projecting your self loathing on the forums like edgy Dorkneo is doing detracts from the forums even more.

His only interests in this thread is his powerlessness, he doesn't have much control outside of it. It's the only place he can say everything is shit, while forcing it upon others through his obstinance.

The case against suicide is that he's too powerless to even do that... hence why he's here projecting self loathing. Cause pain is a production of desire.

"It's me, and so it's mine. . . ." Even suffering,
as Marx says, is a form of self-enjoyment. Doubtless all desiring-production is, in
and of itself, immediately consumption and consummation, and therefore,
"sensual pleasure." — Deleuze

I think they’re just bitter that people don’t acknowledge Nietzsche’s wisdom even though I have read his stuff and looked on his life and found it odd how he could write such things despite not living any of it:

You can't even detail a thing about his philosophy though.

Evaluations, in essence, are not values but ways of being, modes of existence of those who judge and evaluate, serving as principles for the values on the basis of which they judge. This is why we always have the beliefs, feelings and thoughts that we deserve given our way of being or our style of life. — Deleuze

↪Patterner Nicely put. — Tom Storm

Thanks. But it was only the very lowest hanging fruit. :blush:

Feel free to comment on the mundane.

DNA is the major systematic force that makes us who we are.

Our genes are the most powerful determiners of our personality, behavior and life outcomes. They typically account for 50-70% of the variation. This is true even for complex behaviors such as social status and educational outcomes.

Most people aren't even functioning at 75% of their capabilities. Muted gene expression from a shit diet and lacking energy from allowing their sedentary BMR to rule them. The list goes on...

Our genes are the most powerful determiners of our personality, behavior and life outcomes. They typically account for 50-70% of the variation. — Chisholm

Can you explain. The variation of what? Between what? I agree that DNA plays three biggest role. But I don't know any specifics.

Suicide is certainly a destruction of value. Human life (and the human body) do have an economic value. However, the individual has property rights on his life and his body. Suicide is legitimate, it cannot be confuted in moral and legal terms. However, suicide is certainly a brute destruction of value.

I think the discussion on people deciding to terminate their own lives suffers from several reasoning flaws. It’s as if because suicide would be the permanent cessation of life, and further, because most of us very much want to remain alive, we generally conclude that others should remain alive — or rather that these two facts justify intervening where other adults’ decisions to end their lives are concerned. But I don’t think permanence is a sufficient criterion to justify preventing an action. We make decisions every day that preclude other decisions. That seems to me just a fact of human existence. Few would counsel someone extremely unhappy with a marriage over a long time to stick it out just because a divorce might be an irrevocable split. There’s also a possibility that deeply unhappy marriages will find happiness again, but we respect people’s freedom to decide whether they wish to continue relationships. I think we should afford people the same freedom regarding their relationships with themselves.

I also believe the so-called sanctity of life (or reverence for life) is quite a charade. We may value our own lives deeply and those of others we care about, but clearly, from the way we build our society, we do not value every human life. Life-value is neither an objective fact nor a universally held value. We have no business deciding that others should value life as we happen to. Indeed, we have no business deciding for others what values they ought to hold.

Neither the permanence of death (inevitable, anyhow) nor the frequency of the qualified value of life (our own and those of people we happen to value) is a sufficient condition to justify imposing our will on others.

I think the best argument against suicide, generally speaking, is "if you're talking about, then there must be a part of you that doesn't want to do it."

This discussion doesn’t belong here. You should talk to a therapist — T Clark

What comforting and therapuetic words...

It seems that people are taking this OP very seriously, i don't know if that's warranted, it's like if anyone says the s word now adays, everyone starts freaking out and barking some therapy dogma.

The OP does seem to be legit philosophy.

My argument was that suicide harms everyone that valued the suicidal, including the suicidal's own future selves.

That suicide harms everyone who cared, sometimes devastatingly so, is obvious. What is less obvious is the future self argument, but I think a strong case can be made. In most contexts we treat future selves as moral agents, both unified with, and distinct from, present selves. If factory work causes you cancer that will kill you in 5 years, that is a terminal blow to your future self. Which is a blow your present self, as self-identity unifies past, present, and future selves. But I am quite different from my past selves, I have different beliefs, different motives, different goals, different abilities. Were I able to, I would bitterly resent a past self that killed me.

My rights as a present self are undisputable. But every present self is the future self of a past self. And so, if present selves have rights, future selves of present selves must have those same rights.

I'd say I've had more negative experiences in my life than positive, but regardless, there are things that I look forward to and I want to try lots of experiences. Life is short and death is permanent, and that's the simple equation that keeps me from thinking of suicide.

That said, I'm personally pro euthanasia, and I do believe we should have the freedom to check out if that's the decision we come to.

Life is short and death is permanent, and that's the simple equation that keeps me from thinking of suicide. — Mijin

My argument was that suicide harms everyone that valued the suicidal, including the suicidal's own future selves. — hypericin

:fire:

That said, I'm personally pro euthanasia, and I do believe we should have the freedom to check out if that's the decision we come to. — Mijin

Euthanasia for the terminally Ill is one thing. For someone who is really depressed, or shaken by a loss that seems irrecoverable, that is quite another. I don't think it is ethical to make suicide a safe, available option for the depressed. If depression is a mental illness, then the person is out of their right mind, and does not have the competency to judge such a momentous decision for themselves.

There is plenty of data from depressed folks who attempt suicide, regretting that choice.

Euthanasia for the terminally Ill is one thing. For someone who is really depressed, or shaken by a loss that seems irrecoverable, that is quite another. I don't think it is ethical to make suicide a safe, available option for the depressed. If depression is a mental illness, then the person is out of their right mind, and does not have the competency to judge such a momentous decision for themselves. — hypericin

Depression is a 'mental illness' but it is neurotic, rather than psychotic. I think it better to view neurotic 'mental illnesses' as skewing or limiting perspectives on reality, rather than breaking from reality, as with psychosis.

The term 'illness' is highly misleading in the context of neurotic disorders. The relationship between biology, heredity and environment is different with, say, depression than it is with a physical illness - even though depression does manifest physically.

I have long wrestled with responsibility in this context. As a person with long-term depression, I have acted poorly in some cases, and ultimately, I deem myself responsible, but with mental illness a mitigating factor.

When my brother acted violently in the throes of psychosis? This, to me, is someone 'out of their right mind' and not responsible for his actions.

I share your concerns about euthanasia for the mentally ill, but ultimately feel it arbitrary and unfair to limit this option to people who are 'in their right mind'. This would disqualify schizophrenia, which is the cruelest disease I have ever encountered.

I acknowledge in advance that there are many moral problems associated with my stance. Personally, if I had had a gun handy, or ready access to MAID, at a certain point in my life, I would not be here writing this now.

Euthanasia for the terminally Ill is one thing. — hypericin

It doesn't have to be terminal illness. Chronic illness is torture for many. Complex illness is largely ignored by the medical institution.

I think I agree with everything here.

Depression is a 'mental illness' but it is neurotic, rather than psychotic. I think it better to view neurotic 'mental illnesses' as skewing or limiting perspectives on reality, rather than breaking from reality, as with psychosis. — Jeremy Murray

Maybe not a break with a reality. But certainly a break with objectivity is assessments of one's life circumstance. How can a depressive evaluate this with any objectivity?

Like you, I wouldn't be here suicide were an easy option.

For depression, I've wants to say, "but there is always hope". But can we say this with confidence? Despite having crawled out of our own black holes? How do we know that others aren't much, much deeper, so deep they are doomed never to emerge?

I was haunted reading case reports from NL of assisted suicide granted to the depressed. Here is one example:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/16/dutch-woman-euthanasia-approval-grounds-of-mental-suffering

In the last few years I feel like the only guarantee is life will get worse and worse so what is the point?

"Just because" is usually the reply or some prettied up version of it.

My parents are elderly and either they or their peers are talking of an ever growing list of health issues. You can do very little of what you used to enjoy so why wait to reach that stage? "Just because".

The live fast die young adage seems better. Also from an evolutionary perspective we weren't 'meant' to live past our 30s anyway so pretty much fighting against the tide. You can say it is part of our nature to fight against our nature, but, as above, why? if the only reward is worsening health.

My mother often tells me about putting money into pensions for when I am old but it seems like retirement is a scam. Build loads of interest for the banks and you spend on stupid superficial stuff when your body is broken and not really able to enjoy it.

If you believe in reincarnation suicide is just not an option is procrastination

Hi Hypercin, thanks for that response.

I was haunted reading case reports from NL of assisted suicide granted to the depressed. Here is one example: — hypericin

Seeing a 29-year old woman in that situation is terribly sad, and yet a part of me feels happy for her, in that she sees an end to a suffering that I personally see no end to, far too often.

I am deeply conflicted by my response.

Here in Canada, Sue Rodriguez was an influential right-to-die advocate in the early 90s, who took her own life with a doctor's assistance in 94 after losing a court case in the Supreme court. For a long time, I have supported the concept of MAID as a result of her courageous fight, but that was ALS, a much less contentious condition.

I wish my mother had had access when her Parkinson's reached stage five and she lost all physical autonomy. Again, a much less contentious condition.

It does feel like 'concept creep' has affected this issue in the way it has with many progressive interventions - the safe injection site, or the 'no one is illegal' premise in immigration - leading from a small, promising intervention with a small population to a much more broadly applied intervention affecting a larger population with changing concerns, with consequences beyond those of the initial project.

As such, it was almost inevitable that we would land here, with 'progressive' societies extending MAID eligibility further to the mentally ill. 5% of all deaths in Canada last year involved MAID. I am deeply conflicted again, reading that stat.

The thing the bothers me most about blanket prohibitions on the mentally ill accessing MAID is that most of the conversation around the issue seems to omit the voices of the sufferer, even within 'progressive' media and policy circles. So It's nice to hear the voice of the young woman in your link. So much of this debate hinges on the centrality of agency - choice - for the sufferer.

In an ideal world, people rally around her and she no longer wishes for suicide, or the state has enough supports in place to limit this from happening in the first place. But should her suffering be extended as we wait for an ideal society that will never arise? She can always chose to end her own life, but the arguments against that, in favor of the agency of having a chosen date and effective (hopefully) method, have long been established for those with physical illness.

Obviously, real safeguards need to be in place, and this, too, seems an idealistic and naive expectation.

If the pain of being, say, 'a burden to others' is so great as to warrant a desire for death, is this not a 'good enough' reason for it to be an option, regardless of the risks that an individual might otherwise recover with time?

With the 'trans affirmative' model, a major modern flaw is the decline in psychological screening in the rush to 'affirm'. Earlier iterations of this model required persistent, long-term expressions of distress, in consult with psychological support, before turning to puberty blockers.

Perhaps a 'consistent and persistent' model, with the sufferer expressing their desire over a period of time, with windows of 'relative objectivity', could alleviate some of your concerns around offering MAID to the mentally ill? Along with a requirement that someone with a psychotic illness be medicated at that time of their applying for MAID?

Maybe not a break with a reality. But certainly a break with objectivity is assessments of one's life circumstance. How can a depressive evaluate this with any objectivity?

Like you, I wouldn't be here suicide were an easy option.

For depression, I've wants to say, "but there is always hope". But can we say this with confidence? Despite having crawled out of our own black holes? How do we know that others aren't much, much deeper, so deep they are doomed never to emerge? — hypericin

Those are powerful questions. Believing in hope is almost a necessary condition of returning from severe depression. But hope, itself, can become a contested concept and hope disappointed can make the situation worse.

No easy answers. I don't think absolute binaries can hold in this debate. Suicide is one of the truly taboo subjects facing modern society, at least in the 'western' world. Telling people "I don't want to hear you talk like that" feels a common response, but of course, it limits people from talking about their suicidal state. Is that a good thing? Is normalizing talk about suicide a good thing?

Regardless, I am glad that we are both still here to have this discussion!

In the last few years I feel like the only guarantee is life will get worse and worse so what is the point?

"Just because" is usually the reply or some prettied up version of it.

My parents are elderly and either they or their peers are talking of an ever growing list of health issues. You can do very little of what you used to enjoy so why wait to reach that stage? "Just because".

The live fast die young adage seems better — unimportant

It's a dark thought, 'life will only get worse' but perhaps an accurate prediction, in some cases.

I have read about the classic U-shaped life-long happiness line graph. There does seem to be something consistent around the elderly being happier, or more content, than those at the low point of the U in middle age.

Worryingly, the low point of the U seems to be skewing much younger in the past few years.

it seems like retirement is a scam — unimportant

Hope to be wrong that life will get worse, and plan for that possibility?

In the last few years I feel like the only guarantee is life will get worse and worse so what is the point?

"Just because" is usually the reply or some prettied up version of it.

My parents are elderly and either they or their peers are talking of an ever growing list of health issues. You can do very little of what you used to enjoy so why wait to reach that stage? "Just because".

The live fast die young adage seems better. Also from an evolutionary perspective we weren't 'meant' to live past our 30s anyway so pretty much fighting against the tide. You can say it is part of our nature to fight against our nature, but, as above, why? if the only reward is worsening health. — unimportant

I've come to think that almost everything in life depends upon how you decide to look upon it. Old age can be a shipwreck or it can be rewarding. I've known plenty of old people (and worked with many), and how it plays out is almost entirely dependent upon attitude. It's easy to focus on losses, negatives and infirmities. My father, who lived until he was 98, considered his last 10 years amongst the best in his life. And even when his mobility was gone, he enjoyed reading and talking to people and was never bitter. He used to say that the old folk who complained most about old age were likely the same folk who began whinging in their teens and never stopped.

I'm glad the discussion has continued on despite the timid early posters with their wrote and trite 'get help'. This is a very important area of study for philosophy and when we studied it at university it was not shied away from, as it should not be.

From the top of my head Kierkegaard’s leap of faith, Camus in his embracing absurdity and various other flavor generally espousing the same with most of the Existentialists. This is a fundamental question for philosophy to tackle and not something to brush aside. Philosophy should tackle the big questions.

It does feel like 'concept creep' has affected this issue in the way it has with many progressive interventions — Jeremy Murray

Hehe concept creep is a good way to put it if I am understanding you correctly in it being a slippery slope to normalise suicide for what seems lesser and lesser maladies.

I was watching a documentary on assisted dying recently which is current in the uk due to their passing some prelims in parliament for it. It went to the States to interview people where it is legal as well as Canada.

What I thought 'silly' was how some disabled people were rallying against it, for the future creep idea you propose, envisioning a holocaust type scenario where they will be shuttled off for their lethal injections.

They are saying they want to keep it illegal because it makes them feel 'unsafe' and in so doing forcing others to suffer who will not have access to it. Pretty selfish I thought for their paranoid hypothetical. I get the sentiment but it is another case of over reaching just like black lives matter and metoo - as in there is a kernel of truth where it is justified but blown out of all proportion.

I was thinking of a more radical idea. What if it was instead taken to be super cheap and easy to do with little checks at all, if someone felt like it? Buddhism and other eastern philosophies say how all is impermanent and suffering in this world. Never mind the reincarnation fantasy mentioned above and other metaphysical nonsense it is steeped in.

From a coolly rational point of view wouldn't it be better to let it be a simple matter. If we can divorce ourselves from the idea of life being precious - which is really only Darwinian impulse, then why not?

A Buddhist practice is to imagine you could die after your next breath. Perhaps there would be a more light feeling to the world if you knew you could end it simply at any moment.

who began whinging in their teens and never stopped. — Tom Storm

Sounds like usual 'alpha male' rhetoric.

It's a dark thought, 'life will only get worse' but perhaps an accurate prediction, in some cases. — Jeremy Murray

Sure it is but it is my life experience which has drawn me to this thinking.

I feel that the eras I have passed through have gotten worse with each decade, and that is not even considering the health side of things. 90s were the good old days in my mind with people just seeming to get stupider and stupider as the years have gone on.

You can call it classic cynicism of aging but most seem quite happy in middle age compared to me now. Maybe it is superficial and they are suffering too but they certainly don't seem as motivated as me to reject the status quo.

The Buddha too became 'disgusted' with the wheel of samsara which pushed him onward to find a better way.

Sounds like usual 'alpha male' rhetoric. — unimportant

Except that it is not uttered by so called "alpha males'. So perhaps this is a deflection? Curious.

I think the world, in general, is pretty bad overall. I'm not so sure about "worse" as much as I've become more knowledgeable about how the world works.

But what has gotten better is my ability to live with depression, and that's made a huge difference in my life satisfaction.

trite 'get help'. — unimportant

I struggled with the 'triteness' of a lot of the advice I was given as my bereavements mounted and my mental health and illnesses worsened.

Almost always, I found this comes from a good place ... the sayer doesn't realize that the sufferer has heard it before, and in my case and yours at least, finds it frustrating / meaningless. Ironically, perhaps, the best way I found to view such statements was as a 'micro aggression'. I realized this and tried to express it to people who used the term in other contexts, but, as I am visibly 'privileged', people tend to discount my premise.

If you view mental illness as illness, or disability, clearly individuals with mental 'illness' have an 'invisible disability' and should be treated as 'marginalized'. But we never hear statements like 'believe suicidal men'. This realization was tough on me, as it made me realize how selectively applied 'woke' premises truly were.

This is a fundamental question — unimportant

Suicide is a fundamental question, but didn't Camus argue that one must 'imagine that Sisyphus was happy'? I don't see that conclusion as fundamentally different from 'get help'. Different contingencies, but the premise of assuming agency is similar?

Personally, I found meaning in the existentialists when I had abandoned hope of doing so. And also the pessimists and anti-natalists I encountered in Ligotti's "The Conspiracy Against the Human Race". There I found the best expression of the premise that 'life is meaningless suffering'.

Suicide is a 'taboo' target in too many contexts. I remember replying to a friend that said I shouldn't be talking about suicide on social media, to which I replied, I assume I would not still be here had I not.

We should be talking about suicide philosophically, and we should be talking about it with the people in our lives. I was sixteen when the closest friend I'd ever had killed himself, and I don't recall ANY conversations about his death with the adults in my life. That was 35 years ago, but I don't imagine much has changed. Those who should be talking about it with loved ones don't just ignore the subject today at least, but rather refer it to the suitable experts.

Hehe concept creep is a good way to put it if I am understanding you correctly in it being a slippery slope to normalise suicide for what seems lesser and lesser maladies. — unimportant

I don't know about 'lesser' but certainly fundamentally different. I worry the term 'mental illness' was adopted to give more credibility to the still-nascent discipline of psychology. I find the advice 'get help' problematic if it assumes the medical model 100% - the idea that all you need to do is stop drinking, get some exercise and take the right pill? That's technocratic arrogance.

But the idea that the right counsellor or medical practitioner, even the right diagnosis or prescription, can help you? This is true.

I say that having had two interactions with such 'experts' over the past few months in which, in both cases, I feel they knew less than I did about how to approach the mentally ill. One young doctor was on his smart phone while I explained to him my anxiety problem with screen-based interactions. I assume he was on the clinic network, and taking some notes, but still ...

And a second who flat-out disagreed with my self diagnosis of PTSD, because I had not personally found my brother's dead body - I only heard about his OD death over the phone.

These are just anecdotes, but telling ones I think. If this is the sort of 'help' available, no wonder people are skeptical.

Overall, I still credit counselling. For me, the less 'technocratic' the counsellor, the better.

What I thought 'silly' was how some disabled people were rallying against it, for the future creep idea you propose, envisioning a holocaust type scenario where they will be shuttled off for their lethal injections. — unimportant

The classic argument. I have no problem with disabled people and grassroots groups making this point. I don't love it when 'experts' try to make this point on their behalf. There are legitimate questions about the potential for abuse here. Honest conversations like this one are missing in the mainstream. Surely we can recognize both risks and rewards.

Generally, I feel the cautionary voice dominates, and very rarely are we willing to consider the suffering prolonged.

What if it was instead taken to be super cheap and easy to do with little checks at all, if someone felt like it? — unimportant

Suicidal intent is different from ideation, or a diagnosis of 'suicidal'. Ease of access to methods of suicide make it too easy for people to act in their worst moments, moments that generally do fade over time. Often this is just a few minutes.

I think of my time living in Tokyo, and the ease of people using the subway system to kill themselves. Societal norms around 'honorable' suicides likely worsened this trend.

I would be okay with experimenting with a more liberal policy around MAID as long as the applicant had 'persistent and consistent' expressions of their desire over a period of time. But I certainly do not trust our technocrats to get a process like this correct.

You can call it classic cynicism of aging but most seem quite happy in middle age compared to me now. Maybe it is superficial and they are suffering too — unimportant

It's a trend in the data, but of course, assuming that such data maps onto an individual and their choices and beliefs is to do bad social science.

Frankly, I assume you are right in your statement about things getting worse - I feel the same. But we do know that deaths of despair are particularly acute in middle aged men, for example. Lots of data on that. And lots of frightening data emerging that sees these trends appearing in younger and younger populations.

I am a lay philosopher and don't want to suggest expertise or anything, but have you read Ligotti's book or the pessimists? It's depressing stuff, but I found comfort in it.

I am that strange sort of depressed person who likes to watch a brutal horror movie when at my darkest though ... my psychologist was shocked when I told her that, but, cognitively, dark ideas in a book or movie seemed a 'safer' space for me to process dark feelings than when I was feeling them about my own existence...

what has gotten better is my ability to live with depression, and that's made a huge difference in my life satisfaction. — Moliere

This was me after many years thinking I was finally finding my stride and then I got hit with chronic illness and it just tumbled the whole house of cards.

Before it felt like life, while difficult, could be enjoyed if I, and others, worked hard enough to achieve it but being struck down just as I felt like I was about to start enjoying all the fruits of my labour has made it all seem worthless and that anyone can be smote at any time.

Most annoying to still watch others enjoy their lives in blissful ignorance.

I know lots of people deal with various chronic illnesses and still enjoy life but for me it has stripped away my ability to engage in what I devoted my life to for about the last 20 years.

If it happened when I got older and it was expected then I could have felt like it was inevitable and accepted it more but I feel I have been shot down in my prime.

Now I just feel like why bother when it could be taken away at any moment. I have tried to find new things, like picking up philosophy again in joining this forum, which I do enjoy, but I don't think anything will ever replace my first passion. It just feels like 'plugging the gap' now until my eventual demise.

It has certainly made me see the nature of impermanence which the Buddhists would say is good.