If you accept that moral is about "what you do" with the resources/power that you have (in benefit of society) as in Kant, then suicide is a "waste" and not morally acceptable. Given that our current moral standard is completely derived from Kant, I say the answer is yes.
>>680384 >It doesn't make sense to kill yourself if you think you leave something behind. Better phrasing: it doesn't make sense to kill yourself if you believe in the existence of non-material reality, which implies that suicide doesn't nullify your experience.
>>680413 Most people who want to kill themselves are depressed so being happy about anything would be hard. If we wanted an actually intresting debate we should be debating about if euthanasia is morally right.
>>680427 You don't have to know one's motive to interpret a sign. I mean you could, but it's unnecessary. All it really requires is a consistency in behavior which may or may not be backed by motives. >she smiled at me >we go out on a date >get married >have children >spent 50 years together >on my dying bed she tells me she never really loved me >ohwell.jpeg
>>680436 You can generalize. There is no way to get by with rampant generalization, you wouldn't even think people mean the same thing with the same words. Context has to temper that, but it works with a framework of mass generalization. Flawed generalizations are bad, but to generalize motives itself is very practical.
>>680437 What makes you ask her out as opposed to all the other women you see all day?
this is what normies believe. since you have so much faith in induction, why do you reject the fact that most of your life has not been satisfactory in not getting what you want again and again ? you even admit that you age and get sick, whereas you admit that you do not want this....
euthanasia is a false problem, because hedonists know that they are wrong and normal suicide would attract too many hedonists... Let's recall that to live in time is to live in predicament, to live in worry: this is what hedonists do since they always think and do things to get benefits in the future, in taking seriously their emotions and ideas and trying to establish what they see as good emotions. but they fail precisely because they identify and cling to their pleasures, which are always fading.
the euthanasia is a diversion, by the liberals, from the question of suicide. the quesiton of suicide has two facets -the suicide from depression -the suicide from philosophy
suicide form depression is dealt by the liberals in giving people drugs, because liberals reduces everything to pain, suffering[=identification of the willing agent with the pain]. liberals are always hedonists: this is why any person who want something in democracy must express a (physical) suffering to attract liberals.
suicide form philosophy is not dealt by the liberals, therefore is the most dangerous to the human rights, precisely because the perspective of the philosophical suicide lies outside of the doctrine of the human rights: this perspective says that human rights are nothing but conventions and makes the liberals standing before their contradictions: the one where they are not able to justify their authority, just like the liberals complained that kings were not able to justify their authority [in fact, kings justify their authority by their lineage, which pisses off the liberals'; the liberals justify their authority poorly in saying that ''the people wants us, the liberals, to be in power''; the trick then is to carefully select what they call ''the people''] the nice trick by the liberals is to obfuscate their authority into an implicit one, more compatible with their hatred of explicit authority [=tyrannies] : they claim thus that the human rights are natural, that any humans think that the human rights make sense [with the faith that they will be backed-up by their faith in what they call science] and anybody disagreeing on this is not a human, but an animal [=a reactionary].
so the suicide outside of depression is dangerous, because it shows that liberals cannot counter the lack of motivation to live. the liberals prefer to focus on suicide from pains: this one enables them to say that ''the human suffering'' must be answered by... science and faith in the human rights, in one word, the occidental humanist doctrine. pain/suffering is always the decisive motivation to get things form the society, in a liberal society.[as minorities, workers...]
>>680443 >What makes you ask her out as opposed to all the other women you see all day? Because she smiled at me and followed up on that. She was consistent in her behavior. What happened in her mind is a different question which we may or may not know.
>>680455 But she can have plenty of other motives as well. She can be a scam artist, or have daddy issues, or whatever. The real question is whether or not she will follow up on it consistently.
It's a bit of a difficult example because here the indication refers to a sentiment of some sort to begin with. But let's take a different case: if you drive a car and someone is signalling, the issue of whether he's driving to the hospital, or to school, or home, is unessential; what matters is that he's going to turn the way that he signaled and follow the rules of the road etc. The first is a motive, the second is adherence to norms and consistency.
>>680464 Let me put it this way, I think generalizing is creating an ideal about something that may or may not be useful to you. In particular, "suicide" shouldn't be generalized because doing so could end "badly" for everyone, so don't generalize that.
>>680474 >But she can have plenty of other motives as well. She can be a scam artist, or have daddy issues, or whatever. The real question is whether or not she will follow up on it consistently. And figuring out which it is requires theory of mind
>But let's take a different case: if you drive a car and someone is signalling, the issue of whether he's driving to the hospital, or to school, or home, is unessential; what matters is that he's going to turn the way that he signaled and follow the rules of the road etc. The first is a motive, the second is adherence to norms and consistency. You presume he's signalling because he wants to turn.
>>680489 >You presume he's signalling because he wants to turn. Yes, but it doesn't require a theory of mind. All that it requires is to have some grasp of language and semiotics. If you see puddles outside you assume it rained, you don't have to know shit about meteorology.
>>680503 Theory of mind is how all that works with humans. Consciously we have suppressed attributing agency to rain due to our education, but the subconscious attribution still kicks in. This has been validated by experiences, which you can read about in Mindlblindness.
>>680519 You can have a theory of mind, but again, it's unnecessary. A purely behavioral pattern-recognition could do the trick just as well. Think about animal experiments. Do we know what the mouse "thinks" about the cheese? Well maybe nowadays we (think we) do because we run them through MRI scans, but we can know a hell of a lot about how mice behave regardless.
>>680534 You're conflating mouse psychology with human psychology. Patter recognition in human psychology functions in conjunction with theory of mind. It can still function without (sometimes better), but will function very differently. And pretty much no one has a complete absence of theory of mind, because if they did, they'd be unable to function on even primate tier.
>>680537 I don't see how that can lead to more suicide.
>>680318 Morality: benefit/detriment of an action to the wellbeing of concious creatures
If your suicide causes more harm to you and others than the harm it would prevent to you or others, it would be wrong. Included here are potential mental states that you can likely expirience if you continue living, like if you got help and got to lead a fulfilling an rich life instead.
If your suicide prevents the senseless death of millions, you should do it. If you're depressed and could easily get better with some help, that would just be childish egomania on your part, assigning a too high value to your current suffering and its importance.
>>680597 How exactly, precisely, do you estimate the health of others? Name a criterion that is universal and applicable to all cases and gets the correct results in all situations.
How high should I be able to jump to be healthy? What can I eat? How much sugar exactly can I eat to be ocnsidered healthy? Is an athlete healthier that suffers from an enlarged heart? Or a fat guy who gets to live to 110? Is bleeding healthy? What if i want to bleed to death and call it the epitome of health? Am i objectively wrong? Does the fact that I could say that make the concept of health subjective?
Not all answers are easy, simple and intuitive.
We know that crying and being in pain is a lower form of wellbeing than having 3 watching your 3 healthy kids graduate and provide for them. We know that being raped is a lower state of wellbeign than takin a sunbath on a beach. For some people chess is more enjoyable than being on a gun range, for others it might be surfing. Are these states equivalent? Depends on the person. But either way its a state of the brain that in principle can be determined. Its not a matter of opinion that being tortured to death is generally a lesser state of wellbeing than eating a donut.
Its not simple, but that doesn't make it arbitrary.
>>680601 If that applies to all suffering ,thats clearly retarded and masochistic, since the same character can be developed thorugh other means, producing an all around contenter human being.
In some cases, this would apply, for example pain during excercize. So it leads through a sort of lull in wellbeing to arrive at a higher state of wellbeing.
In general, just sweeping pronouncements like this bible verse are unversally useful, since they don't actually explain the core of the issue, but just give an absolute rule that might very well not apply in many cases.
Its like giving solutions to questions without explaining the principle behind it. Not very wise. But as far as medieval books go, I think theres worse.
>>680616 I asked "what if i wanted to bleed to death and call that health?" You would not be talking about health.
And wellbeing is the only thing you could possibly want in principle. Every "want" is to satisfy a need, and causes a measure of discomfort if unfulfilled. You can not want anything else than the fulfillment of your wants. How wise you are in wanting what you should want, or being circumspect of what other states of wellbeing are availeable to you, is another question.
>>680633 Yes, questions of this kind are not easy to answer, and don't have simple rules, and need to be thought through and considered carefully. That was my point more or less. There is no easy rule of thumb for all decisions. It might be different for each circumstance. But its certainly not random, and not relative.
Wanting to be tortured to death, for humans in general, should not be followed by torture but by making better options for happiness availeable through medication. Because we have such medication now, and we know it can treat depression or the wish for selfharm. Admitting we actually know this for a fact is still controversial for some reason.
>>680653 The quesion would be, do you want that? Because, intuitively, we want our happiness to be real, and not induced artificially, like wiht a lobotomy. So imposing that on a society would of course make people oppose it. This solution is not satisfactory to us. For us, we know that real wellbeing and true happiness that arises from our circumstances and is connected to reality is worth more than a matrix style solution, or lobotomies for everyone.
We could possibly make drugs against psychopathy though. Or to enchance our ability to find higher states of wellbeing, this seems intuitively acceptable, but I haven't thought that through.
>>680671 Aren't hormones, dopamine, etc. pretty much all he's talking about here with "wellbeing"? Or does he have some higher idea of it? He's talking about just determining it through brain scans, with the opinion of the subject in question being irrelevant.
>>680675 Thats where just extatic endorphine rushes diverge from what we would call wellbeing. If left to reflect on this without addiction effects, it is I hope uncontroversial to say that most peopel would not choose this fake happiness. Wellbeing includes the distinction between fake induced euphoria and truly achieved and "deserved" contentment. If for no other reason that an induced state is vulnerable to a heavy fall in wellbeing if your drugs run out. Or if you are deluded into happiness, it is vulnerable to a clash with reality. So a state of wellbeing rooted in reality is inherently higher than a fake one. Shits complicated =}
>>680689 >Wellbeing includes the distinction between fake induced euphoria and truly achieved and "deserved" contentment. How is the a rational distinction? It's like saying you should have to wait for marriage until you have sex.
>>680682 Why don't you try to summarize it and I'll try to answer, to keep this more interesting? And I don't think I have stated an ideology, I have not provide any beliefs that I'd hold sacred or unchangeable.
>>680680 No, its not. You are bringing ths up because the idea of a drug-induced happiness clashes with your intuition on whats right, and i think that its correct in this case. For the reasons I provided. The fact that we would prefer real happiness is already a factor in whether its an equivalent state of wellbeing versus a drug induced one.
Not that intuitions are always right, but the reasons behind them should be considered. And I think I did that.
>>680698 Don't understand how that comparison applies. In a way, yes, our mental state is of course determined by our material brain, I am not disputing that. But the mere presence of endorphines does not equal wellbeing. If you prefer one state over another, when given the chance to think about it properly, and you prefer one, that alone influences the relationship between the two states.
tbqh I've been manic before, it was two weeks of bliss, but it always burns out, as an example meth addicts think that it will never burn out and push themselves to the extreme that they are pretty dam fucked up afterwards.
A drug like that is 'hypothetically' possible, but almost certainly not a possibility in the context of human physiology.
>>680723 Thats more in the definition of self harm. I think you don't mean a simple case of a frustrated angsty teenager that is dumb enough to crave relief of tension through cutting. Because there are clearly wiser options availeable to deal with that, we know this, objectively. This is outside forces pushing on conciousness and loss of controll and mitigation of suffering through suboptimal, very uninformed means. Thats not a mystery. Thats making bad decisions due to lack of expirience with life, and lack of an education in how to handle stress more productively.
If given all these tools and information, the person still chooses to selfharm?
This is where I hoped you actually meant to take this. The hypothetical case of someone genuinely, truly wired to only expirience pleasure through pain. To that being, any other state of wellbeing is closed off. And thats terrible and sad, but lets say we are confronted with that as objective fact. Would it be worth literally rewiring that brain to allow it access to higher states of wellbeing but basicly killing the old person in the process to create a new one? No idea. This is clearly an interesting and complicated question. The problem here is we don't understand enough about conciousness yet to know all the relevant facts. So it would be a discussion like tumbling in the dark a bit trying to find some satisfying answer. But if given all availeable information on this, there would be an objectively right answer availeable. Maybe multiple equivalent ones. Things to consider would be if we wanted to live in a society that did that for example. What would living in such a society do to the comfort level of all its citizens? How much suffering would that cause? Thats part of the effects on concious creatures this action would have.
>>680335 >Implying our moral standards aren't from Mill and Bentham
Given then that morals are based on greatest-happiness principle, and what will bring the aggregate happiness, so really the morality of suicide depends on who it will effect, though in most situations it still will be an immoral act. Leaving behind loves ones to grieve rather than giving them happiness through your continued existence is immoral, however the act becomes more questionable when an individual has no family or friends, is the act immoral because council workers, funeral organisers, and other individuals will be forced to deal with their results, or are these people indifferent because they're doing their job.
tl;dr immoral in most cases, questionable morality in some
>>680372 Morality, rights, and ethics, are kind of like traffic law or etiquette. Their being socially constructed doesn't make them not real, nor does it make conversations about them useless.
Their being real and useful doesn't mean what a lot of people think that means either.
>>680318 Depends on your framework. It's probably conditionally permissible or something. It has the capacity to hurt others, but if you're dying of a painful illness in the next six months they were going to experience that anyway.
>>681992 Many cultures such as India and Japan felt that ritual suicide was a key component of honor or control of one's life. If you think you will do right by some code of conduct then you will trade the rest of those minutes to fulfil some duty or purpose.
>>681762 I didn't say "the greatest goal in life is to sacrifice yourself for the greater good! "
I said that for example if you have kids, the effect of your suicide on them propably matters on whether your suicide is morally justifiable. Not that what society thinks of it is the main consideration, or that it should be enforced somehow by fascist means.
If you think thats "leftist" maybe I used some triggerword of yours and that sent you into meme mode?
>>681992 If you are in constant pain. If you forget who you are and what you're doing and your memories, families, past, etc. If you forget how to shit in the toilet, or how to speak, or how to eat.
If you are at critical stage of that, then you really can't even make a decision and you'll be constantly be in pain, suffer from loss, etc. Before such things become severe, if you can find your own dignity and die before you put yourself through these misery and your family through these trouble, you'd be doing both yourself and your family a favor.
This isn't even talking about the financial burden its going to place on your family or yourself. If you had the money and you could instead decide to spend that money on an orphanage, its a moral imperative. Spending money on yourself when you know you'll be dying and wasting it seems like one of the most selfish thing there is.
Thread replies: 133 Thread images: 6
Thread DB ID: 516457
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.