Is suicide morally wrong?

File: image.jpg (119KB, 551x800px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 551x800px

Nah, just morally stupid.

- A.S.

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.

>>680335
This

Suicide is an expression of anti-materialism, anti-materialism is an expression of ingratitude toward God, ingratitude toward God is immoral.

morals aren't real

>>680371
Negro, suicide is as materialistic as it gets. It's basically epicurean.

>>680378
Suicide is the strongest expression of hatred of material life.

>>680318
Only for Christfags. Since their influence on society is thankfully dwindling, their sour moral is also becoming more and more irrelevant.

>>680379
But it's also a vindication of materialism. It doesn't make sense to kill yourself if you think you leave something behind.

By who's morals?

How is it wrong?

A suicide is ending the moral agency, no matter the reason there can be no wrong after wards.

>>680318
If it makes you happy no, if it does then 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.

>>680379

>knowing the cause of an action of a human that's not yourself

>>680389
Moral isn't about happiness

>>680395
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

>>680389
I doubt people commit suicide because they think it makes them happy. People do it because it stops the pain.

>>680406
>this assumption is based on the reciprocal, social interaction, as observed in joint attention, the functional use of language, and the understanding of others' emotions and actions

I agree with that, but then what's the point of generalizing the contingency? If you say that suicide is an expression of X, there's no need for any form of social interaction

>>680392
You don't have to believe in a non-material reality to be anti-material.

>>680413
Basically the same thing. It makes them happier than they initially were.

>>680422
How so

>>680421
Try getting by without generalizing.

>she smiled at me and winked...does that mean she likes me?? no that would be generalizing motives!

>>680424
Anti-natalists are a prime example.

>>680423
"Initially" here is alive, whathever comes after isn't happy because it isn't human anymore, it's just a pile of meat

>>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
But that's already an especific situation, I can't possibly say that anyone that smiles and winks at me likes me, what's the point

>>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?

>>680318

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.

>>680447

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.

>>680450
But you instinctively theorized about it an acted according to your theory. Unless you are *literally* autistic.

>>680443
To generalize suicide is the same as generalizing love, it is practical to a very small extend, anything else is especific and should be treated as such I think

>>680455
I'll add that theory of mind is the source of theology. You see the natural world, and attribute motive behind it all.

That is why atheism and autism correlate
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism

>>680455
You only "theorize" about that if you're insecure haha

>>680458
No, suicide is an act, love is a feeling. Generalizing sadness would be akin to generalizing love.

>>680449
Massive generalisations on what liberal means, not sure why you're using a colloquial meaning.

>>680459
Autism correlates with atheism, not the other way around, very significant distinction.

>>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.

>>680478
>In particular, "suicide" shouldn't be generalized because doing so could end "badly" for everyone
How so?

>>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.

>>680478
Not as badly as suicide.

>>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.

>>680372
This. /his/ was doomed the moment Mook decided to tack on the humanities to it, now half the threads are idiotic morality and religious threads.

>>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
>experiences
Meant to say experiments

>>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.

>>680493
But that's exactly what I meant by badly

File: 1856053-bjo.jpg (57KB, 727x539px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 727x539px

>morality

>>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.

>>680555
What's basically the problem with the idea we're just bigger mice?

>>680566
>being this secular
Because we're not? Are mice just bigger amoebas?

>>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.

>>680579
Praytell, what exactly is "wellbeing"?

>>680583
Stimulating your G-Spot with a drill.
Why play smug wordgames?

Whatever direction you take from the maximal suffering you can expirience, thats the direction of increased wellbeing. It is not a singular clearly defined point.

>>680592
He has a point you faggot. How do you estimate the well being of others? Particularly in relation to your own.

>>680592
>Not only this, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces perseverance, and perseverance character; and character, hope.
-Romans 5: 3-4, Orthodox Bible

How do you respond to this?

>>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.

>>680613
What if I *don't want* wellbeing?

>>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.

>>680624
It's about Christians being rampantly persecuted, but also about hardship in general.

>>680613
Well too bad life is made of a series of grey areas and is rarely a choice between rape and sunbathing.

>>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.

>>680638
Have you read Notes from Underground?

>>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.

>>680318
> http://philosophy.scurvy.net/docs/class-2/chap6.pdf

>>680648
Couldn't you make drugs the solution for all unhappiness and suffering?

File: 1418162645517.jpg (6KB, 245x267px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 245x267px

>>680641
Looked it up on Wiki, never read that. But i did live in StPetersburg for a while, where it seems to take place?
I read mostly strugatzki brothers and other sci fi stuff.
A тaк нeт, нe читaл.

>>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.

>>680657
https://7chan.org/lit/res/3532+50.html#17492

It's at the top (don't scroll up, just the top of where I linked) No. 17492

I strongly urge you to download it and read it.

>>680653
Not that anon, but of course not, just look at tolerance and desensitisation, simply flooding your brain with dopamine is pretty much the same thing as heroin addiction.

>>680665
But you'd "objectively" be happier if you were injected with drugs. If you reject it, it's because you are not rationally pursuing your happiness.

>>680669
To what end exactly?
Also I'd read it in russian, but appreciate the link.

>>680675
me >>680671
This is a flawed argument due to biology. constant inundation with dopamine leads to desensitisation.

>>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.

>>680676
He's a response to your ideology and idea of morals.

>>680677
Then coming up with a drug that remedies desensitization should be our main objective, no?

>>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 =}

>>680687
I'm almost certain that this is an impossibility. There are biological limits.

>>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.

>>680697
No, I don't see why it would be impossible to come up with a drug that increased sensitivity, which could be administered when sensitivity decreased too much.

>>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.

>>680700

This would be an unprecedented discovery. And if the doses were controlled then effects experienced effects would decrease over time, the drug argument is ignorant of biology.

>>680707
>Why don't you try to summarize it
I don't really think that would be a good idea, since that would simplify it. I just suggest you read it.

>>680710
In which case you research a drug that increases sensitivity to the last drug, and so on, ad infinitum. That would be an ongoing project.

>>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.

>>680714
>ad infinitum

This isn't a biological reality.

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.

>>680719
How is that any different from self harm?

>>680721
Meth is not an ideal example. A drug which induced complacency and comfort would be more workable.

>>680723
Meth is not an ideal example. A drug which induced complacency and comfort would be more workable.

I'll take it as relevant when it's discovered.

>>680729
shit forgot green text

>>680729
What are opiates

>>680732
see >>680677

desensitisation.

t. done oxy and others before.

>>680737
I know several functional opiate addicts. The sensitivity might not be as strong, but it sure as hell affects them.

>>680742
But the temporary aspect can't be ignored, btw i'm drunk atm.

also have a stem degree

>>680745
sage

I've night in Australia.

>>680746
It's* ffs

>>680745
You'll become desensitized and alcohol will stop working.

>>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

>>680754
Self harm, broadly speaking, could just be applied to doing anything that would make objectively less happy than the alternative. That would be inherently immoral, as per Dr. Harris.

>>680752
Alcohol isn't as strong as heroin and any drug trying to cover all aspects of
>A drug which induced complacency and comfort
would be worse.

I know it's not good but it's preferable to suicide.

see >>680335

Also alcohol for a full on addict can kill them with withdrawals, I just drink the occasional 1/2-2/3 of a bottle.

File: oZJy4u1.jpg (29KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x800px

>>680754 (im out for today, g'night)

>>680318
it's tragic because it's always too late to commit suicide

>>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.

>>681391
>about them useless.
yes it does. it shows your inability to get, in your life, anything but conventions and rituals.

It's destruction of government property.

File: face.jpg (14KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 229x220px

>>680579
>this is what liberals ACTUALLY believe

>>680318
Perhaps if it causes suffering to your remaining family members.

>>681677
So can actions always be written off as morally acceptable if you can calculate a net benefit for the majority or is it on a case by case basis?

Depends on your opinion of it.

>>681598
What >implying is even is wrong with this, seems like a fairly natural term.

>>681739
Collectivist fascism is pretty much the opposite of "natural"

>>680449
Isn't suicide from philosophy still depression?

>>681772
Yes because you become depressed when you realize that philosophy, and by extension the world, is just a meme.

>>681762
What do these buzzwords mean?

>>681817
Why don't you google them?

>>681836
I don't think I will intuit what you mean by rereading the formal definitions.

>>681848
If you can't figure out why utilitarianism is collectivist and fascist you might just be mentally retarded.

>>681543
Is English your second language?

>>681860
>I don't think I will intuit what you mean by rereading the formal definitions.
But those are forms of government, how do those reflect on a system of morality?
Please don't insult me.

>>680318
Lol no, if you live a life of suffering and extreme pain it would be immoral to keep hurting yourself like that

>>680318
No. It's still a pretty stupid thing to do though. As long as you're still alive there's always hope, killing yourself only seals your fate.

>>681950
>As long as you're still alive there's always hope,
Not if you've got brain cancer nigga

>>681970
Then why not live your life until the last second? You're not going to get another chance, even a single minute might be worth more than you can imagine.

Although I have to admit that ending your life might offer more closure than randomly dying in your sleep.

It's not like I condemn anyone for committing suicide, but I still think it's kind of sad.

>>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.

>>680318
Your life is yours. Suicide is generally a dumb thing to do, but I can't call it "morally wrong".

>>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?

Murder is objectively wrong in any case so yes.

>>680447
>>680449
Anon, you have cracked the code.
Hacker code cracker.

>>684175
Says who? There is no right or wrong in nature. If you find it wrong that is because society has told you it is wrong but it doesn't make it true.

>>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.