#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Can suicide be rational?
Do not confuse this topic with morality. Avoid using "If you were slowly dying".
Yes
Side Score: 19
|
 |
No
Side Score: 8
|
|
3
points
I feel as though it is selfish to call someone selfish for committing suicide. If they are living a life of misery and they end it, just because your "happy" life is now interrupted by the death of a love one does not make them selfish. It makes you selfish for wanting them to live in misery to sustain your happiness. Quite frankly, it makes you tyrannical to want to keep someone miserable just to keep you happy. Side: Yes
3
points
Couldn't that be just as easily flipped around by noting that there is typically more than one person close to a person who commits suicide? That a person who commits suicide is deciding that their personal suffering trumps the combined suffering of all of those who care about them? I'm not suggesting that we blame either or that discussing who is or isn't selfish is either appropriate or beneficial here, just that the whole 'selfish' angle is far from simple. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
None of that matters when the person is dead. You're right that none of that matters to the dead person once he or she is dead- that's exactly why it could be described as selfish- they get rid of all of their problems, and everyone left behind just has to deal with it. While there is certainly a significant difference of degree between the two, this has a lot in common with a deadbeat dad that runs off and refuses to support his children; placing his own interests above those of said children. Yes, I know that that is different from suicide. But I have to ask- if it is not acceptable for a person to abandon their family, friends, and obligations to pursue their own personal interests, why does it suddenly become acceptable when the personal interest in question is the termination of his or her own life? All that matters is the person give back to the physical Earth. In your opinion, possibly. I'm of the mind that if a persons life or emotions cannot be said to matter, neither can the earth. The same arguments about earth getting along just fine without humans can be applied to the solar system and universe getting along just fine without earth. Not be worried with someone's "emotions" because their emotions are irrelevant to the Earth. If that's the case, then the emotions that the person commiting suicide experienced prior to the suicide decision are equally irrelevant, and as such no longer provide any kind of rational justification for the act (and thats assuming that they provide rational justification otherwise, which isn't necessarily the case.) Side: Yes
1
point
You're right that none of that matters to the dead person once he or she is dead- that's exactly why it could be described as selfish- they get rid of all of their problems, and everyone left behind just has to deal with it You missed the follow-up to that statement. They are dealing with "emotional" problems which are irrelevant to the Earths benefit, which was the whole point of our argument. You are now bringing factors to be dealt with that do not relate to benefitting the Earth. To be frank, who cares how they feel? The Earth sure does not (not to be taken literal.) In your opinion, possibly. I'm of the mind that if a persons life or emotions cannot be said to matter, neither can the earth. That would definitely be irrational to suggest that the very cause (Earth) for your neurology is irrelevant in comparison to your neurological chemical reactions. You would not even have these emotions if it weren't for the Earth. That's almost like saying "I know this house is keeping me warm but should I care about the house? Why would I care if I burn it down?" emotions that the person experienced prior to the suicide decision are equally irrelevant, and as such no longer provide any kind of rational justification for the act It is not necessarily "emotion". More like a realization of the truth. You do not need to be 'sad' in order to realize the detrimental effects you have on something. For example, If I am horse-playing with you and I stop because I realize I am hurting you. There is no emotional transmission between me stoping realizing that you're hurting. Side: Yes
1
point
You missed the follow-up to that statement. They are dealing with "emotional" problems which are irrelevant to the Earths benefit, which was the whole point of our argument. You are now bringing factors to be dealt with that do not relate to benefitting the Earth. To be frank, who cares how they feel? The Earth sure does not (not to be taken literal.) Fair enough- but I feel I've already established that this isn't really benefiting the Earth anyway. That would definitely be irrational to suggest that the very cause (Earth) for your neurology is irrelevant in comparison to your neurological chemical reactions. You would not even have these emotions if it weren't for the Earth. My neurology already exists, even if it is courtesy of the earth. I am not considering a hypothetical scenario where the Earth doesn't exist. I wouldn't exist if it were not for my parents either, but I don't think it would be rational to kill myself to save them a few bucks each year on birthday and christmas gifts. That's almost like saying "I know this house is keeping me warm but should I care about the house? Why would I care if I burn it down?" It's more like saying "I love this house so much that I'm going to kill myself rather than track dirt on the carpet." It is not necessarily "emotion". More like a realization of the truth. We aren't talking about objective truths here, we're talking about subjective viewpoints. Perhaps 'formation of an opinion' would be a more apt statement than 'realization of the truth.' You do not need to be 'sad' in order to realize the detrimental effects you have on something. Perhaps. But I think one must be pretty sad to feel that the negligible detrimental effects that they are personally having on the earth as sufficient reason to end ones life. For example, If I am horse-playing with you and I stop because I realize I am hurting you. There is no emotional transmission between me stoping realizing that you're hurting. You have some reason for changing your behavior. If it's not emotional, then what is it? Do you stop out of rational self-interest, as hurting others is both illegal, socially stigmatized, and invites retaliation? If all of these could be removed, would you continue hurting me? Side: Yes
1
point
I wouldn't exist if it were not for my parents either, but I don't think it would be rational to kill myself to save them a few bucks each year on birthday and christmas gifts. Parents being analogous to the earth is a bit disproportionate. Keeping your parents alive would not benefit on the scale of all life, just theirs. So you are right. It would not be rational. We aren't talking about objective truths here, we're talking about subjective viewpoints. Perhaps 'formation of an opinion' would be a more apt statement than 'realization of the truth.' It is true(fact) that humans are causing permanent destruction to the earth. That is not an opinion. So if I were to realize this then I would not be 'formulating an opinion'. Perhaps. But I think one must be pretty sad to feel that the negligible detrimental effects that they are personally having on the earth as sufficient reason to end ones life. You speak of this as though I did not say what they will cause once they do end their own life. Clandestine burial and others. You put it as though I am saying: "look what I am doing to the world, I can't live like this" instead of "what I am doing is destroying the very so thing that gives me life, how can I stop it? I can't. Well, I might as well not accelerate or add on to this destruction. But how can I do that? Lay still and not move? That's no different from suicide. So I might as well prepare a clandestine burial site where I can give back without taking anything for years to come." You have some reason for changing your behavior. If it's not emotional, then what is it? Do you stop out of rational self-interest, as hurting others is both illegal, socially stigmatized, and invites retaliation? You gave yourself examples of how I can stop hurting you without implementing or injecting emotion. I would say there just no benefit in hurting you and I realize this and stop. Your pain not being necessary and my realization of so does not need emotion derivatives. Side: Yes
1
point
Parents being analogous to the earth is a bit disproportionate. Keeping your parents alive would not benefit on the scale of all life, just theirs. So you are right. It would not be rational. They're directly responsible for my neurological activity in the same manner you noted regarding the earth. If that is sufficient reason to render the sacrifice rational for the earth, it is sufficient reason to render the sacrifice rational for the parent. If not, then obviously more compelling reasons are needed re: the earth. It is true(fact) that humans are causing permanent destruction to the earth. That is not an opinion. So if I were to realize this then I would not be 'formulating an opinion'. That is a complete falsification. Humans are rearranging materials on the earth, yes. Humans are causing and/or accelerating damage to the ecosystem, yes. But destroying the earth? I daresay that life will survive and bounce back from the very worst that humans could do; we rely on the ecosystem here, and would die out before we could completely eradicate it. "Destroying the Earth" is complete and utter hyperbole. Moreover, you're talking about the total effect of billions and billions of people adding to damage started by billions and billions previously. This sacrifice does not 'save' the earth. If human activity was destroying the earth, a single life isn't even sufficient delaying action to buy a fraction of a second; similarly, the same person remaining alive does not endanger the earth further, or hasten the destruction proportionally enough to reach a breaking point noticeably sooner. I'm not exaggerating when I say the benefit is negligible. It is completely negligible, and will change nothing. Calling this form of suicide rational is to say that human life itself is all but worthless. If you value human life so little, then we will have to agree to disagree. You speak of this as though I did not say what they will cause once they do end their own life. Clandestine burial and others. You put it as though I am saying: "look what I am doing to the world, I can't live like this" instead of "what I am doing is destroying the very so thing that gives me life, how can I stop it? I can't. Well, I might as well not accelerate or add on to this destruction. But how can I do that? Lay still and not move? That's no different from suicide. So I might as well prepare a clandestine burial site where I can give back without taking anything for years to come." See above. Clandestine burial, again, does not support your position, because it can be done at the end of a longer lifespan just as easily; the only actual benefit you're touting here is the reduction in damage, which for an individual is negligible. You gave yourself examples of how I can stop hurting you without implementing or injecting emotion. I would say there just no benefit in hurting you and I realize this and stop. Your pain not being necessary and my realization of so does not need emotion derivatives. Rational self interest is fine. But the 'no benefit in hurting you' portion is bull, if you were otherwise enjoying the horseplay- there would need to be an actual detriment that outweighed the enjoyment benefit of the horseplay for it to be a rational call. Rational self interest is fine for that, but 'no benefit' and 'unnecessary' are insufficient when the alternative is providing a benefit. Unless the benefit is lost- but if the realization affects your enjoyment of the horseplay (the benefit), then there is emotion involved. Side: Yes
1
point
It would be too long to explain how the alteration of the ozone layer and atmospheric changes would permanently destroy the earth. When I say destroy I dot mean some sort of explosion. I mean destruction life. For instance, the melting of the glaciers were polar bears live is killing off the polar bears. Why are the glaciers melting? Because of humans involvement of global climate change. Humans have destroyed 80% of earths forestry. Replacing half of it with buildings. How can the earth bounce back from that? The land underneath the buildings is dead. It can't bounce back from that. Humans have also been the cause of most (300+) animal extinctions. And you suggest that the eradications of 300+ animal and 80%(and counting) of forestry --which can't grow back-- would be an opinionated assertion if I were to say destruction of the earth??? You do know forestry has a positive correlation with atmospherical oxygen right? Maybe your cultural humanistic ways have an influence on you rationality but I am a realist. I do not put any life above others. But when one, parasitic to the earth, life form eradicates all other life for the sole purpose of self-indulging, I would say that life form needs to be eradicated. Even in death, other life forms give whether it be to other life forms or botanic life, it still gives. In death, humans burry themselves in coffins?? They're even selfish in death. So no the earth will not bounce back from 80% of deforestation and atmospheric changes that result in a 'hell like earth'. Earth will just be a barren planet. Research yourself what happens when the earth gets to the 'hell on earth point' Side: Yes
3
points
There is geological evidence that suggests that catastrophic events throughout history have reduced foliation by 90% or more, numerous times throughout history. Similarly, there is evidence for progressive formation and retraction of polar ice and glaciers. Core samples of polar ice have revealed that on several occasions in Earth's history, CO2 levels alone have been significantly higher than humans can survive in as well. The extinctions that are attributable, either directly or indirectly, to human action represent only a tiny fraction of all species that have ever gone extinct. You also act as if a lack of conservation is an innately human thing. Nope. Conservation is a human thing. Animal populations are held in balance by death. When they get out of balance, species boom and then starve. Animals do not attempt to preserve the environment for future generations; they take what they can and are controlled only by death. Humans are the only beings on this planet to even consider the idea of conservation over immediate fulfillment. We also cause far more damage, it's true- but again, this is reliant on our capabilities. That 'hell on earth' point you mention is first and foremost a GROSS exaggeration of the actual result- and the conditions it is based on are a transient state. We may well do a lot of damage before we go, but even if we manage to destroy ourselves completely, I find it very unlikely that we would take all life on the planet with us. The planet would bounce back, as it has after every other extinction event. And regardless of all of that- the life of a single human will not change the impact of our species. And more importantly, the Earth has already endured conditions sufficient to kill us off, numerous times. We'll kill ourselves off before we permanently destroy the biome; trust me. ---------- I think we've beat around the bush enough here, so I'm going to ask you to support your assertion that the case of suicide in question is rational. As such, please make predictions using the following cases as premises, where P=the current earth population, currently ~7.2 billion. 1) P people continue on their way, making no changes. 2) P-1 people continue on their way, making no changes. 1 person kills himself and is buried naturally. 3) P-1 people continue on their way, making no (immediate) changes). 1 person spends his life encouraging conservation, and manages a reduction in local consumption, is buried naturally when he dies, and has convinced numerous others to be buried naturally when they die. For this suicide to be rational, you will need to demonstrate that the end result of case 2 is not only better than case 1, but also case 3. I do not believe that you can do so, because I do not believe that one person can affect the outcome here. Side: Yes
1
point
The earth going through 'tough stages' is true, yes. But, when the earth went through these stages it 'bounced' back naturally. Humans are wiping out the natural environment. Pollution oceanographically, atmospherically, botanically, etc., did not occur during earths 'rough times'. This was introduced by humans. The earth cannot naturally extract pollutants from itself. These pollutants are the cause of the earths demise. Aside from pollution, tearing down 80% of earths forestry and running concrete over the soil will not allow that 80% to grow back. In other words the earth cannot itself reconstruct that destruction. Conservationist cannot tear down neighborhoods and commence reforestation, so this conservationist effort that you propose is pointless for the overall factors that are destroying the earth. And, if you missed from my previous statement, conservationist can only do so little. Billionaire industries that do the most damage to the earth will not permit conservationist to rid of their industrial sites to 'save the world'. Government could probably stop the industries but then they would loose money. About the burials, sure I could probably convince people to have clandestine burials but come on now. You and I both know that is highly unlikely as I will be trying to change a global culture. Even if I do, the problem is the facilitation of the earths demise through living. The way most human life is constructed, it is an inevitable failure to try and not be the cause of some pollution or destruction of the earth. So the little effort I'm putting forth while alive is not helping because I'm just returning the damage I'm trying to prevent. Think of it as someone trying to empty a lake by taking a cup going to the middle of the lake, scoop up some water and toss it behind them back into the lake (I use lake and a cup for proportion purposes to the comparison of what little man can help and cause together.) How would I globally travel to help conservation? An electric plane? How do I move around from place to place once I'm there? I could ride a bike, but if I need to get to one side of a country/state in X amount of time, how would I do that? Electric car sure but that would require the country/state to have one.
-------------- As for your premises. The third obviously seems like the most rational but above you will see the understanding of the effects of conservationist. Also, your third is based faith. Plenty of people try and encourage conservation, but non-conservationist typically do not care about what is effecting them directly. I have empirical evidence of students watching a movie on what happens with the food industry, (mainly involved animal cruelty), become sad from seeing all those animals be grotesquely killed and STILL go contribute to these industries (Fast Food restaurants, meat companies, etc.) Why is this? This is because once they're told, later on, their desires overcome their sadness (once they get hungry and Mickey D's is an option they'll take it.) They were even presented a more acceptable option, organic. Organic food is naturally processed from a local farm or facility. Of course organic is more expensive, and when people shop and see a small piece of meat for 15 bucks and compare it to a large one for the same price they choose the large one. My point is even when people understand the truth they won't change unless the truth empirically impacts them. People do not want to hear about whats going to happen years after they are dead. And I've explained what being a conservationist would do. What is more reasonable (1) Immediate death with clandestine burial and giving back to the earth for years without the distribution of destruction (pollution, deforestation, etc.) or, (2) Help distribute X amount back to the earth while destroying Y amount of the earth, all the while X = Y..? Side: Yes
tearing down 80% of earths forestry and running concrete over the soil will not allow that 80% to grow back. I think quite a bit of your argument rests on things that are factually inaccurate. Consider a parking lot after just 10 years. Consider the requirement of constant road work. It seems your position stems from your premise that the earth holds intrinsic value. Side: Yes
1
point
You chose one point, that point was exaggerated but I did not want to detail further into my already detailed argument. If you request I can give you a detailed explanation of why 80% will not grow back. Your reason was quite inaccurate. The road is not reconstructed most times because of the soil underneath. It is reconstructed because of potholes, cracks, display (colored darker), smoothness, etc. Basically, the road is reconstructed mainly for aesthetic and comfort reasons. Side: Yes
I did choose one point, but it was to illustrate my point. If 80% of the forestry being destroyed is accurate, concrete is not going to keep it from coming back for several reasons. The first reason is that forestry is destroyed by lumber companies that replant (I know they usually don't replace the same type of trees but they sure as hell aren't laying concrete). The second reason is what I said earlier, breakdown. You know what happens when a pothole isn't filled? A bush will grow in it. Every crack of the pavement holds the seed of a blade of grass that makes room for a weed which makes room for a bush which makes room for a tree. This can easily be seen within any adults lifetime because it doesn't take that long. If you really think you can logically show how concrete is going to end 80% of forestry re-growth, then by all means... Side: Yes
1
point
Are you sure a FULL tree grows back that fast? Also, what about your home? And highways? There's always a crack but you never wake up next to a tree. Potholes are fixed for the purpose of not damaging a cars tire. The concrete can damage soil, as you know, soil is essential for any botanical growth. So if the soil is destroyed, then where do these trees come from? Surely you can reason that the construction workers that build these roads/sidewalks/houses/etc. would try and prevent growth in these places to avoid spending money to constantly repair it. This is govt. money we're talking, so why would the govt. waste their money on avoidable damages? Side: Yes
There's always a crack but you never wake up next to a tree. Have you ever seen a lot that has gone without upkeep? A tree in lot is not uncommon. I'm sure concrete can damage soil, though I'm not sure to what extent. I am sure however that when you look at a satellite image of the earth, it's not gray, as it would be if it was covered by 80% concrete. No, It's green and blue. Side: Yes
2
points
I advised in my last post that I was through beating around the bush here. I repeat the following: To support your claims, please make predictions using the following cases as premises, where P=the current earth population, currently ~7.2 billion. 1) P people continue on their way, making no changes. 2) P-1 people continue on their way, making no changes. 1 person kills himself and is buried naturally. 3) P-1 people continue on their way, making no (immediate) changes). 1 person spends his life encouraging conservation, and manages a reduction in local consumption, is buried naturally when he dies, and has convinced numerous others to be buried naturally when they die. For this suicide to be rational, you will need to demonstrate that the end result of case 2 is not only better than case 1, but also case 3. I do not believe that you can do so, because I do not believe that one person can affect the outcome here. I will be perfectly happy to respond to your other points if you can do this. If not, then it's pretty clear that you are either unwilling or unable to support your position, and as such my attention is better directed elsewhere. Side: Yes
1
point
2
points
Your explanation is rejected. Again, I told you I was done beating around the bush here. To demonstrated the rationality of the suicide in question, you need to demonstrate that it makes a statistically significant difference from doing nothing. "Returning resources" and "Reducing damage" are all well and good- but you need to demonstrate that someone makes a difference regarding the destruction of the world. What you have offered- people opting not to contribute to damage- amounts to standing on principle if it changes nothing, making this position emotional and irrational. I am unwilling to proceed further in this argument if you are unwilling to make an attempt to do that, and if you continue to fail to respond I will consider this finished in favor of my position. Side: Yes
1
point
My explanation rejects the rationality of your preposition because if one were to stay alive it will cause destruction regardless of conservation methods. This is because no conservation efforts can stop the essential causation of earths destruction. So it makes no sense to say: "stay alive and help" when that is simply not possible. I understand that one suicide will not have an monumental effect on the earth, but staying alive definitely will not either, in fact it will cause--insubstantially for one person--even more. So if you cannot agree to this, then I guess the argument ends in my favor of rationality. Side: Yes
2
points
My explanation rejects the rationality of your preposition because if one were to stay alive it will cause destruction regardless of conservation methods. This is because no conservation efforts can stop the essential causation of earths destruction. So it makes no sense to say: "stay alive and help" when that is simply not possible. Essentially, you're arguing against option 3 from above. However, even if we assume there is ZERO benefit from the conservation efforts... I understand that one suicide will not have an monumental effect on the earth, but staying alive definitely will not either, in fact it will cause--insubstantially for one person--even more. So if you cannot agree to this, then I guess the argument ends in my favor of rationality. You essentially acknowledge here that the effect of a single suicide changes nothing; as such, there is no actual return for the suicide in question. All you've done is attack option 3 from above. This is insufficient to prove the rationality of your position. You still need to demonstrate that option 2 (suicide for the earths sake) carries a tangible benefit over either 1 or 3. Even if you assert that the benefit of 1 or 3 is zero, you've also acknowledged that the benefit of option 2 is zero. The suicide option only 'breaks even' if human life is assumed to hold no value. The only benefit to be had here is an emotional one, of standing on principles. This is not a rational position, but an emotional one. No matter what angle one starts from, this amounts to paying the cost of a human life, for a benefit of zero. Not a rational position. QED. It was an interesting discussion and I'm glad to have seen your side here, even if ultimately your stance didn't pan out. I look forward to discussing other topics with you in the future, though I hope you will address actual points more readily moving forward. Side: Yes
1
point
I will leave this argument in your favor based on your 3 options listed and my 'inability' to prove the rationality of the 2nd. I will stick to my view--as I believe it is a rational one, but to prove it, I should construct a more sufficient reason of rationality. In this case (the argument) is in your favor. Also, I too wish to argue/discuss more topics in the future. Side: Yes
1
point
I do not believe I was tying in emotion when I stated that human life is detrimental to the facilitation of their life and all life on it. I was also asserting that the immediate death of one human being is more 'understandable' for the non-responsibility in the demise. This is factual not emotional because the earth is obviously an essentiality for ones life, so for one to not take part in its destruction seems rational. Side: Yes
1
point
Only if the death can make a difference, and only if destruction is literal, rather than hyperbole. It is unlikely that our activity would destroy the environment to the point that all life is extinguished- we ourselves would die out well beyond conditions became unfavorable to all known life. Even if we cause another large scale extinction event, life will bounce back yet again. And if not... one life wouldn't make the difference anyway. Side: Yes
2
points
I believe that some forms of suicide may be rational. Suicide in the form of a meaningful sacrifice, for example, could be a rationally made decision looking at the alternatives. I must stress though that I only voted 'yes' here because of the wording of the argument, mainly the word 'can.' I don't believe that a significant portion of suicides could be described as being sacrifices, and I don't believe that this instance is what was intended when the debate was created. If I were to answer the question 'is suicide generally rational' or usually, or something to that effect, I would have to offer a resounding no. The survival instinct is one of the most basic ones common to all life. I don't believe that a mind enduring pain (physical or emotional) sufficient to override that instinct remotely rational. This isn't to say that suicide is never a reasonable decision under such circumstances- but I'm fairly confident that that much pain skews the ability to make accurate value assessments. I hate to put it that way, because it amounts to a tautology, saying that suicidal people are irrational because they are suicidal- but given what we know of the human mind, I believe it's more the case that suicidal people are irrational for the same reasons that they are suicidal; a shared cause. One can be completely calm and collected, but still not be rational if their ability to assess value is compromised. Of course, that kind of begs another question entirely, given that value assessment is itself subjective... You know what? I'm going to just call this one my opinion- I can't honestly provide any evidence to support my stance- I'd love to hear from others on the matter. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
The rationale I offered was that the level of pain in question would compromise the ability of an individual to make accurate value assessments- but in order to prove this, we would need to demonstrate that the value assessments were in fact inaccurate. Value is an innately subjective thing, and when you are talking about subjective valuation of subjective experience it gets even hazier; it's really speculation and nothing more. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
So if I were to realize the effect and condonence I have on the destruction of nature (driving cars/planes/buses/trains, deforestation, etc.) and the corresponding factors of doing so. I then rationalize by saying "If I were to stay alive I would; (A) cause more destruction because of how the (industrial) world is set up(almost everything one needs is imported, of course it is imported by air (pollution)) or; (B) commit suicide and naturally burry myself into the ground and give a little back of what I have taken. I understand one human dying does not make that much of a difference, but it does make a difference. Maybe in the 0.% range but not an absolute zero. Rational thinking or no? Side: Yes
1
point
A rational person with a vested interest in reducing humans impact on the environment would recognize that 1 person represents somethinkg like 0.00000001% (thats 1 hundred millionth of a percent) of the current population (which is currently growing anyway), and as such would likely reach the conclusion that they would be able to benefit the world better by remaining alive and working with other conservation-minded people. Removing one person is negligible, and the birth rate will ensure that person is replaced in a matter of seconds anyway; it won't reduce destruction, and it won't even slow it down noticeably. That aside, even if it were rational, that would still fall under the 'sacrifice' exclusion I already noted. Side: Yes
1
point
Staying alive and helping "conservation-minded people" will not prevent the fact that they need food, clothing, and shelter. All of which (especially in developed countries) is more than likely imported. I am going to assume you know how the industry of importation and transportation works. I am also sure you know things as simple as a napkin, clothing hangar, ear swab, etc. are made in some sort of factory that emits fumes hazardous to the atmosphere (causation of GCC.) Now, I say all of this to say, if one were to contemplate all of these factors, and realize that there existence is not only causing but contributing to these global negatives (buying clothing, shelter, etc., which in return cause pollution from all the importation necessary.) Would that be a well rationalized suicide? Not only that, also, a beneficial suicide (remember that 0.?% is still something.) Side: Yes
1
point
No it would not. You are basically saying that all humanity would have a revelation. If humanity has a revelation, before suicide, I am sure humans would try to fix the problem. Of course they would not fix the damage they have done but certain things could be fixed. Now, for the best fixture, yes, there would need to be mass suicide, but not for all of humanity, just a mass of humanity. This is because of supply&demand;. Less humans = less need for natural recourses. Side: Yes
1
point
Even those few humans left would drastically alter their immdiate environment. Tis the idea. If the earth is intrinsically valuable, would even a little alteration by humans be harmful? Humans seem to be an intrinsic flaw. Seeing as how humans are the only species that does/can destroy it incubator. For you question, no. Empirical observation shoe that immediate eradication of humans would be overwhelming positive(exclude zoos.) As I said before, humans are the only cause for natural imbalances (e.g. animal extinctions, GCC, etc.) Give me an example of a human contribution other than a contribution that a human called for that needn't be in the first place if it were not for so(humans) Side: Yes
Humans seem to be an intrinsic flaw. Only if a certain kind of nature (wildlife?) is an intrinsic value. humans are the only species that does/can destroy it incubator. Babies reek havoc on the womb (such is life). We have not destroyed our incubator. If we had, we couldn't live here anymore. In one perspective, our growing population might imply that our incubator is thriving. eradication of humans would be overwhelming positive Positive for whom? Give me an example of a human contribution other than a contribution that a human called for that needn't be in the first place if it were not for so(humans) This is an unfair measure of human contribution. Animals alter their environment and leave waste. Other creatures feed on that. The earths atmosphere used to be overly oxygenated by todays requirements, perhaps we are giving rise to a carbon feeding life that needs our spewing gasses. Wildlife lives on our waste, like any other animal. There are piles of tires serving as habitat. We have thoroughly contributed to the corn population. The species of domesticated chickens and cows wouldn't exist without us. They might thank our appetite. The point is that life on earth will live on. If we are destroying things, it's only destroyed for us (which is the real issue). A comet killed most of life on Earth once, Earth didn't care. Side: Yes
1
point
Only if a certain kind of nature (wildlife?) is an intrinsic value. Yes wildlife and nature. Aside from humans, wildlife and nature work together and balance things out (e.g. bees and pollination.) It is a chain of events that occur that create a "natural perfect system." Humans change all of that, for the worst. Babies reek havoc on the womb (such is life). We have not destroyed our incubator. In one perspective, our growing population might imply that our incubator is thriving. Babies do not reek havoc on the womb intentionally. Do not even try that... We have not destroyed our incubator. If we had, we couldn't live here anymore. Never have I said we "destroyed", I said were are and are capable of destroying. Our capability is intentional. What I mean by this is that it would not be "natural" to destroy out incubator as it would be for a baby. A mother tigress has the capability to kill her cubs, but she does not have the intentional capability to do so. Basically, she would not even think about doing something like that. In one perspective, our growing population might imply that our incubator is thriving. Thriving is equivocal. The earth is "holding on" would be more proper. Also, you seem to human life over any other life forms on Earth. Our population growing is causing more damage to other life. Tearing down animals homes to build our own then kill them because they have no place to stay and are lurking around the neighborhood is not natural. It creates a natural imbalance because a lot of the creatures have not even made contact with a human(because it is isn't natural for humans to be in that environment) and they have not had their homes destroyed in such a way before. Positive for whom? The earth and everything in it besides humans. Wildlife lives on our waste, like any other animal. There are piles of tires serving as habitat. This is because we destroy their natural habitats and force them to immerse. These life forms do not need a tire to survive. They would be living a different way if their habitat was not destroyed. piles of tires serving as habitat. We have thoroughly contributed to the corn population. The species of domesticated chickens and cows wouldn't exist without us. You are hilarious. Nature must not be a strong-suit of yours. Our contribution to the corn population does not benefit the Earth. It benefits us. Think about it, on a corn field what do humans do to keep the animals from damaging or eating the corn? They kill them. Naturally the animals are only going where they find food. But humans disrupt the animals discovery by killing them. So our contribution to corn had a negative impact on wildlife. As for the chickens.... Was that a serious question? Just like horses, chickens were part of wild life before they were domesticated. Your arguments are "appeal to ignorance" fallacies. You are basing your assertions on what you think. Even though that chicken statement could have been thought about logically if you had taken the time.
If chickens cannot survive without being domesticated by humans. How on Earth were they surviving before their domestication? Did the first humans naturally inherit chickens? Does this mean "man" and "chicken" came to be at the same time? Because that would be the only way. Side: No
Which came first, the chicken or the man? What I meant here was that domestic chickens and cows have been bread. They are as far from their origin as we are from apes (hyperbole, but you know what I mean). They were brought about by humans over time. I value human life above other life, this is true. But I do so because this is what nature demands. Various living things naturally value their own kind of life above others. This isn't subjective its contextual. Valuing all other life above humans is a very unnatural position to hold. I love nature, for this reason I think we need to preserve our environment. My reasoning is not that earth has intrinsic value (no more than Mars), but that it has value to us. Animals intrude on other animals all the time. Territories spread and change. My position is simply that humans are as natural as anything else. To live by according to our nature is the natural thing to do. If we destroy this planet, we will suffer. If we actually destroy it, we will destroy ourselves. Then Earth will repair itself and life will go on. My interest in humanity breeds an interest in nature. Corn, by the way, is now genetically modified to repel insects. This keeps the streams clean and causes no harm to wild mammals that eat it. The bread basket of America has a large and healthy population of deer and other plant eaters. Side: Yes
1
point
Which came first, the chicken or the man? What I meant here was that domestic chickens and cows have been bread. They are as far from their origin as we are from apes (hyperbole, but you know what I mean). They were brought about by humans over time. I do recall saying "do not exemplify a contribution that was not needed if there was no human impact on so in the first place." There was no need for the domestication of any animals. They were doing just fine in their "wild times". Actually, their domestication is a negative thing. There dependency on humans for a torturous outcome is not positive to them. Only to you and the people like you. I am asking for a positive impact on wildlife and nature itself. My position is simply that humans are as natural as anything else. To live by according to our nature is the natural thing to do. This is where I am constructing a hypothesis and (in process) writing a book on. I would say the title but I cannot for legal purposes. But the point of it is discovering why humanity is evolutionarily natural, but tend to do unnatural things (in comparison to all nature.) For example, avoiding insemination during sex to avoid pregnancy. Naturally, that does not happen seeing as (aside from humans) animals mate mainly for reproduction. Most humans mate and avoid reproduction. At first I thought that intelligence played a role but animals know that mating causes reproduction. Anyway, humans display traits outside of common natural traits. I value human life above other life, this is true. But I do so because this is what nature demands. Various living things naturally value their own kind of life above others. Second part not true. A lot of animals value their own life over all, but not their own kind. Some do, just not all. As for the first part, I am an exception, once I realized how just 1 human impacts nature negatively I came to the conclusion that a human life is worthless to nature. Of course I keep explaining how, but humans are parasitic to the Earth. This is fact by the way. We take from the Earth and give nothing back. If it were up to me I call for immediate eradication of humanity. And rightfully so. Side: No
Can you define what you mean by natural? We produce many synthetic things, but the ingredients are found in nature. Can you find a mammal that doesn't destroy living things in order to live? Imagine a situation where there are 0 negative consequences for destroying the salmonella virus. Should we do it, or does that species have intrinsic value? Do humans have any value? Why/why not? Side: Yes
1
point
Another point to the corn statement. Humans have discovered a way to make the corn 'not appealing' to animals yes. Do you know how long it took them to do so? They were killing of animals with that 'agent orange' and caused multiple species to become threatened or endangered. So regardless of how corn is farmed now, overall, it still had a negative impact on wildlife and nature. Side: Yes
1
point
I'm assuming you know that the overwhelming majority of those products are mass produced, and that removing a single consumer is unlikely to eliminate even a single production run in most cases? As such, the actual impact of that persons suicide is LESS than their proportion of the population. Pair that with population growth, and any rational individual will note that a suicide here does not represent a net 'gain' of any kind; merely an infinismal reduction in the rate of 'loss' in the short term. The problem will continue to get worse, and suicide by conservationists will, at any scale, make the problem worse faster. Improvements will require changes that impact the entire population, and most likely are only going to occur with legislation- which you'd be removing a voter from. As we've already touched on, a persons suicide is going to have less of an improvement than their proportion of the population suggests- their conservation efforts need only contribute a tiny amount to overall improvements to have a much larger long-term effect. Suicide is only 'better' in the extreme short term, and is a detriment to the big picture. Side: Yes
1
point
I'm assuming you know that the overwhelming majority of those products are mass produced, and that removing a single consumer is unlikely to eliminate even a single production run in most cases? I am saying if one realizes their contribution to such production runs, it can make them conclude with "I will not contribute to the Earths demise." Let us compare conservationist to consumers(give me at all cost people.) First, consumers outweigh conservationist by the billions (global scale), and as you know consumers are fixated on getting what makes them happy and the billion dollar companies that provide these things practically "run the world." These companies own factories, plants, farms, etc. The govt. and the companies do business together so if one were to try and stop, let's say, a plant because of the effects it has on the environment, that person would fail because the in order to stop that business they need the govt. But of course this example if for when companies do business that directly effects a consumer. But the same idea can be used for conservationist efforts to help the environment. Sure a conservationist could help out the simple things. But they cannot do anything about billion dollar industries. Money is power. Improvements will require changes that impact the entire population, and most likely are only going to occur with legislation- which you'd be removing a voter from. As I stated above, the govt. works with these billion dollar industries that globally impact Earths health. So seeing the govt. regulate "Earth friendly laws" that will have a major impact is highly improbable. which you'd be removing a voter from This is optimism for humanity. Do you honestly believe that humans are going to vote for something that impacts their happiness? As I said consumers (give me people) outweigh conservationist. So even if no one commits suicide the vote to "keep production (and transportation for the produce) up" will outnumber the vote to "slow it down". Even with the consumers knowing the effect of keeping the industries flowing as they are, the people will say that the effects aren't as bad as tree huggers say they are. People will rationalize their irrational behaviors because they want to be happy, they want to get nice things at a moments notice. As a matter of fact, of there was a vote to "speed up production" they will more than likely vote for that. Side: Yes
1
point
"I will not contribute to the Earths demise" represents an emotional reaction rather than a rational decision. If you are not actually affecting any change by either opting in or opting out, then any rationale for the suicide has gone out the window completely. I've been arguing the benefits of conservation as compared to the actual benefits of the suicide up until now; perhaps that was the wrong approach for your stance on the matter. I'm aware of the arguments against conservation, but taking shots at it does not negate the fact that the actual benefit from a persons suicide is negligible, and in many cases will actually be zero. You can't tell me that considering a negligible benefit to be worth more than a life is a rational decision, even if encouraging conservation is taken off the table as an option. Side: Yes
1
point
I just wrote a whole response and clicked submit and it said I had to log in so it got deleted. Suicide followed with a clandestine burial would benefit the Earth far more than living. Aside from conservation for Earth's benefit, a clandestine burial would benefit the earth microbiologically, botanically, economically, and atmospherically. Decomposition can have a favorable influence on the growth of plants due to fertility. The changes in the concentration of nutrients can have lasting effects that are still seen years after a body or carcass has completely disappeared. This means that not only are you benefiting the Earth by not contributing to the 0.X% of the negatives, you are also benefitting the earth with your dead corpse and continue to do so years after your suicide. If you were living you would inadvertently or unintentionally contribute to the negative impacts on the Earth. It cannot be helped. There is always someway, if you are alive, that you will negatively impact the Earth. Side: Yes
1
point
While it's a good thought and something that should be practiced more, burial in a manner that returns ones nutrients et al to the earth isn't really an applicable argument for your side, given that a person can will themselves to be buried that way when they eventually die anyway. I feel I've already demonstrated that the negligible affect of an individual is rendered negligible due to modern production methods, and the benefit you describe can be done just as easily at the end of a long life as it can at the beginning- and if you spend a few decades spreading the natural burial idea around before you die rather than ending it immediately, you could almost certainly convince a couple others to do the same. Side: Yes
1
point
My point was during that "eventuality" a person will cause/contribute harmful destruction to the Earth. So, for the Earths benefit, it would be in ones best interest to immediately die and give back what little the Earth provided. I know this is blatant/frank but it is true. Side: Yes
1
point
But the actual reduction in harm from the suicide is negligible at best. I don't believe that any rational argument can establish that negligible benefit as being more valuable than a human life. Now, if we're talking a calculated, mass suicide effort by a group of people who can calculate how many people they need on board to effect consumption sufficiently to reduce production, there might be a rational argument to it; but it simply isn't effective at the individual level. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I said "assume one does not have kids" that way nobody could say "if you have kids then you have a responsibility". I am asking you if someone is miserable, does not like living for whatever reason, would it be okay for them to commit suicide? Miserable + Hate Living + 0 Children = Good reason to commit suicide? Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
Okay, you're basically saying, if someone were extremely miserable, hated life, and wanted to commit suicide, should not. They should just live in misery? Because if you are telling them to stay alive while they are miserable is basically telling them to be miserable. Especially if they cannot become not miserable. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Well if you are a realist amongst humanity, then no. It is not possible. It is hard to find happiness when you consistently realize everything you do, touch, eat, and see was probably destroyed (or was destroyed) or killed (or both.) Destruction includes atmospherical, nature, other forms a life. Killing includes, well... self explanatory. Then you constantly watch people commit natural crimes then complain about, basically, however much crime committed for their life enhancement was not enough because their only 99.9 percent satisfied and they so desperately need that .1 percent because, well, their humans. Humans do not know of that which they actually do. Sometimes I envy the ignorant. Ignorance is blissful. Side: No
1
point
I don't know if this is considered suicide, but if someone whom you would be miserable without is in extreme danger and your death will save them, this is rational. Your world as you know it ends regardless, this way you leave a beautiful world rather than a miserable one. I hope that doesn't break the ground rules. Side: Yes
I'm not arguing with the rationale, but I just want to say this, and I would to any person claiming this as their reason for suicide: Would it really be fair to leave this world behind to save someone you couldn't live without, if they also could not live without you? I mean when their life was on the line, some could call it fate, it was what was happening so it should have played out, but when you jumped in to give your own life, you messed with the way things were going. I feel it's selfish. Side: Yes
1
point
2
points
1
point
Well I said, some would call it fate, as a person who doesn't believe in fate, I just say "what should happen happens, hence the reason it happens" it's odd I know, but bare with me. The person dying of, let's say a heart problem, they were already dying, naturally and sure they were sad to go, and you were sad to see them go, but to give your heart so that they could live, changed what was happening naturally, and now they have to live in this world without you, because you were too selfish to live with out them. Side: Yes
I never stated it was irrational, hence the reason I clarified. In fact, in my own argument i stated that rationality is all dependent upon the mind making the rationalizations, in other words. It's subjective. I was simply stating how, like you said, in some contexts giving your life to save one you could not live without, is selfish since you would then be causing them to live without you. Side: Yes
1
point
If selfish is defined as "being concerned primarily with ones own interests" then it is possible to be both generous and selfish at the same time, so long as others interests coincide with ones own. Most of the definitions that I found include an element of disregard or detriment to others in which case it would not be possible to be both. Which definition is correct? Side: Yes
1
point
If you were to give an addict that $100, it won't help him, and will just end up enabling his addiction. Giving him that $100 makes his situation worse, and the only one that benefits is you, with warm fuzzies from being generous. That would be an example of selfish giving. Giving something to someone in hopes of getting something back from them (outside of actual transactions, I mean), might also be a case of selfish giving. Case in point: If you give your girl a gift in hopes of bargaining for a sex act that she rarely (or never) does, I'd call that selfish giving too, although your girl would also be selfish one if she went for it, basically trading a free consumable for something expensive and permanent... I don't think there is such a thing as a truly selfless act; there is almost always some self interest. Heck, even the sacrifice of Jesus that Christians believe in, if assumed to be true, couldn't be called completely selfless; Jesus is described as not just being the son of god, but actually being god, and said god seems motivated to have some company in heaven at the end of times. For God so loved the world, that he did not want the entire project (and the company he was craving that inspired creating sentient life in the first place!) discarded just because of some obediance issues. Rational Self Interest! And given the fact that he 'paid for sin' without actually spending eternity in hell, or even staying dead for more than a long weekend, it really doesn't seem that much of a sacrifice on his part either... a few weeks of various forms of torture culminating in a few days of agony is horrific by human standards, but doesn't really seem to be a huge deal if endured by an omniscient, omnipotent, immortal being. Side: Yes
1
point
It depends on the addicts mindset. If I give him $100, and he does not care about his life he just wants to be pleasured, then id say that's generous. It helps him become acquisitive of his pleasures--which benefits him if that is all he cares about (which is the case with most addicts.) I agree, but I thought "god" sent himself in the body of a human which means he felt everything regardless of his 'powers'? Side: Yes
1
point
By that logic, you could twist promiscuity into an act of altruism. I'm pretty sure that generosity entails actual benefits beyond just simple pleasure, but maybe we simply just disagree on that aspect. I believe my other points stand. I agree, but I thought "god" sent himself in the body of a human which means he felt everything regardless of his 'powers'? Keep in mind that the God in question is portrayed as omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. 'Omniscient' would include understanding what it is like to experience anything and everything, from the perspective of someone experiencing it; this would mean that God would know exactly what it was like to spend eternity in hell. Sure, he felt everything- but compared to what he would have already been able to perceive, it wouldn't rate at all for either time or duration. Side: Yes
1
point
Yes I knew that he knows what those feelings feel like, which is why I question his disapproval for lust, jealousy, etc. He can feel it but we can't? Anyway, I was saying he might know how it feels but it still hurts just as bad feeling it again. You may have gotten stabbed in the arm, 5 years passed get stabbed again, it won't be "easier" to deal with the pain just because you already knew what it felt like. Side: Yes
1
point
I wasn't going for an attempt to support the veracity of or assert internal consistency regarding a deity I don't worship, I was just using it as an example. But as to your other statements? Anyway, I was saying he might know how it feels but it still hurts just as bad feeling it again. You may have gotten stabbed in the arm, 5 years passed get stabbed again, it won't be "easier" to deal with the pain just because you already knew what it felt like. I have to disagree here. I've had the same type of fracture on my left forearm on several occasions. The first time was the worst, but the subsequent times were less of a big deal. Additionally, after enduring something significantly more painful, such as passing a kidney stone, the pain of a fracture is barely noticeable by comparison- at least, such is my personal experience. Side: Yes
1
point
If someone lived a miserable life alone and they commit suicide because of it, is that irrational? Is their misery rational? Before we determine the rationality of suicide we should consider the alternatives. Maybe the misery stems from a chemical imbalance. In this case, continued misery is irrational given modern assistance. Misery is a state of life that need not continue, suicide is not the only way to end it. If misery can be ended, and happiness found (negating the desire for suicide), then it cannot be concluded that suicide is a rational alternative. The rationality of suicide would need to be determined by conditions other than misery. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
If other species are this persons highest value, then there are rational alternatives to suicide. While it may be true that one person can't do a lot to change the direction of the planet as a whole, a person could do a lot for the direction of one species. If one person saved one species, it would be a huge difference and not a small contribution to species as such. As long as there is something that is valued, suicide is irrational. Side: Yes
Anything can be rational. It all depends on how the individual rationalizes it. If a person can go from the idea that their are too many ferrets on this planet, to the idea that they need to die, to help the problem of too many ferrets, then they've rationalized it. What's rational to some isn't always rational to others. Side: Yes
Yes, a rational decision to end your life is possible. It need only be based in reason and logic to qualify as rational. For example: It is possible that a serial child molester, can reason that their acts are heinous. It is equally possible that such an individual might have a reasoned awareness that they are completely unable to control their compulsion enough to stop the behavior. Given that this situation is rationally possible, such a person could come to a reasonable, logical decision to commit suicide. Side: Yes
|
