From a purely rational standpoint,
are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide? — Vera Mont

Yes.

1. It must not be emotional.

The mistake a lot of people make is they try to rationalize going through with an emotion. In all of these cases, this is not being rational and should not be done.

2. The resources to keep you alive are too costly.

If you're so injured that the only thing keeping you alive is a machine that will cost an inordinate amount of money and/or your time to the point where you and or your family are crippled financially and/or by time stolen from this, its viable to decide to commit suicide.

Again, this is not emotional. This is a careful cost benefit analysis that should be reviewed by others first.

3. Staying alive will result in an inevitable amount of unavoidable pain and degradation that will cripple you, and create an undue burden of time and resources needed by others to take care of you.

These seem to be the core three, and most situations can be addressed by putting them through these three points.

That being said, these are decisions you really cannot make on your own, and need other rational people to analyze the situation with you. If you don't want to tell anyone that you're thinking of doing it for example, then you shouldn't do it.

How can anyone answer this if you are precluding ethics from the discussion? Isn't this fundamentally an ethical question?

are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide?

This is vacuously true. That the cookie monster created the universe is a logically sound argument.

Are there frivolous and silly ones that nevertheless compel people to do it? If so, why do they?
Are there reasons that seem to make sense from one POV, but not from another?

I would say it is only silly or frivolous relative to what is actually good; which you precluded from the discussion.

Should other people intervene?

This is a moral question.

That being said, these are decisions you really cannot make on your own, and need other rational people to analyze the situation with you. — Philosophim

Where do you find these rational people in this situation? Not family members: they're emotional and have their own self-interest to consider - from both sides. If you talk about the burden your continued incapacity will place on them, they feel pressured to demur, say they'd rather have you than the money or free time or use of the living room, even though they secretly wish you had died in the accident and feel guilty as hell about that.
Then, too, family has the power to put you in a mental institution, just for thinking about it. Of course, that can't happen if you're already in hospital on life support; the worst they can do is send a psychiatric resident to come and talk to you. And he's not an impartial consultant.
Friends may also be too emotionally involved.
You could take a chance on your doctor, I guess. If you have the ability to speak intelligibly.

How can anyone answer this if you are precluding ethics from the discussion? Isn't this fundamentally an ethical question? — Bob Ross

I was asking it as pragmatic question. Or a legal one, if one were to make an argument in court.

If you objection is about your own ethical beliefs, you can simply say: "My belief system doesn't acknowledge any valid reasons for suicide." or "It's just wrong." or "I can't deal with this issue rationally." or nothing at all.
If it's about the potential suicide's ethics, he or she has to contend with them alone, while contemplating their options. We, onlookers, however, can be more objective.

"are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide?
This is vacuously true. That the cookie monster created the universe is a logically sound argument. — Bob Ross

My question was not an argument. Neither is the vacuous postulation about the universe.

I would say it is only silly or frivolous relative to what is actually good; which you precluded from the discussion. — Bob Ross

"What is actually good" in your book is unknown to me. I don't have the capacity to take all points of view on good and evil into account.
By frivolous, I simply mean something like a teenager in a snit slitting his wrists to make his parents sorry for treating him as they did. By silly I mean another teenager who jumps off the balcony because her schoolmates posted embarrassing photos of her in the internet.

Should other people intervene?
This is a moral question. — Bob Ross

Yes, if you like. It's a question about your opinion.

Where do you find these rational people in this situation? Not family members: they're emotional and have their own self-interest to consider - from both sides. — Vera Mont

Wrong. Rationally you want people who are invested in your well being in the picture. For example, my parents have given me the ability to call a "Do not resuscitate". I understand why. I will ensure that if there is a viable chance for their life and well being to be preserved, I'll do everything in my power. But I won't put them through torture or keep them artificially alive. Thinking everyone who cares about you means they can't think clearly, is not rational.

On the other hand, I can make a judgement to see whether they're just tired, depressed, or frustrated if they wanted to be killed without good reason. In that case, I can get them help. Emotionally they won't want it, but rationally, they should have it.

If you talk about the burden your continued incapacity will place on them, they feel pressured to demur, say they'd rather have you than the money or free time or use of the living room, even though they secretly wish you had died in the accident and feel guilty as hell about that. — Vera Mont

That is why you have multiple people. There may be one family member or friend who feels inconvenienced by you for the wrong reason. I won't 'pull the plug' without talking to my sister first. A rational mind understands that an isolated mind is much less capable then a good group of people with a common purpose.

You could take a chance on your doctor, I guess. If you have the ability to speak intelligibly. — Vera Mont

If you don't have the capability to ask your doctor, then you're not being rational in a decision to commit suicide. You can kill yourself but can't ask a doctor? That's not rational. That's purely emotional.

Rationally you want people who are invested in your well being in the picture. — Philosophim

For some people, that's fine. Some families discuss end-of-life decisions long before the situation arises; they have time to prepare mentally and emotionally.
Other people are, unfortunately, stuck with religious, volatile, sentimental, emotion-driven relatives, with whom you can't discuss anything serious.
Your parents are smart and lucky. Do were we, with my mother. But everybody isn't us.

Thinking everyone who cares about you means they can't think clearly, is not rational. — Philosophim

Not everyone, but many.

A rational mind understands that an isolated mind is much less capable then a good group of people with a common purpose. — Philosophim

Maybe so. But who says all the minds in a given situation are rational? Or that the person who has a rational reason for one particular decision isn't emotional about his relationships? He might want to protect his wife from the stigma, or his children from the guilt, or his family's reputation in a religious community. Every person has a different set of circumstance and a different mind-set.

f you don't have the capability to ask your doctor, then you're not being rational in a decision to commit suicide. — Philosophim

What? If your throat is blocked by a feeding tube, you can't think?

You can kill yourself but can't ask a doctor? — Philosophim

All you need is a finger on the button that controls the morphine feed and permission to use it.

But my question wasn't about physical capabilities. It was only about reasons.

Other people are, unfortunately, stuck with religious, volatile, sentimental, emotion-driven relatives, with whom you can't discuss anything serious. — Vera Mont

If these people are not invested in your well being, don't rely on them. Thinking about what I said should have made this answer obvious. Do you have an emotional wish to justify suicide? You doing ok?

Thinking everyone who cares about you means they can't think clearly, is not rational.
— Philosophim
Not everyone, but many. — Vera Mont

Again, this is an irrational response. Of course there are people who can't think rationally. Don't rely on those people. But don't shun your family and friends and think they can't be rational because they care about you. That's foolish.

A rational mind understands that an isolated mind is much less capable then a good group of people with a common purpose.
— Philosophim
Maybe so. But who says all the minds in a given situation are rational? — Vera Mont

Again, I felt I was pretty clear. You go to multiple people. Find professionals if you lack friends. Go online to suicide help forums. Call someone. The rational thing is to reach out to other people to ensure that your decision making is on point. An isolated mind is not smart or a genius. It is vulnerable and weak.

What? If your throat is blocked by a feeding tube, you can't think? — Vera Mont

All you need is a finger on the button that controls the morphine feed and permission to use it.

But my question wasn't about physical capabilities. It was only about reasons. — Vera Mont

Then lets leave the physical capabilities out of it.

If these people are not invested in your well being, don't rely on them. — Philosophim

Only, they are invested. Deeply. They just have very different points of view and beliefs. I've come across relatives with the power of attorney who absolutely forbade measures the patient herself requested. In that case, the medical staff is bound by the law.

again, this is an irrational response. Of course there are people who can't think rationally. Don't rely on those people. But don't shun your family and friends and think they can't be rational because they care about you. That's foolish. — Philosophim

No, it's a factual response. If the people who don't think the same way you do are your family, with the power to decide your fate - as in a life-support situation - consulting them is foolish. Friends may be a different story, assuming you have friends who are still ambulatory and compos - many old people have run out of friends through attrition.
Yes, it's a good idea to discuss your end-of-life decisions with reasonable people who are on your side. Sometimes that's down to professional caregivers.

You go to multiple people. — Philosophim

You're in a wheelchair or hospital bed, housebound. You go no place. Maybe you can use a computer and have one; maybe you can still see the screen and keyboard. Or not.
People come to you, if they're willing, or they shun you because you smell bad and remind them of their own mortality.

You have a clear grasp of best-case hypothetical, but not so much of the practical reality of people close to death.

An isolated mind is not smart or a genius. — Philosophim

Some are. But it doesn't take genius to decide whether your own life, or the anticipated future, is worth your continued attendance.

Then lets leave the physical capabilities out of it. — Philosophim

Can't. They - or rather the lack of them - are the most common of rational reasons. They're not part of the question; they're part of the answer.

The problem is that your question fundamentally makes no sense when taken as a whole: if it is just a question on "purely pragmatic" grounds, then there is no right answer—as pragmatism offers no actual answers to anything (viz., it is purely hypothetical). Your question, while claiming to ask a pragmatic question, is asking for real answers to what is considered proper, frivolous, etc. reason(s) for committing suicide; which goes beyond what pragmatism is capable of answering (and segues into moral discourse).

On pragmatism sans goodness, see this thread by @Count Timothy von Icarus: it has a good outline of the mistake you are making.

In terms of a legal question, all legalities stem back to morality (and specifically justice); unless you are asking just for what particular legal systems (that currently exist) consider a legally permissible form of suicide (and not what people think should be legally permissible).

The problem is that your question fundamentally makes no sense when taken as a whole: if it is just a question on "purely pragmatic" grounds, then there is no right answer — Bob Ross

That would be true, if that had been my question.
If what I did ask makes no sense to you, I'm sorry, but I can't change that.

In terms of a legal question, all legalities stem back to morality; unless you are asking just for what particular legal systems (that currently exist) consider a legally permissible form of suicide (and not what people think should be legally permissible). — Bob Ross

The Christian-based law is a whole other can of brainworms. Starting with : Where does a judge or legislator get off telling an autonomous adult what is permissible to do with his own life?
That's why I left consideration of the law out of individual opinion. There are and have been many different legal determinations on this subject. In some countries, and some states, the law has recently been changed, because of what the majority of voters think should be permissible.

If these people are not invested in your well being, don't rely on them.
— Philosophim
Only, they are invested. Deeply. — Vera Mont

Look, are you just going to keep inventing scenarios for every answer I give? Is it going to be, "What if your family are held by hostages, and those hostages are also suicidal?" next? :) I've already given you the answer on what to do from my previous replies. Why don't you tell me what the rational think would be from your viewpoint instead?

But don't shun your family and friends and think they can't be rational because they care about you. That's foolish.
— Philosophim
No, it's a factual one. — Vera Mont

Let me be very clear about the logic

A. My friends and family care about me.
Therefore they cannot think rationally about me.

This is wrong. This is not factual. I've already told you consult multiple people. For end of life scenarios, you should be discussing these with people long before you're put in this situation. I didn't say every friend or family member is rational. But to avoid friends and family because caring about you means they can't be rational? No.

You're in wheelchair or hospital bed. You go no place. People come to you, if they're willing, or they shun you because you remind them of their own mortality. — Vera Mont

I'm going to one up your silliness.

"You're a brain in a vat. There is no one. Not even you. The concept of suicide or living no longer exists. Despite this, you want to commit suicide, even though you don't know what it is. What do you do?"

Do you understand that I'm telling you general solutions to a general problem? Being rational is partly reasoning through the concepts as a whole to apply to specifics when needed. Use your own brain here. Understanding what I've said previously, what do you think is rational in this particular situation?

An isolated mind is not smart or a genius.
— Philosophim
Some are. But it doesn't take genius to decide whether your own life is too hard to bear. — Vera Mont

No, incredibly few are. The myth of the solo genius is a myth. Every idea needs to be bounced off of other human beings. No matter how smart you are, you are still human. You have a very limited world view compared to the richness of perspective and thoughts of multiple brains working on the same situation.

As for whether your life is "Too hard to bear," do you remember rule 1? Don't make emotional decisions. "Too hard" is an emotion. I already gave viable reasons for suicide that are non-emotional, and informed you that you should involve other people in it. Have you been thinking about those as you ask your questions? Because it feels like you're ignoring it and just pressing on with a bunch of "What if" scenarios that already have answers.

If you're a whiny emo who believes you're smarter than the rest of the world, that life is pain, and no one else can understand it because you're surrounded by idiots, you're being a child. I'll make the points even simpler.

1. Don't be emotional in suicidal decisions.
2. Involve other people who have your best interest, consult multiple to ensure the most rational decision can be gleaned.
3. Rational and viable reasons for suicide are excessive crippling, degradation, or excessive costs in resources or time from yourself or others to stay alive.

If you ignore the first 2 and decide you can make a sound judgement on 3 on your own, you cannot. That's an emotional retreat because you're afraid the first two will dissuade you from your emotional desires. Its not that complicated.

Look, are you just going to keep inventing scenarios for every answer I give? — Philosophim

Nope. Just mentioning the realities you didn't take into account.

A. My friends and family care about me.
Therefore they cannot think rationally about me. — Philosophim

Not what I said. I said not all families are able to think clearly or unemotionally when it comes to the potential death of a loved one. Nor are they always in agreement. Families vary.

A fierce, highly public battle took place between her parents....and her husband... Terri's husband argued that his wife would not have wanted her life artificially prolonged, with no hope of recovery.

It's rarely a news item, but this happens quite a lot in families, whether the patient is able to participate or not.

I'm going to one up your silliness. — Philosophim

You think old age, illness, disability and despair are silly? Implausible? I hope you have a long wait to find out.

"Too hard" is an emotion. — Philosophim

Ever have bone cancer?
Most people cannot abide by your rules.

Look, are you just going to keep inventing scenarios for every answer I give?
— Philosophim
Nope. Just mentioning the realities you didn't take into account. — Vera Mont

Because there are an infinite amount of variations and scenarios one can invent. First try to see if the rational rules I gave can adapt to the situation. If they don't, show me why they don't. Show me you're thinking about the discussion instead of peppering me with questions you haven't tried to solve on your own first.

A. My friends and family care about me.
Therefore they cannot think rationally about me.
— Philosophim
Not what I said. I said many families that care about one another are also emotional when it comes to the potential death of a loved one. You can't necessarily count on them thinking objectively. — Vera Mont

And you can't necessarily discount on them thinking objectively either. You keep emphasizing the first part while seemingly ignoring the second part. This is why I note you consult multiple people, not just one.

You think old age, illness and disability are silly? I hope you have a long wait to find out. — Vera Mont

No, I think your posting random scenarios without thinking about how they play in what has been discussed so far is silly. You're being contrarian instead of thinking about it. Apply what I've noted to your scenarios, then point out why they do not work. That's a rational discussion. Ignoring what I've said and just bulldozing ahead to specific scenarios without analysis to what's already been said is disorganized, and ignores what I've stated so far. If my points are going to be ignored and not thought about, then why am I bothering to chat with you? Try to view it from my perspective for a minute.

First try to see if the rational rules I gave can adapt to the situation. If they don't, show me why they don't. — Philosophim

That is what I have been attempting to do. Your rules apply in some cases, but do not cover many of the likely scenarios that real people in the real world have to face.

Show me you're thinking about the discussion instead of peppering me with questions you haven't tried to solve on your own first. — Philosophim

I have solved them for myself. I cannot; nor can you, for anyone else. We can have opinions about their situation, we can even judge them, but we can't persuade them to think as we do.

No, I think your posting random scenarios without thinking about how they play in what has been discussed so far is silly. — Philosophim

Point is, they're not random. They are all too real and too common.

Apply what I've noted to your scenarios, then point out why they do not work. — Philosophim

Did that, too. I've been in your perspective, but that was a long time ago.

Ignoring what I've said and just bulldozing ahead to specific scenarios without analysis to what's already been said is disorganized, and ignores what I've stated so far. — Philosophim

You keep stating the same thing over and over. I didn't ignore it; I pointed out where it doesn't apply.

Sure, it would be nice to think everyone can contemplate their own debility, suffering and death unemotionally, and that everyone has many friends and relatives, all available for consultation, all able to assess the situation and think clearly.
This may sometimes be the case; it is not the norm.

That is what I have been attempting to do. Your rules apply in some cases, but do not cover many of the likely scenarios that real people in the real world have to face. — Vera Mont

Explain how your scenarios explicitly are not covered by the three points I posted. You have not done that.

Show me you're thinking about the discussion instead of peppering me with questions you haven't tried to solve on your own first.
— Philosophim
I have solved them for myself. — Vera Mont

Then please explain. I do not know your personal conclusions and how they contrast with the three points I made unless you state it.

Point is, they're not random. They are all too real and too common. — Vera Mont

Its not that the scenarios are random, its that you're randomly putting them in as questions after the fact or a previous discussion without bothering to address why they do not fit the three points I made.

Apply what I've noted to your scenarios, then point out why they do not work.
— Philosophim
Did that, too. I've been in your perspective, but that was a long time ago. — Vera Mont

No, I have yet to see you say, "X doesn't work with point 1 because..." or anything of that nature.

You keep stating the same thing over and over. I didn't ignore it; I pointed out where it doesn't apply. — Vera Mont

No, you stated a new scenario as a question without regards to the points made.

Sure, it would be nice to think everyone can contemplate their own debility, suffering and death unemotionally, and that everyone has many friends and relatives, all available for consultation, all able to assess the situation and think clearly. — Vera Mont

Your question was essentially "How do we rationally consider suicide?" I noted to find other people who care about you, and consult more than one. That doesn't have to be family or friends as I've already stated. So your point is irrelevant. This is why I keep asking you to think about what's been said prior to posting. Lets focus the conversation a bit more and think, "What if someone is contemplating suicide at this moment and needs some rational steps to consider?"

I feel like there's a best way to frame the underlying rationale and question, which is, are some actions advantageous compared to others?

People commit forms of suicide, each and every day. Moral, economic, social, etc. Some knowingly but most unknowingly, at the time, of course. Many of which who become reborn in "death" of false ideals and understanding to become new and greater versions of themself. Not always, of course.

I find it interesting you make a claim, whether inadvertently or not, that legality and morality are intrinsically not of rationale. That is to say, the purest form of rationale. This is a form of such in and of itself really. So you have to answer, what is the purest form of rationale? Definitively, this is logic. Which of course can be reduced mathematically, often, however, based on one's values and virtues, or understandings and beliefs. So what are yours? The typical ones being, suffering is bad, pleasure is good. Possibility is usually possible, but not always, so the factors that contribute to the determinations of such are relevant in determining said understanding.

Based on the current social zeitgeist, I frame your inquiry to be of such: should a person who just so happens to feel depressed, if not for a prolonged state perform an action that ends one's life? Absolutely not. Though this may be of logical benefit to naturally not only themself but that of a majority, say, a prisoner on death row. Which I find laughable since, in a base and fundamental way, any life born in this world is, per se, in a rationally comparable way. But back to that, yes, prisoners on death row are in fact forbidden from possessing certain objects that can feasibly contribute to one's own death, so, there is certainly at least a perceived rationale. Prevalent enough to reasonably have codified measures in preventing such.

It's a dark topic, but invokes the realities of the world in which we live in so remains of value. I would say, and this is just a personal philosophy of course, if someone led one to be in such a state who themselves would kill to prevent, a hypocrite deserves neither to be an executioner nor that worthy of life. So if there is even a chance your own life could disrupt, end, or destroy that which unwarrantedly and "immorally" created such a state of one to be in, which means would live with reasonable ability to further create such a state in other innocent minds, you have a duty to survive and neglect choosing such a selfish option. In my opinion. So, sometimes rationale is only circumstantial, to the point it masks possibility of change or better outcome, and logic itself. In the end, your personal, that is to say, specific avenue of inquiry is quite limited to a biological binary. Life or death. One's heart functioning and ceasing to function. But there is a wider topic I believe the sheer macabre nature of your OP might discourage others from pursing. :wink:

Explain how your scenarios explicitly are not covered by the three points I posted. You have not done that. — Philosophim

I have done that. Real people, in pain and fear, cannot be unemotional about their situation. Rule 1. bites the dust at the diagnosis of cancer or the repossession of someone's house.

That being said, these are decisions you really cannot make on your own, and need other rational people to analyze the situation with you. If you don't want to tell anyone that you're thinking of doing it for example, then you shouldn't do it. — Philosophim

That is the most difficult piece of advice, and I have told you why, several times. Other people are also emotional. They can't turn it off just because you tell them to.
Sometimes even people who have discussed end-of-life care go back on their promises when the death of a parent or spouse is imminent. They don't want to let go. If you leave the conversation until decisions actually have to be made, it's even more likely that you're at a physical disadvantage due to illness or injury, and it's not discussion among equals.
Many family members and friends, if you tell them you're contemplating suicide, go ballistic, get religious and righteous on your ass, plead and cry and maunder on about the sanctity of life, then confiscate your meds and have you put in a locked ward, where you are deprived of all means of ending your own pain: you no longer have a choice, freedom or autonomy. I know this from having witnessed it. (One patient was so desperate, she stuffed her bedsheet down her throat.)
So, quite a few of the people trying to figure out when and how dare not tell anyone what they're thinking, can't trust the very people they love.
You may prescribe otherwise, but that's the way it is.

:smile:

'ppreciatchoo!

Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless. It states that trying to find meaning leads people into a conflict with the world. Absurdism claims that existence as a whole is absurd.

Various possible responses to deal with absurdism and its impact have been suggested. The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

Seems other options are there to be practiced.

Rationality is a feature/quality we attribute to a plurality of individual thoughts, beliefs, and/or statements thereof. How well are they strung together.

Where there has never been a plurality of individual thoughts, beliefs, and/or statements thereof there could have never been rationality.

"The universe is irrational and meaningless" is false on its face. We are elements within the universe. We make rational meaningful claims. The universe is not irrational and meaningless.

I remain puzzled about what counts as a non atheist society.

suicide is not always irrational
— creativesoul
Perhaps, but my point is that suicide is always either unsound (choice) or involuntary (abject / pathological). — 180 Proof

Your characterization is not the only past/current state of affairs, situation, circumstance, actual happenstance. Your characterization counts as unwarranted belief(false hope). There are such cases. Not all.

:ok: If you say so ...

Rationality is a feature/quality we attribute to a plurality of individual thoughts, beliefs, and/or statements thereof. How well are they strung together. — creativesoul

Wars are won by soldiers who are willing to risk their lives and die for their (1) nation or their (2) religion, neither of which is a product of rationality. Therefore, the borders that exist and the very structure of various governments around the globe are the result of often extreme sacrifices for non-rational goals. In a sense, it is not rational to ignore the importance and the impact of the irrational.

"The universe is irrational and meaningless" is false on its face. We are elements within the universe. We make rational meaningful claims. The universe is not irrational and meaningless. — creativesoul

There is no rationale for why the universe exists.

There are at best non-rational explanations, in absence of which the very existence of the universe is indeed meaningless.

Rationality is necessarily foundationalist offering no rationale in any shape or form for the foundations themselves.

If your only tool is a hammer, then you will in vain keep looking for a nail to hit. This search represents the losing fight of the rational non-spiritual individual against the absurd.

To the unspiritual rationalist, the foundations of our universe are irrational and meaningless. There is simply nothing that allows him to conclude differently. From what premises would be be able to do that?

Hence, atheism comes at an important long-term probabilistic cost. The absurdist philosophy predicts that at some point the atheist may very well have to pay the piper by means of a complete abdication. Such lifestyle is therefore a Faustian gamble which he is more likely to lose than not. All that is needed, are extremely unpleasant circumstances that will successfully trigger the then inevitable.

I invite you to reread and directly address the counter-examples of reasoning for committing suicide. One example of valid reasoning arguing in the affirmative for taking one's own life counts as a case of rational suicide.

If all one's suffering requires one's being alive, then one's death ends all one's suffering.

To the unspiritual rationalist, the foundations of our universe are irrational and meaningless. — Tarskian

Unknown. Judging the unknown irrational and meaningless is irrational. We can only apply reason to that which we know, or think we know.

Hence, atheism comes at an important long-term probabilistic cost. — Tarskian

According to what observable reality?

"The universe is irrational and meaningless" is false on its face. We are elements within the universe. We make rational meaningful claims. The universe is not irrational and meaningless.
— creativesoul

There is no rationale for why the universe exists. — Tarskian

"Why the universe exists" is a psychological question. It does not follow from the fact that there is no rationale answering that question that the universe is irrational and meaningless. We are part of the universe. We are meaningful and rational. If a part of the universe is meaningful and rational then it is not true that the universe is meaningless and irrational. That claim is false on its face.

According to what observable reality? — Vera Mont

The volunteer manning the suicide prevention hotline will try to give his user hope by means of some adhoc crash course in informal spirituality.

Apparently, the Biden administration has approved a yearly budget increase of $100 million (or $200 million) for this approach.

In my opinion, it may already be too late in the game for such last-ditch effort. You cannot give hope to someone who does not even believe in the fundamentally irrational notion of hope. That is why everybody knows that there is simply no hope for the hopeless.

In that sense, this approach is largely an expensive waste of time and resources. They cannot make a visible dent in the problem just by throwing money at it.

The volunteer manning the suicide prevention hotline will try to give his user hope by means of some adhoc crash course in informal spirituality.

Apparently, the Biden administration has approved a yearly budget increase of $100 million (or $200 million) for this approach.

In my opinion, it may already be too late in the game for such last-ditch effort. You cannot give hope to someone who does not even believe in the fundamentally irrational notion of hope. That is why everybody knows that there is simply no hope for the hopeless.

In that sense, this approach is largely an expensive waste of time and resources. They cannot make a visible dent in the problem just by throwing money at it. — Tarskian

Rhetorical drivel.

The quality/accuracy of the belief system is not under scrutiny. In that case, it is how many people it could help to save from having a miserable life. Helping those who can be helped with life by spiritual teaching is fine if it helps. The reward is worth the cost. Doing nothing for them simply because they hold unacceptable beliefs to you is heartless.

Sure hope you're not in charge of appropriating the necessary funds.

Hopeless, to you, evidently means not worthy of help.

Helping those who can be helped with life by spiritual teaching is fine if it helps. — creativesoul

At that point, it is very, very late in the game already. For the effort to succeed, it must be started much earlier, preferably, long before it is too late, and long before the user has gone past the point of no return.

This is what religious congregations used to do. They have become unpopular now. So, we can no longer count on that approach either.

The family and the extended family are gone too.

In my opinion, all erstwhile functioning infrastructure has been mostly dismantled. That is why nothing can be done to address the snowballing crisis.

Hopeless, to you, evidently means not worthy of help. — creativesoul

By hopeless, I mean, not capable of hope. If someone is capable of hope, he will by definition never be hopeless.

Can you give hope to someone who staunchly believes that hope does not even exist? That person would not want to believe you anyway. Furthermore, there is no compulsion in religion. It is not permissible to pressure this person to believe that there is hope, when this is so clearly against his fundamental beliefs.

And all of this has exactly what relevance to the universe being absurd and meaningless?

And all of this has exactly what relevance to the universe being absurd and meaningless? — Vera Mont

In terms of pure reason, the very existence of the universe is irrational and meaningless.

Hence, I underwrite the main idea in the absurdist philosophy, which is that the pure rationalist will first fail to struggle with the absurd and then end up contemplating suicide. The only escape hatch left is spirituality. This is, however, not available to the atheist. Therefore, a death of despair is the natural destiny for atheist populations.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-04-15/study-deaths-of-despair-move-higher-among-blacks-than-whites

The term “deaths of despair” emerged in the public consciousness following a seminal study showing a reversal and yearslong rise in all-cause mortality among middle-aged whites in the U.S that was driven heavily by deaths from suicide, alcohol and drug overdoses.

Now, new findings published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry reflect a significant shift in deaths of despair among middle-aged adults. The study tracked rates of mortality from suicide, alcoholic liver disease and drug overdose from 1999 to 2022 among people 45 to 54 years old. Researchers found that in 2013, the rate of these deaths among whites was approximately double that of Blacks, at 72.15 per 100,000 population compared with 36.24 per 100,000.

But by 2022, the rate of deaths of despair among middle-aged Blacks had nearly tripled to 103.81 per 100,000, topping that of whites at 102.63 per 100,000.

So, what happened? Well, that is obvious:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/february/black-american-nones-faith-unaffiliation-nothing.html

Black Americans See the Biggest Shift Away from Faith

But black “nones” are growing. With 3 in 10 adults in the US claiming no religious affiliation on surveys, the rise of the nones has touched every corner of American society.

Over more than a decade, the share of Black Americans who say that they have no religious affiliation has risen more dramatically than whites, Hispanics, or Asians.

It is possible to probabilistically predict increasing mortality fueled by despair by tracking two input variables: (1) growing atheism (2) a sudden surge in economic problems. There are quite a few industries such as insurance and finance which would pay quite a bit of money to get advanced warning for the incidence of despair. They would be able to use the model to save a lot of money and ultimately also to make more profit.

Modeling and extracting profits from despair and hopelessness is potentially big business, all thanks to the fundamental meaninglessness of the universe in terms of pure reason.

In terms of pure reason, the very existence of the universe is irrational and meaningless. — Tarskian

How do you know? Where is the evidence?

Hence, I underwrite the main idea in the absurdist philosophy, which is that the pure rationalist will first fail to struggle with the absurd and then end up contemplating suicide. — Tarskian

Now, that's what I call a silly and frivolous reason!