I think, on relatives not to unreasonably oppose it.
3. It depends on the details of the case. But sometimes it is not - and sometimes it is.

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. — Tom Storm

Me too.
I have heard that in Canada, it is not unusual for people to go through the procedure for euthansia but never use it.

DIGNITAS’ experience shows that only a very few people who enrol as members take advantage of the service for assistance with suicide. They usually feel sufficiently protected by the Patient’s Instructions. If these are observed – because they specify that no life prolonging measures are to be initiated – any life-threatening situation will lead to a natural death. Membership of DIGNITAS endows members with confidence: in the event of a hopeless situation, a member can say “I have had enough now, I want to die.” This feeling of security is of exceptional importance to mature human beings. — Dignitas Information Brochure

Don't forget about the instruction not to prolong life unnecessarily. It has legal force in many countries, though it goes by different names.

The question is badly formulated. If someone owns a life, that is slavery. — Ludwig V

Well, since we were talking about suicide, I thought it understood that we were talking about the life in question. Sorry for the imprecision.

What about capital punishment? I oppose that. — Ludwig V

On principle, so do I.

euthanasia — Ludwig V

Just a note - if it's assisted death we are talking about, it is not referred to as euthanasia, which removes the agency of the person making the decision.

'Sorry if I used the phrase incorrectly. I meant "raises another question"''

Okay, so you punned. No problem! I recently read something about people not understanding the phrase, so I wanted to be sure you understood, and now I know.

QUOTE
Run the same argument with a pet and you get my position, legally.

'If I may not kill the child whose life I "own", it's not clear why "owning" my "own" life as an adult would mean I may kill myself.'
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Because one is you, and one is not. By analogy. when you hold funds in trust, you cannot bankrupt the trust. You can bankrupt yourself at leisure.
UNQUOTE

I think both analogies fail.

1. "Run the same argument with a pet and you get my position, legally."

You mean like this? "If I own a book, I may cut it up, beat it without mercy, burn it, sell it to another. I may not do that with my child." (My words) Substitute pet for book: "If I own a pet, I may cut it up, beat it without mercy, burn it, sell it to another. I may not do that with my child."

(a) In many jurisdictions, those activities, except for selling, would get you in trouble with laws against cruelty to animals, and even where there are no such laws , those actions are immoral. True, you may euthanize a dying pet, but even with pets there are limits to what "ownership" allows us to do.

(b) More importantly, you are a human being, an animal with a rational nature. Your pet is not. That is a critical difference and makes the child far more analogous to you than the pet.

Incidentally, I'm wondering why you chose to qualify your position as something I would get "legally". I thought we were discussing a moral issue.

Or did you mean this? Substitute pet for child: "If I own a book, I may cut it up, beat it without mercy, burn it, sell it to another. I may not do that with my pet."
I don't see how that gets me to your position, legally or otherwise.

2. "Because one is you, and one is not. By analogy, when you hold funds in trust, you cannot bankrupt the trust. You can bankrupt yourself at leisure."

Agreed, you cannot, legally or morally, deliberately bankrupt the trust. But can you bankrupt yourself so freely? If you deliberately accumulate more debt than you can pay, it is the same as stealing. It is unjust to the debtors, and likely violates a duty towards yourself as well.

Both of these require quite short answers/

1. The analogy does not fail. You've simply changed the basis of the analogy. The entire point is that a child/pet/person is not a book. Ownership of a Pet does not entail you can do those things. Ownership of a book does - ownership is legal status, so we are specifically talking about that. I think that's all that needs to be said there.

2. I should have said deplete the funds, not bankrupt. That was entirely wrong and your objection works. But reduce it depleting funds and making yourself illiquid and my point goes through against that objection.

Well, since we were talking about suicide, I thought it understood that we were talking about the life in question. Sorry for the imprecision. — Questioner

Not an unreasonable assumption. But I wanted to put owning a life into a context that made it clearer, IMO, how absurd the idea of owning one's own life is.

Just a note - if it's assisted death we are talking about, it is not referred to as euthanasia, which removes the agency of the person making the decision. — Questioner

You are right. I'm a bit old-fashioned and forgot about this.

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? — Jeremy Murray

Suffering is brief, but death is eternal. Suffering can be endured, while death cannot be.

Death is literally momentary.

Death continues eternally. The moment of death is only the mode of existence transformation. One exists as a living, and one keeps existing as a dead after death. Death is eternal.