CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Suicide is not something that one does for a laugh. It is usually brought on by severe mental issues, ones which unfortunately are difficult to resolve. If a person feels that their existence is worse than death, then let the person be.
Suicide is not something that one does for a laugh.
Try convincing Joe of that.
If a person feels that their existence is worse than death, then let the person be.
They're fully capable of killing themselves, but they should at least try to get help from friends, family, or, really, just about anyone. I've been there for two people I've known when they were depressed; I would expect most people to be willing to sacrifice some time to help somebody that matters to them get through the tough times of depression.
Try to convince Joe that anything is not for a laugh. Guaranteed failure is assured.
They're fully capable of killing themselves, but they should at least try to get help from friends, family, or, really, just about anyone. I've been there for two people I've known when they were depressed; I would expect most people to be willing to sacrifice some time to help somebody that matters to them get through the tough times of depression.
Oh, I don't dispute that we should try to help. But there are some people beyond help. There are those that will continually reject help, and will shut themselves off. Once this point is reached, the chances of successfully restoring them to normal life are infinitesimally small. Depression is one thing, but there are certain issues where nothing can be done.
And actually, suicide may not be as selfish as is made out. Every situation is different, and in some circumstances, it can be the best solution for everyone.
You are right, suicide is usually brought on by severe mental issues, often mental disorders like schizophrenia, depression, bi-polar disorder and numerous other conditions. The thing is, if a decision like this is caused by a cognitive disorder then that is a reason to oppose that decision, not support it. If someone is compelled into this by a delusion when they wouldn’t want to kill themselves if they were treated and returned to reality then we should oppose their decision as something that is against their true choice. Their life should be protected in that circumstance, and opposing suicide makes it more likely they will seek treatment because that opposition sends the message that if you want to kill yourself then there is something wrong and you should seek help. The problem is that it is impossible to really know when someone is being compelled by a delusion in that way because the delusion is entirely internal to them and can often be hidden even from psychiatrists. The only way to be sure we are protecting those who do not truly consent and are being compelled is to oppose all suicides.
The thing is, if a decision like this is caused by a cognitive disorder then that is a reason to oppose that decision, not support it.
I disagree. Depending on the circumstances, it can be either.
If someone is compelled into this by a delusion when they wouldn’t want to kill themselves if they were treated and returned to reality then we should oppose their decision as something that is against their true choice.
But the people who reach this stage are most likely to be beyond help. They are the ones that will continually shut themselves off from support until they make a final decision, which is nobody's fault but their own. Once at this stage, it is impossible to know what their "true choice" would be.
Their life should be protected in that circumstance,
One is then left with a moral dilemma. Which is more important: the right to life, or freedom of choice?
opposing suicide makes it more likely
Just to clarify, I don't encourage suicide. I just support the rights of those who wish to do so.
you want to kill yourself then there is something wrong and you should seek help
That could antagonize the situation. Telling a suicidal person that there is something wrong with them isn't very encouraging, is it?
The only way to be sure we are protecting those who do not truly consent and are being compelled is to oppose all suicides.
But again, you are then infringing on the personal freedom of choice that we all have. Which brings us back to the aforementioned moral dilemma.
Excellent points, ChuckHades, and I’m going to respond under two themes, first on the moral dilemma and second on whether the suicidal are beyond help. These are big questions, so please forgive the big replies.
So lets look at this dilemma, which you defined as:
Which is more important: the right to life, or freedom of choice?
Life is a more important right for a number of reasons. First, life is the fundamental right from which all other rights derive. Every other right is useless without life. Second, forfeiting life is irreversible. Other rights can be regained if you opt out of them, but not life. That permanence means life should be afforded extra protection. Third, there are practical benefits to life being considered sacred. If life is sacred people are more willing to consider other options like counselling or therapy or support networks rather than suicide. It also means people who make decisions regarding people’s lives are more likely to look at life as a right which is deserving of special protections and act accordingly.
Moreover, even if choice was a more fundamental right, suicide should still be opposed. Firstly, when you take your life you are also taking the life of whatever person you might become, so even if you consent to suicide, the “future you” hasn’t consented (or at least it is impossible to establish that consent). Their choice should be protected as well, and because removing life is permanent we should err on the side of its preservation wherever possible. Secondly, we can’t prioritize choice when it isn’t a free choice. Choice means actual consent (or at least when the stakes are this high it does), and consent involves the rational weighing of harms and benefits to arrive at a decision. That process is impaired by these disorders, so to maximize their choice their suicide should be opposed until they are capable of making a choice. Since these disorders are internal and difficult to diagnose, it is impossible to know whether any individual suicide is truly consensual. A higher standard must be in place, if that standard cannot be guaranteed then it should be opposed completely.
Now let’s look at whether the suicidal are beyond help.
They are the ones that will continually shut themselves off from support until they make a final decision, which is nobody's fault but their own.
First, while that may apply to some of them I don’t think it applies to everyone equally and those who can be helped deserve every chance. It is nobody’s fault, not even their own, that they got a mental disorder and we shouldn’t just give up on them. Secondly, they may be shutting themselves off from support, but these disorders usually come in waves, where people have periods of delusion interspaced with periods of lucidity. Any opposition that causes any delay in their decision to take their own life makes it more likely they will enter a lucid phase before taking that final step. Thirdly on antagonizing the situation, if they are about to kill themselves anyway then antagonizing them is hardly likely to hurt them since the only thing they could do in response is something they are about to do anyway.
The right to life is special and deserves special protection, and even if opposing suicide only provides a marginal benefit to a few people it is still worth it.
And an excellent rebuttal, Sir/Madam. I'll address what I can. Long responses don't bother me, it shows that you have put thought into your arguments.
First, life is the fundamental right from which all other rights derive. Every other right is useless without life.
Well, everything is useless without life. But can you choose to have life? No, it is bestowed upon you at birth. Life then, is the only right that is dictated unto us. Does the right to life infringe on personal liberty? I believe, in this context, it does. This is all opinion, but I value my freedom more than I do my existence.
The problem with your statement is that it implies that life is more important because we'd be dead without it. But who's to say that death is the worst fate? We cannot know how awful death is, but we can know how awful some mental illnesses are.
Other rights can be regained if you opt out of them, but not life.
And how would one regain them? Through the freedom of choice. All rights are then also dependent on freedom of choice, making it just as important as the right to life.
That permanence means life should be afforded extra protection.
But as I said, who is to say that death is worse?
Third, there are practical benefits to life being considered sacred. If life is sacred people are more willing to consider other options like counselling or therapy or support networks rather than suicide.
That is a massive "if". If life was inherently sacred, why would a person willing to seek help contemplate suicide in the first place?
Firstly, when you take your life you are also taking the life of whatever person you might become, so even if you consent to suicide, the “future you” hasn’t consented (or at least it is impossible to establish that consent). Their choice should be protected as well, and because removing life is permanent we should err on the side of its preservation wherever possible
I disagree. We cannot make decisions about personal liberty based on completely wild speculation. The future person could recover. They could also deteriorate. It is too chancy to be taken seriously. For this reason, the present must take precedent over the future.
Secondly, we can’t prioritize choice when it isn’t a free choice
I agree. But what is a free choice? Everything we do is influenced by something. For example, if I see an advert telling me to drink Coke, I might buy some Coke. Is that a free choice?
consent involves the rational weighing of harms and benefits to arrive at a decision.
Not necessarily. I could give you consent to steal my computer. Rationality need not enter my brain when I give you my consent. Unprotected sex is another good example. Millions of people give their consent for it, yet they probably do not let rationality influence their decision.
First, while that may apply to some of them I don’t think it applies to everyone equally and those who can be helped deserve every chance
I 100% agree, but my argument only applies to those who are truly beyond help.
It is nobody’s fault, not even their own, that they got a mental disorder and we shouldn’t just give up on them.
I disagree. While the actual cause of the disorder is no-one's fault, their reactions and decisions afterwards are the subject's fault. Certain things can aggravate disorders, and these things that they do may be completely independent of the disorder.
For example. Manic depression can lay dormant in a person for their entire life. But certain things can bring it on, like stress. If the stress is the fault of the subject, then they must also accept that the disorder becoming active is partially, if not fully, their fault. This sounds incredibly harsh, but I believe it to be true.
Secondly, they may be shutting themselves off from support, but these disorders usually come in waves, where people have periods of delusion interspaced with periods of lucidity
Definitely. But this is why I believe that in some cases, suicide can be the best solution. Because the people surrounding the person have to suffer every time the waves come on. If these waves stop, then the suffering does, despite the huge amount initially suffered at the death of a loved one.
if they are about to kill themselves anyway then antagonizing them is hardly likely to hurt them since the only thing they could do in response is something they are about to do anyway.
I'd say it probably makes them more likely to do something sociopathic. Knowing that the end is nigh comes a period of freedom. You know exactly what your fate is, so the fate's of others perhaps become less important.
The right to life is special and deserves special protection, and even if opposing suicide only provides a marginal benefit to a few people it is still worth it.
'Tis a double edged sword. That marginal benefit brought to a handful of people could lead to a mass deterioration in the lives of many. My case is simple: suicide is permissible when the subject is beyond help, and is causing harm to other's as a result. I believe that your case is more difficult. You need to defend the right to life in all circumstances, which means crushing all other rights.
Ok, there’s a lot here, so I’m going to organize this post into three questions:
Is this true consent? When do we limit a notionally free choice? How do we help those with mental disorders?
So, is this true consent?
First, dealing with your counter-examples, consent isn’t an on off switch. Different standards of consent are required depending on the amount of harms possible in getting that consent wrong. Choosing which colour pen to use has limited harms and so doesn’t require the same standard of consent as donating a kidney, so someone with diminished capacity can consent to one and not the other. Drinking coke has a low harm potential, so you have made a free choice there – but the same influences which are legitimate for that choice may not be legitimate for other choices. When the risk is death, obviously a very high standard of consent must be demanded before we allow it.
Secondly, on the ability to rationally discern between choices. If someone decides to have unprotected sex then they decided that the benefits (a more enjoyable experience, bragging rights, trying something new, adhering to religious beliefs, whatever) are more important to them than the harms (stds, pregnancy, whatever). The legitimacy of, for example, their religion and its importance to them, is a separate idea. They have still made a rational weighing of the harms and benefits as they perceive them, and so have consented in that sense. Someone with a mental disorder doesn’t do that. That take actions often completely at random to the result of their own harm/benefit calculus, often not knowing why they do something.
Thirdly, on the legitimacy of the influences over these choices. This point is about those who can weigh up their feelings, but whose feelings are caused by their disorder. If anything can be considered an illegitimate motivation then I think delusions as the result of a psychotic break would have to be at the top of the list. But even in the case of depression that motivation can still be shown to be illegitimate because it is disproportionate. Depression is almost always accompanied by a feeling that the depression will never go away, even though that is untrue. That means the balance is unfairly skewed when making the choice. That’s why it isn’t a legitimate motivator, and again people have not truly consented.
When do we limit a notionally free choice?
This point is going to talk about those who have made a rational and rationally informed decision to kill themselves.
First, we limit a choice when the standard of consent given doesn’t reach the standard required. When something is so important as this the standard of consent should be extremely high, so high that it can never be ascertained, and so choice should be limited. The reason why that standard should be so high is because life is so fundamental, and its loss is so permanent.
Secondly, somebodies choice has to be limited here. Either we limit those making a legitimate choice to kill themselves, or we allow those who are suffering from disorders to die when they didn’t choose to. Diagnosis is imperfect so we cannot protect both choices. My arguments on why life is so important isn’t just to say that life is more important than choice, it is also to show that if we have to choose whether some should live when they don’t want to or some should die when they don’t want to then we should make them all live because life has that value that is so important.
Thirdly, on whether death is bad or not. You are right, we don’t know whether death is bad or not – but since the odds of a heaven are as likely as the odds of a hell the equation of probabilities equals out to zero, which is where my analysis on the importance of life comes into play. Moreover, I think I am justified in asserting that for most people it is just an intuitively worse thing to face the unknown of death vs. reality.
Fourth, on the fact that we didn’t consent to have life in the first place. I think that is a really interesting idea and you should develop it more as an argument, I actually can’t think of a good rebuttal right now. Luckily my case can stand without it, especially if I use thematic questions to craftily re-characterize the debate onto grounds I can win on. Vexing, no?
How do we help those with mental disorders?
First, I think we can agree that these people seeking help instead of killing themselves is, wherever possible, the best option because they might get treatment and become functioning, happy members of society. The question is how we motivate them to do that. People, even those with mental disorders, are less likely to do something when that thing is against the culture that they have been raised in because it is harder for them to see it as an option. Moreover, suicide becoming more common, or becoming acceptable as an option, means it becomes normalized in society, which means people don’t think quite so hard about it because they no longer have to overcome cultural and psychological barriers before arriving at that decision. They take this decision quicker, and are less likely to regain lucidity and seek help before doing it.
Secondly, you said antagonizing them makes them more likely to do something sociopathic. I don’t think that is persuasive because if someone is so delusional as to be able to do that then I don’t think anything we do will have any effect. It is those who are on the margins who are relevant to this debate because they can be affected.
Thirdly, that marginal benefit brought to a handful of people could lead to a mass deterioration in the lives of many. The trouble is we can’t discern who is in which group – you might like to support suicide only in those limited circumstances, but you can never truly know who is actually in those circumstances and who isn’t.
That’s why the right to life should be protected in all circumstances – because that is the only way we can guarantee that it is protected in the circumstances where we all agree it must be protected. That’s why we should oppose suicide.
Rather than post massive rebuttals, I'll try to keep this brief, I'm a bit low on time. So, I'll just give you some food for thought.
I have a few problems with the right to life argument. Firstly, it is my belief that using it in these circumstances actually infringes on the right to life of others. My reason is that there is a huge difference between "living" and "not dying". If the right to life was merely a statement to stop people killing each other, it would be valid. But the right to life is all about letting humans live. I ask you, can the people in situations so dire that they would contemplate suicide, truly live? The point is this: we cannot know what death is like. But we can know how awful life can be. Could ending one life result in freedom in another? I DO NOT mean heaven, hell, or any afterlife. I mean, could we consider death to be a new life, just one in which we are not conscious? It needs work, but if this could be shown, then denying suicide would be an infringement of the right to life.
Furthermore, denying the rights of the suicidal based on grounds of rationality is completely subjective. We could only do it based on the quite massive assumption that we know best. While it is true that cognitive functions are affected by mental disorders, who are we to say that we know better? What one doctor says is the right choice, is the wrong by another. We can think that we know suicide is the worst possible choice, but how can we know? If we cannot know, then I put it to you that it would be wrong to stop people doing it. If life is important as you claim, then I hope you will be inclined to say that we cannot make decisions on other peoples lives based on our best guesses. Instead, we should trust these people to make their own verdicts.
It all comes down to this: I don't know what the true circumstances are in which suicide is the best choice, but I have a good idea. Nor do you know, nor any other man on the planet. So, my key point is this; it is wrong to deny the human rights of others unless we are absolutely sure that we know better. But we don't, and we likely never will. So suicide should never be stopped.
I’m going to risk the wrath of the internet here and say that society at large does know better than people with severe mental disorders. This is why we have things like committals, and court ordered rehab, and the simple acknowledgment that someone with a mental disability is not always able to give consent. And you are right, what is right by one doctor is wrong by another. That proves my point on how it is impossible to judge anyone’s rationality beforehand – so there is no way to protect those who would recover and are only being pushed into this by a treatable disease except to oppose all suicide.
We cannot protect everyone’s choices all the time given the reality that some are in a situation where their consent isn’t real or isn’t verifiable. The choice to live should be protected more than the choice to die because if we say otherwise then we are saying life has no value at all.
Here is a hypothetical for you, please answer honestly. If there were two people, one of whom wants to die and the other who wants to live, and you were forced to make a choice of either killing both or making both live, which option would you take? (doing nothing is taken as a choice for both to die)
Taking off my “Devil’s Advocate Hat” and putting on my “Debate Coach Hat” for a moment I’d just like to say that I think you are on the wrong track with your “we can’t know what’s after death” stuff, I don’t think its provable or convincing. Debates are never about proving things like that, it’s always about how you compare the things most people understand already.
We cannot protect everyone’s choices all the time given the reality that some are in a situation where their consent isn’t real or isn’t verifiable. The choice to live should be protected more than the choice to die because if we say otherwise then we are saying life has no value at all.
And if we are against suicide, then we say that choice has no value at all.
If there were two people, one of whom wants to die and the other who wants to live, and you were forced to make a choice of either killing both or making both live, which option would you take? (doing nothing is taken as a choice for both to die.
If it was on threat of death, then let them both live. But that says nothing about individual suicide.
Taking off my “Devil’s Advocate Hat” and putting on my “Debate Coach Hat” for a moment I’d just like to say that I think you are on the wrong track with your “we can’t know what’s after death” stuff, I don’t think its provable or convincing. Debates are never about proving things like that, it’s always about how you compare the things most people understand already.
Fair enough, most of that was just pseudoscience. But I still believe that seeing as it is impossible to tell what is after death, it shouldn't be treated as the worst possible fate.
No, saying we should oppose suicide doesn’t say choice has no value, it just says that the ability to choose to live has more value than the ability to choose to die. Source: life has inherent value.
Someone’s ability to choose is going to suffer whether we oppose or not. And you answered my hypothetical in favour of preserving life because life and death are not equal outcomes. If supporting someone’s choice to die risks someone else’s choice to live, as it will without the ability to distinguish true consent in every case, then the choice to live comes first, gets first protection, and we have to oppose suicide.
I am for suicide if the person is in a physical state which they can't mentally deal with. For instance, someone who is paralyzed without the ability to do anything other than move their eyes and talk with the assistance of a lung machine may find that existence to be so horrible they can't go on.
You gave an example of paralyzed person. But I find that it is not a suicide,this case related to the cases of euthanasia. We should`t confuse one with another.In any case we should respect this life. Now we give different arguments pro and cons, but who knows who would we deal with it, if it touched our close people.
Excellent point you make. I was referring to an assisted suicide where the individual make the concious choice to die vs. someone being killed murdered or euthanized becuase of their age or infirmity.
Suicide is beautiful, and those that commit are worthy of a unique form of admiration, it takes strength courage committment, and longing. Suicide is one of very few things entirely within our own control, a freedom that cannot be taken away, that eases the mind when times are tough, I am not the least bit ashamed to admit that I have contemplated suicide seriously many times in the past, and have I even come close to attempting it.
"What does a watch do? it percieves when somthing should happen right? no, time only is time because this shithole would be an endless cycle of days and nights without time and date, not that it changes anything but someone still made it and we all understand it. fucking table, i understand it, but why should i? it doesnt understand me, but it was built to understand me. "
"the best part of life is knowing that you can end it when you want to"
I honestly don't think it's fair to make someone live. No one knows what someone else can handle and what someone cannot. And it's not fair to force someone to suffer.
I believe suicide should be allowed for adults. Not teenagers or children, who still have a chance for their life to change. But adults who are suffering should be able to have the choice.
Anyone who says it's the cowards way out clearly has never been in the position of thinking about it. And you don't know that person's life or what that individual may not be able to handle.
I'm not saying just hand them a gun without talking to them first. And we can't be giving EVERYONE who contemplates suicide money, that would be ridiculous. Not to mention if that was a choice there would be a lot more people claiming they were thinking about it.
And a lot of them had everyone, but still decide that they can't handle what life has thrown at them. It doesn't just have to do with who you have in your life, there are so many factors as to why people choose to end their life.
I guess you are right but I think that even if they choose to end their life after all this talking. I think there is always a way. Basically, I believe what you believe but in THIS type of society and system. :)
I can't say I'm an advocate, but I do believe that those who come to the solution of suicide is not as mentally ill as we may think they are. Suicide is a desperate decision, one that many may contemplate long before they decide to seal that fate. Many of them also stem from lifetimes of agony and anguish, not only from physical ailments but also from mental issues. There are times when every resource has been exhausted, but to no avail. Mentally ill people are struggling and suffering just as much as those who do physically - just because we cannot tangibly see what burdens them, doesn't mean they aren't hurting.
Also, I've never been able to say that suicide has been a cowardly act - to me, it would take a great deal of will and self-resignation to do such a thing, especially when trying to weight the "pros" and "cons" of leaving those around them.
And then, of course, there is the question of the religious beliefs of the one committing the act and of the survivors. Religious people are left with the question, even then, "Will they forfeit Heaven, or does God understand their pain and have mercy?" That's a question those still alive probably can't answer.
It is a choice of you wanting to live or not, plus it takes people who are akward out of the picture and lets them do what they want. And it also controls the population.
suicide is a choice, when people who are sad and have nothing to look forward in life usually result to suicide as it is very tempting thought to suicide
It is selfish to a degree, but I still think it should be a right of people to do. I think that the basis of morality stems from sovereignty, the ability to determine what happens to one's self and one's property. Insofar as this is true, I think that it is wrong to prevent a person from acting with their own self and property however they wish as long as this does not directly harm another or impose a fear of harm to another.
I do think that suicide should be state preformed - that one should need to consult with a psychologist and discuss the desire and then schedule a follow up and establish that the desire is relatively constant - a standard period of time should be established before the euthanasia would be preformed so as to prevent episodic and short lived bouts of depression. Then (as i understand to be one of the least painful ways to go) a morphine OD could be administered. This seems reasonable and gives people the right to self determination - it would also allow the people who have decided to kill themselves the oportunity to say goodbye to their loved ones.
yes if its as a response to a situation such as the twin towers where suicide was a way of escaping a fate which would inevitably lead to death anyway.
I am all for assisted suicide for those with severe pain, mental anguish and needless suffering brought on by a terminal illness. A person should not have to suffer during end stage disease.
But, I don't agree with suicide involving the mentally ill. As a person that has attempted three times and is now suffering the consequences for my actions, there is a multitude of assistance that person can receive. Plus, committing suicide because of a mental illness causes a LOT of stress and problems for your family members. They will not understand why you made the choice that you did.
If you survive, you will never be trusted to a certain degree by family members and people outside your family. You might have shortened your life and after the appropriate psychiatric help. You will wonder why you did what you did.
I know this subject is going to cause a lot of controversy, but if you are being bullied to the point where you don't want to live anymore, it's fine, and then your bully or bulliers have that gulit for the rest of their lives... you are helping to stop other people from doing it to themselves...
Suicide should be opposed because people shouldn’t have the ability to forfeit the right to life. The right to life is different from other rights in many ways that make this true.
First, life is the fundamental right from which all other rights derive. Every other right is useless without life, so on a balance of protecting the most rights suicide should be opposed.
Secondly, forfeiting life is irreversible. Other rights can be regained if you opt out of them, but not life. That permanence means life should be afforded extra protection.
Third, when you take your life you are also taking the life of whatever person you might become, so even if you consent to suicide, the future you hasn’t consented (or at least it is impossible to establish that consent).
Fourth, while some might have legitimate reasons for wanting to kill themselves there are many mental disorders that drive people to suicide, but which could be treated. It is impossible to prove beforehand if someone has such a disease, so inevitably if we are for suicide then some people will die who would not have consented to die if they had a healthy state of mind.
Fifth, there are practical benefits to life being considered sacred. If life is sacred people are more willing to consider other options like counselling or therapy or support networks rather than suicide. It also means people who make decisions regarding people’s lives are more likely to look at life as a right which is deserving of special protections and act accordingly.
Life is a special right, it should be considered especially sacred even to the point of opposing people opting out of it.
Suicide should be opposed because people shouldn’t have the ability to forfeit the right to life. The right to life is different from other rights in many ways that make this true.
The right to life should include the right to take your own life.
life is the fundamental right from which all other rights derive
Inalienable rights are made up and non-existent human creations.
That permanence means life should be afforded extra protection.
Why should people by protected...from themselves. All other rights are meant to protect someone from others. No one should be limited by rights. Rights should be freedoms.
when you take your life you are also taking the life of whatever person you might become, so even if you consent to suicide, the future you hasn’t consented (or at least it is impossible to establish that consent).
WTF?
there are many mental disorders that drive people to suicide, but which could be treated. It is impossible to prove beforehand if someone has such a disease
There actually is. It's called Psychiatry.
if we are for suicide then some people will die who would not have consented to die if they had a healthy state of mind.
Who says we can't prevent this by prohibiting people who have been diagnosed from committing suicide. All cases are not the most extreme of that case.
But even negating this, isn't a physiological injury just as bad as a physical one? They shouldn't be treated differently.
Fifth, there are practical benefits to life being considered sacred. If life is sacred people are more willing to consider other options like counselling or therapy or support networks rather than suicide. It also means people who make decisions regarding people’s lives are more likely to look at life as a right which is deserving of special protections and act accordingly.
This isn't an argument.
Life is a special right, it should be considered especially sacred even to the point of opposing people opting out of it.
Rights are freedoms. Rights do not withhold people's actions, they allow them. Your definition of what the "right to life' is is contradictory to what rights, at a FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, are.
Ok, let’s divide this up into the themes of: first, rights analysis, and second, practical analysis.
So, rights analysis. Let’s ask where rights come from. There are usually two justifications for saying that something is a right, A: that they are essential to human dignity, and B: that it is simply better in a utilitarian kind of way to pretend that rights are inalienable.
So what do I mean by “essential to human dignity”? Basically, that something is so fundamental to people being able to achieve their own happiness that denying this to them somehow degrades the concept of being human and expressing your humanity and personhood through your life. Why does this matter? Because under this idea of rights the right to life is incredibly important as something that is necessary for every individuals humanity. The other rights can be traded away if someone decides for themselves that their humanity doesn’t require those things to be rights, but life isn’t like that. To give up life is to give up the very thing that rights are meant to protect – your ability to be fully human. That’s why Life, unique to all rights, supersedes the right to choice in every case.
Now let’s look at a utilitarian idea of rights. This idea means we call something an absolute right because not doing so would lead to bad outcomes which we don’t want. This is where my arguments of social effects of not opposing suicide become relevant, because they give reasons why the practical effect of not opposing suicide leads to worse social outcomes.
You said All other rights are meant to protect someone from others. No one should be limited by rights. Rights should be freedoms but having rights isn’t just about freedom. I have the right to life and the right to choice, but I lose the right of choice if it inflicts on another’s life because murder is a crime. This means rights often come into conflict, and we need to determine which takes priority. Clearly life comes at or near the top. I say it comes at the very top because firstly it is the ultimate aim of rights, because it leads to better utilitarian outcomes and taking life doesn’t just take some of your other rights to a certain extent, it takes all of your other rights completely.
Now let’s look at these practical ideas.
We can’t just (prohibit) people who have been diagnosed from committing suicide because the tools for diagnosis are not perfect.
Psychiatry isn’t enough to prove whether someone has a disorder. Psychiatry isn’t an exact science and often doesn’t correctly diagnose illnesses. This is because these illnesses are often entirely internal, so the psychiatrist only has the information supplied to them by the patient and patients with these disorders often lie, and often don’t believe that there is anything wrong with them so they often never even see a psychiatrist. Psychiatry can’t prove people are truly rational and consenting, so conflicting Life vs. Choice we should prioritize life because we can’t guarantee we actually protect choice anyway.
Not all cases are the most extreme, but some of them are and those cases deserve our protection. If we screw up even once then that is too many. One person taking their life when they didn’t truly want to means that we have damaged their right to choose, not just today, but every choice that they will ever make. Even one failure in that respect pushes the balance towards opposing suicide on a practical level, and on the level of protecting choice.
On psychological injury vs. physical injury, yes psychological injury is bad, but that’s a false analogy. This is psychological injury vs death, and death is absolute and permanent, that’s why it’s worse.
Rights come into conflict, and life should be prioritized above all, and in a practical analysis consent can’t be guaranteed and should be protected for the sake of those who would otherwise die. If you want the best outcomes, oppose suicide. If you want to protect life, oppose suicide. If you want to protect choice, oppose suicide.
There are usually two justifications for saying that something is a right, A: that they are essential to human dignity, and B: that it is simply better in a utilitarian kind of way to pretend that rights are inalienable.
Where is your justification for this definition?
Basically, that something is so fundamental to people being able to achieve their own happiness
Is this the purpose rights serve? Helping people achieve happiness? Why then, do we have the right to inflict upon ourselves pain and suffering?
To give up life is to give up the very thing that rights are meant to protect – your ability to be fully human.
I agree to an extent. But I also believe that the right to do what you want with your life (even destroy it) is fundamental to being "fully human."
This idea means we call something an absolute right because not doing so would lead to bad outcomes which we don’t want.
This premise is fundamentally flawed. You state that "we" are trying avoid "bad outcomes which we don’t want." What relevance does my will or your will for a person have on their rights? It's not about what I want, you want, or even what society wants. Actions and rights, and what one does with them, are excised by the individual excising them. This may sound silly, but it is true. It is their will that controls their actions. What you want them to do is irrelevant.
-
In other words, what you deem to be a "bad outcome" is not the same as what they would deem a "bad outcome," and their view is the only relevant one.
I lose the right of choice if it inflicts on another’s life
The key word there being "ANOTHER'S life."
We can’t just (prohibit) people who have been diagnosed from committing suicide because the tools for diagnosis are not perfect.
The don't prohibit them from commit tin suicide. If one believes that the psychological pain is too much for them to handle, they should have the right to end their life.
so conflicting Life vs. Choice we should prioritize life
Why?
Not all cases are the most extreme, but some of them are and those cases deserve our protection. If we screw up even once then that is too many.
This claim is not supported by precedent.
yes psychological injury is bad, but that’s a false analogy. This is psychological injury vs death, and death is absolute and permanent, that’s why it’s worse
And that is what you believe. Your view and will is irrelevant to the choices of others.
If you want to protect choice, oppose suicide.
How can you justify this claim?
-
-
-
If you want to protect life, oppose suicide.
Why does someone's life need to be protected...from themselves? I understand protecting it in cases where death occurs independently of the victims will, but why do I need to be protected from myself?
My justification is that you didn’t come up with a better way of looking at rights. If you do let me know. If you think my analysis is wrong then say so and tell me analysis you think is right, otherwise accept it and move on to more interesting areas of the debate. However, if you really want to go for first principles why not try and justify why anyone should have any right to choice in anything at all.
My will and yours does have relevance on people’s rights. That’s what it means to live in a society with laws and taxes and governments and roads police and ambulances and soldiers and wars and everything else that goes with being in a society. It’s called voting. Democracy. Where people like you and me try to determine what is best for all of society and we try to steer society towards that.
My reason for saying that if you wish to protect choice you should oppose suicide is given in the statement you were rebutting, but to briefly recap – some people, because of various mental disorders, will commit suicide without consent, without truly choosing to, in any mature meaning of the word. To protect their choice to live we should oppose suicide.
My point about taking another’s life was to demonstrate that there are conflicts within rights, so it’s difficult to simply say that one is an absolute, and analysis is needed on why something is a right and when it should take priority over what. So I’m not sure what your rebuttal was getting at since that point still is true. Choice is one of the most problematic rights: because of the potential for mental illness it is hard to know if that right is actually being exercised in a meaningful way.
What do you mean precedent? Are you trying to say that you believe that there has never been a case where mental disorder made someone commit suicide without true, rational consent and where they wouldn’t have consented if they hadn’t been in the grip of that disease? I think it reasonable to assume such cases exist.
This isn’t about protecting you from yourself; it’s about protecting you from one of the worst effects of a psychotic episode, when the influence of unbalanced chemicals in your brain causes a temporary mental state that makes you do something you would not truly want to do. I would want to be protected from that. Would you?
Life is not a right, it is a condition - The right to life as it is found in the US constitution is a political right, i.e. it is the right to not fear that one's life can be taken away by the government and that if one's life is to be taken by another person that the justice system will seek to punish the person who violated the right and prevent them from further violations.
I agree with Apollo that rights should not limit a person
Also, Apollo was right to say WTF to the statement that you are also taking the life of whatever person you might become because you are currently not that person, that person doesnt matter, that person is a potentiality and potentiality arguments have little relevance to termination debates insofar as they do not exist and will not exist if termination occurs their value never becomes meaningful beyond the hypothetical and we dont govern our world based on hypotheticals when more immediate meaning is apparent.
Another argument for suicide, is that if you really want to do it, you will since laws dont matter insofar as you will not be there for the consequences of violating it.
I am against suicide if someone is using it as a way out of a psychological situation where they are able bodied, but can't get their mind right. Now, I realize that a. Ind is not easy to fix, but there is a possibility to do so vs. my other argument about why I support suicide. Either way, it should only be used in the most dire of situations.
I'm an engineer. Believe it or not, I get paid to come up with solutions to problems. To me, a psychological debilitation is just as bad as a physical one. If I developed dementia, and I was not able to perform, then send me to a chicken factory with the male chicks. OK..., that's too drastic..., send me to Oregon and give me the choice between the red pill and the blue pill..., except they are both the same. I find it poetic to be taken out by a troll ;)
I am against suicide because you are basically not only harming yourself, but everyone else around you. Let's not mention it is a cowards way out. I also have a religious but I CAN explain that reason.
I think that we should go against suicide as suicide just makes everyone think that he or she is a coward and do not want to face up new challenges easily.It is also because they think that some people are ullying them for eternity and instead of telling it to their parents or a teacher, they decide to commit suicide so I go against commiting suicide.
It was proved be V.M. Bekhterev (He is a famous Russian academic,psychologist and neurologist ) that failed attempt of suicide returns life instinct and care of it. Also Bekhterev paid attention to the illogicality in the behavior of people who tried to commit suicide. After failed attempt they started to value their lives, fight for right to live.Also people, suffering from alcohol and drug addiction, are more inclined to the attempt of suicide. Alcohol addiction is the reason of 25-30% suicides, moreover among young people the rate is higher - about 50%.
I believe that suicide isnt right. There is other ways to deal with your problems then to just end your life. Lives are precious not something to just throw away. Because you can never get them back.
Suicide, to some may be the answers to their problems but in doing so it can bring utter distress to individuals that will be affected. There are many alternatives other than committing suicide. For example, individuals can seek help and treatment that can potentially treat their suicidal illnesses.
I`m against suicide. From my point of view, any person thinking about suicide is selfish. Because this person thinks only about himself. It is the easiest way to decide all your problems. But what about people, who love and respect you? Is it not a egoism?Firstly, normal person will never decide to commit suicide. I mean people with stable mentality, but there is no speech about mentally ill people.I can understand the last group people somehow. Secondly, there are existing moral principles in the life. From very childhood we are taught what is wrong and what is bad. Thirdly, as I know, all religions consider suicide the greatest sin. Life is a great preset from God and we should value it. Life is not a fairytale, so we should overcome all difficulties and do not show our weaknesses.
Of course, I accept that,we can also call it egoism.You know that all people born selfish persons. But we should differ positive and negative egoism. Indubitably, the first type of egoism has more positive moments.
I am against suicide. I would suppose it because of the stupid system we have today where unemployment rates are always high. I can blame the government for their stupid system which ruins lives. Some people who committed suicide couldn't afford a Psychiatrist. We need to help them rather than stop them from killing themselves.
well i am against suicide because we dont have right to finish our life which is blessing given by God,If we do so than we probably going against nature this life is beautiful if we have any problem than there many ways to solve it we must face the challenges not to be coward and take wrong decision.
If they want to who are you to stop them or think its the cowardly way out. I believe if you have gone long enough with a bad life and you want to commit suicide go for it. Why would anyone want to be living on the earth miserable, when there miserable and everything they cant enjoy the beauty of earth
So this is not the solution man if something is going wrong in your life than sort it out not to turn the face from the reality this life is full of challenges just accept it and whatever you talked about misery than i wanna clarify one thing 80% of misery in our life happened are not misery at all..
But who said that life is so easy as in fairytale? Life is life! Life is struggle and it makes us stronger. Anyway we must enjoy our life and if we don`t like something in our life, we should change it. Because everything in our hands!
To be honest you would have to be the person to know the feeling. Some people just dont feel strong enough. and yes life is rarely ever like fairy tales but still some people just cant cope with things as easily as others. plus yes i do agree with you everything is in are hands...but if the person lost themselfs then they cant stop themselfs.
Life is not a right, it is a condition - The right to life as it is found in the US constitution is a political right, i.e. it is the right to not fear that one's life can be taken away by the government and that if one's life is to be taken by another person that the justice system will seek to punish the person who violated the right and prevent them from further violations.
I am against suicide because you are basically not only harming yourself, but everyone else around you. Let's not mention it is a cowards way out. I also have a religious but I CAN explain that reason.
I think that we should go against suicide as suicide just makes everyone think that he or she is a coward and do not want to face up new challenges easily.It is also because they think that some people are ullying them for eternity and instead of telling it to their parents or a teacher, they decide to commit suicide so I go against commiting suicide.
So this is not the solution man if something is going wrong in your life than sort it out not to turn the face from the reality this life is full of challenges just accept it and whatever you talked about misery than i wanna clarify one thing 80% of misery in our life happened are not misery at all..
But who said that life is so easy as in fairytale? Life is life! Life is struggle and it makes us stronger. Anyway we must enjoy our life and if we don`t like something in our life, we should change it. Because everything in our hands!
One thing is when to take their lives decide to humans trapped in the complex reality of the situation and condemned them here, we simply have no right because they do not yet know how much we ourselves were led in a similar. Quite another thing is when a suicide dare stupid young people who we really still do not know anything in life, and faced in the first situation, they can not just steer go to extreme measures. For example, undivided, or unrequited love ... How many young people killed themselves because of this ...