Is suicide morally or ethically wrong?

[Only Special To God]

Is suicide morally or ethically wrong?

That is a very tough question, but I will give my thoughts on it. I agree with some of your points of view.

I think that it is both are not morally or ethically wrong. The reason being is that unless you are put in the other person shoes, you cannot judge them. That is for God to do. I think that morally it is not wrong because they are weak or mentally ill and was never destined to be a part of our lives. Some are pushed to the edge. Either by others in a way of physical or mental abuse, and they feel that there is no way out. Then you have the ones that are drug abusers who eventually kill themselves by accident because they cannot get enough or others, which is a usually small child who finds it and eats it or the elderly for what they can inherit from them.

Then you have the ones that just talk about it, and attempt it just to get attention. Until, no one is interested anymore or tries to stop them that they succeed. Then there are the people who are chemically unbalanced and try to seek help with no avail, thinking that it is the best thing to do for all around them.

Once someone has their mind made up about doing it is hard to deter them from completing what they have planned. You can be supportive, you can help them to seek help, but sometimes you just cannot protect them from themselves 24/7 unless they are locked up, and then they can still succeed if they are determined enough.

Ethically wrong? I don’t think so, as we perform euthanasia on animals who are suffering everyday. I have seen people suffering with cancer screaming in agonizing pain, that I am sure that if it was offered to them that they would take it. I think that it should be a choice for your choosing. I know that we must bear our crosses in life, but I do not think that because you are having a bad day or fighting with your partner that it is a way out. I feel that if you are terminal that is should be offered as a choice. You are going to die any way soon, so why should you have to linger in agony for months or even years at a time before your body finally gives out.

Believe me, I have been pushed to the edge myself, but I have been lucky enough to have had divine interventions both times.

I have come into this world, I have had my crosses to bear and I know that there are more still to come. I just pray that when the next one comes along that the good Lord will be with me like he always has been. To give me the strength and the courage to overcome the trials and tribulations that he has set before me.

Ian

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Only Special To God

Is suicide morally or ethically wrong?

That is a very tough question, but I will give my thoughts on it. I agree with some of your points of view.

I think that it is both are not morally or ethically wrong. The reason being is that unless you are put in the other person shoes, you cannot judge them. That is for God to do. I think that morally it is not wrong because they are weak or mentally ill and was never destined to be a part of our lives. Some are pushed to the edge. Either by others in a way of physical or mental abuse, and they feel that there is no way out. Then you have the ones that are drug abusers who eventually kill themselves by accident because they cannot get enough or others, which is a usually small child who finds it and eats it or the elderly for what they can inherit from them.

Then you have the ones that just talk about it, and attempt it just to get attention. Until, no one is interested anymore or tries to stop them that they succeed. Then there are the people who are chemically unbalanced and try to seek help with no avail, thinking that it is the best thing to do for all around them.

Once someone has their mind made up about doing it is hard to deter them from completing what they have planned. You can be supportive, you can help them to seek help, but sometimes you just cannot protect them from themselves 24/7 unless they are locked up, and then they can still succeed if they are determined enough.

Ethically wrong? I don’t think so, as we perform euthanasia on animals who are suffering everyday. I have seen people suffering with cancer screaming in agonizing pain, that I am sure that if it was offered to them that they would take it. I think that it should be a choice for your choosing. I know that we must bear our crosses in life, but I do not think that because you are having a bad day or fighting with your partner that it is a way out. I feel that if you are terminal that is should be offered as a choice. You are going to die any way soon, so why should you have to linger in agony for months or even years at a time before your body finally gives out.

Believe me, I have been pushed to the edge myself, but I have been lucky enough to have had divine interventions both times.

I have come into this world, I have had my crosses to bear and I know that there are more still to come. I just pray that when the next one comes along that the good Lord will be with me like he always has been. To give me the strength and the courage to overcome the trials and tribulations that he has set before me.

Ian

What's with the bold? Euthanasia, is not suicide, and has no place here. We are talking about people giving up their life...for nothing, but self pain. People tend to hold on, if others tend to hold on to them. And God, alleges to make the cross carried less burdensome, if we turn to that God.

Suicide is only viable if there is no one to turn to...again, lack of someone/something greater than us, in our life.

v/r

Q

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

are you suggesting that a person that commits suicide is doing so due to a perceived incentive to do so? perhaps i don't understand the use of the term incentive in this context.

And it is selfish (self centered). They have no other that they can turn to, so they turn within and...find no answer, but that to end their pain. Cut's close to the heart of the matter, of not having something, someone greater than self, to help one, in desperate measures...

Permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Vaj, this is basically what I'm refering to (no offense to the poster because I know its unintentional). He's inadvertently affirming that they:
will "find no answer,"
will "end their pain,"
are in "desperate measures," and
will have a solution.

I personally think that a person is more likely discover that "someone greater than himself" by turning within rather than by relying on the advise of other humans.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

Vaj, this is basically what I'm refering to (no offense to the poster because I know its unintentional). He's inadvertently affirming that they:
will "find no answer,"
will "end their pain,"
are in "desperate measures," and
will have a solution.

I personally think that a person is more likely discover that "someone greater than himself" by turning within rather than by relying on the advise of other humans.

No offense taken. And I will back out of this thread, but not before making clear, I did not mean "human advice"...

Take care,

Q

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Q,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What you are referring to is the ability of the mind to over-ride the will of self preservation. And it is selfish (self centered). They have no other that they can turn to, so they turn within and...find no answer, but that to end their pain.
Cut's close to the heart of the matter, of not having something, someone greater than self, to help one, in desperate measures...

as that wasn't stipulated to in the OP nor did Tao's post indicate this i'm curious how come to such a conclusion? does the belief in a deity automatically make a being immune to committing suicide?

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Path,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

In this particular case, yes. Minimizing suffering would mean that one being suffering is better than several dozen suffering.

thank you for clarifying.

Suicide for particular culture-bound reasons that are socially acceptable is still not the best option to me, but I put it in a different category of behavior. I have been assuming we are discussing suicide in first world modern societies. There are many other types of suicide in other times and cultures that have different social results.

i apologize for my ambiguity. is your view different of suicide in, say, 1735 France? in this other cultural cases you would not consider it to be immoral and unethical, is that correct?

But I do think that the unselfish thing is to try all options before concluding something is incurable.

unselfish for whom? why does the person contemplating suicide have less right for their feelings to be consdiered?

it seems like you are indicating that the selfishness of the people that care about the potential suicide is ok and, in fact, is reason for the person not to go through with the act though your argument is that suicide is wrong, primarily, because it's selfish. if i held that it's ok to be selfish in some cases and not ok to be selfish in other cases then i would suspect that using this distinction to make a moral or ethical conclusion would be problematic at best.

Most mental illness is curable or manageable (or can be prevented), as indicated by relatively low incidences of these issues in non-first-world and non-modern societies.

i don't know this to be so. i know, many, many families in Asia that have lost family members to suicide and the newspapers from that part of the world have stories regarding this sort of thing on a monthly basis.

If the group is never held as more important than the individual, then what can be said to be unethical?

who said anything about never? i have an understanding of why you place the group above the individual being now from your previous response.

Why is murder a problem? Stealing? Adultery? All beings have desires to alleviate some sort of suffering and to gain some sort of pleasure. Why is any behavior unethical if everyone's desires are equally selfish? How would society function if beings were never expected to sacrifice something of themselves for the good of the group?

all good questions which deserve a thread of their own to be properly discussed, which i'd be happy to do with you, as this thread is only concerned with suicide.

I understand why people commit suicide. I just don't think it actually helps.

is that a valid basis for making a moral judgement regarding it, simply that it doesn't help? there are many actions within a beings life that cannot reasonably said to help them yet most of them are not considered immoral for this fact, at least in my world view.

I said nothing of myself. I was speaking of the group as a whole.

sorry, i misunderstood your initial response to this thread then.

A suicide rarely affects only one person. Secondly, I think that it isn't only about preventing others' pain, but also protecting the person from harming themself until they can try to be healed.

is there a point when you stop trying to heal them? what does "protecting them from harming themselves" actually mean other than physically restraining them?

Thirdly, there are circumstances where it is appropriate (in my opinion) to deprive people of liberty for the good of society. I am not saying this would be one of them,

but we are only talking of this one here, so i'll disregard this bit.

No, I'm not necessarily. My own experiences have been with people who wanted to be in institutions until they could get better and were denied care. I do think, however, there is a place for committing people to institutions if they will harm themselves or others and there is hope for healing.

hope is so nebulous as to hardly say anything other than to indicate that a person that wanted to commit suicide could be held against their will indefinitely until the loved ones finally gave up hope.

it is difficult to imagine a view more at odds with what i consider to be human rights, ethics and morality.

I think it's difficult to say, because ethical and moral are diversely defined. I think suicide (as opposed to euthanasia) is unethical in most cases, unless socially sanctioned.

so it's unethical in most cases unless the society allows such actions. is it immoral in those cases or is that also a dictum of the society?

It isn't that I think God finds it immoral, but rather that it simply is pointless for the being who is suffering and detrimental to others. So it is a wrong behavior because it is out of harmony with alleviating suffering and because it is ultimately useless to all involved.

thank you for your explanation.

metta,

~v

[Only Special To God]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What's with the bold? Euthanasia, is not suicide, and has no place here. We are talking about people giving up their life...for nothing, but self pain. People tend to hold on, if others tend to hold on to them. And God, alleges to make the cross carried less burdensome, if we turn to that God.

Suicide is only viable if there is no one to turn to...again, lack of someone/something greater than us, in our life.

v/r

Q

I did not realise that it was bold until, I pasted it from a word document, as I wanted to think about what I had to say, instead of doing it on the fly, as I have taken more than a few minutes in typing, as my thought process is a little on the slow side and my grammar is just atrocious.


Yes, you are correct. I didn't checked my word dictionary and thought that we were having a discussion on it being rightfully wrong. Please excuse me. I have a feeling like you are the type of person who has already dismissed my opinion, thinking that I maybe some kind of an idiot, but that is okay....that is your opinion also and I respect that.


Some people do tend to hold on, if they have the will to do so . But, I do beleive it has to do with their strength and weaknesses, and some people are just "chicken" and choose the easy way out, instead of standing steadfast. Look you can try to hold on to someone, it still doesn't keep them from dying, you may delay them, but you will still end up holding a corpse in your arms.

Yes, God is here to help us carry our crosses, if we ask him to. And I feel that he is extremely busy with all of the needy people in this world, that when I ask him to help me, that he knows that I am in dire straights. In some cases he has answered my prayers and in others he has given me direction and insight on how to help myself and others.

Oh, and by the way, it is nice to meet you "Q". (extending hand to shake)

IAN O. SETG

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Q,

thank you for the post.



why is a selfish action a failure? i'm not sure if you mean immoral or unethical in such description so pardon the clumsy wording.



what do you mean by "take control of one that is emotionally out of control"? do you mean to use physical means to prevent them from committing suicide?



does that mean you think it is morally wrong?

metta,

~v

The failure is giving up on life, in a deliberate, self induced fashion. Taking control is being the leaning post for someone staggering, and indeed if need be, holding on to them, until they realize they are being held by someone who cares. I think morally it is a mistake...one that can not be learned from, once commited.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Q,

thank you for the post.



as that wasn't stipulated to in the OP nor did Tao's post indicate this i'm curious how come to such a conclusion? does the belief in a deity automatically make a being immune to committing suicide?

metta,

~v

immune? no. Accountable? I think so.

[Francis king]

is suicide morally or ethically wrong?

If you are a burden to others, state or society, family, friends, peers, etc, and there is no escape from this state, then killing yourself is a moral and ethical act...

I think of the elderly Innuits, who, I am told, in the olden days, often committed suicide in the harsh winter as a moral act- to enable others to eat the food they would have been given...

I think of old people who cling to life, their families pumping them full of drugs, their very expensive care versus their poor quality of life... much better it would be for them to accept death, and pop off...

Death comes in the end anyway... you cannot fight it, yet our society strives to ward off death by any means possible... I think this is immoral, as it wastes resources, and I think it is unethical to cling to life when death is approaching...

That said... before you decide to kill yourself, you should first try to change the situation ur in... ppl attempt suicide because they are miserable.... these individual miseries can often be allieviated- extra medicine for ppl in pain, social support for the lonely and depressed, counselling for the disgusted and traumatised...

suicide should only be the final option when all other options are exhausted...

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i apologize for my ambiguity. is your view different of suicide in, say, 1735 France? in this other cultural cases you would not consider it to be immoral and unethical, is that correct?

I don't know about 1735 France because I'm not very familiar with that particular time period and culture. But in some cultural cases, no, I would not consider it to be unethical. For example, as FK offered, the elderly among the Innuit would sometimes leave the group to die by exposure to allow more food and resources for the young. I am also aware that in some Asian cultures, suicide is an appropriate response to great shame and that in India, it has (until recently) been appropriate for a woman to burn herself to death on her husband's funeral pyre, which obviously reduced the social load of widows on the rest of the family.

Personally, I find all of these socially acceptable forms of suicide to be sad compromises to problems that could be handled better socially, but I understand that within the constraints under which people are operating, they make sense. I still think the systems should support life and should not make the appropriate course of action cutting a healthy life short, but I can understand why it is the case.

To be honest, I tend not to deal with questions of ethical/unethical except in reference to myself. The rest of the world, I strive in my own life to bring as much harmony as possible (guided by the Spirit), and abstain from judgement unless it is to look at practically, functionality, sustainability, and so forth. So it is somewhat futile to me to attempt to define various instances of suicide as ethical or unethical. I tend to see it more as an issue of "Is this the best possible option? Is this the best way to handle things socially- that is, does it contribute more or less than another option to suffering? To sustainability of society and environment? To sustaining life?" Beyond that, I really don't go unless pushed by other people, and then it's very difficult for me to say as it's just not my approach to the world. I'm too acclimated to being an analytical relativist.

unselfish for whom? why does the person contemplating suicide have less right for their feelings to be consdiered?

I think society is built on altruism. As social creatures, we must consistently consider others' feelings alongside our own or society would not function. So I see this as an outgrowth of that. As I said before, suicide is a case where a single person's suffering is then proliferated into many people's suffering.

it seems like you are indicating that the selfishness of the people that care about the potential suicide is ok and, in fact, is reason for the person not to go through with the act though your argument is that suicide is wrong, primarily, because it's selfish. if i held that it's ok to be selfish in some cases and not ok to be selfish in other cases then i would suspect that using this distinction to make a moral or ethical conclusion would be problematic at best.

Not exactly. I am saying that I do not think it is selfish to wish for a person who is otherwise healthy could be healed from mental or physical pain so that they can continue their life. I think that is a natural and good impulse in social creatures. I also think it is not selfish to want to be free from mental abuse, and I do see suicide as mentally abusive to the others around the individual.

i don't know this to be so. i know, many, many families in Asia that have lost family members to suicide and the newspapers from that part of the world have stories regarding this sort of thing on a monthly basis.

I'm sorry- I was talking about suicide due to depression and the statistics I'd seen on national rates of depression. From what I had read about Asia, suicide is often a response to shame. However, maybe suicide in general is too problematic to discuss and too culturally-bound, necessitating discussion on a case by case basis.

all good questions which deserve a thread of their own to be properly discussed, which i'd be happy to do with you, as this thread is only concerned with suicide.

My point was that suicide raises the same questions for me. It fits in the same category of behaviors that cause many others in the society psychological distress and lasting social problems (such as being widowed or orphaned). And to say that it is all the same- the desires of the suicidal person and those around them- has a logical extension for me that negates the ethical importance of altruistic behavior. I am not proposing to discuss these other things, but rather showing the problem of extension.

is that a valid basis for making a moral judgement regarding it, simply that it doesn't help? there are many actions within a beings life that cannot reasonably said to help them yet most of them are not considered immoral for this fact, at least in my world view.

I don't tend to look at things as immoral vs. moral. I look at things in terms of a spectrum of actions that range from the best choice (and most harmonious) to the worst choice. This is probably why we're struggling a bit. I am trying to force my views on suicide (based on a spectrum) into an oppositional categorical system of ethical/unethical. What I feel is that it isn't the best choice, and so it is more unethical than ethical. Things that don't help and simultaneously harm other people are not the best choices, in my opinion. Things that don't help and but have no deleterious effects on anyone are neutral at best and at worst, a waste of a being's time. Of course, that leaves open the very huge arena of defining what "helping" is and I already said that another being may think suicide does help, whereas I do not.

sorry, i misunderstood your initial response to this thread then.

I was reflecting on my own experience, but I was not saying my decision is based solely on my own desire to avoid pain. I know I can withstand the pain and I am neutral to whether or not that happens again. That is, I would not prevent suicide because of my own pain, but rather because I think it is usually curable and a better choice to heal the person, and because I recognize the problem of perpetuating suffering among others. For my own part, I worked through the pain, but it did give me insight into what it is like to find a suicide victim one knows and an intimate look at how it effects family members, children, etc.

is there a point when you stop trying to heal them? what does "protecting them from harming themselves" actually mean other than physically restraining them?

Physical restraint of the body is not necessary if the environment is not conducive. I think like all medical illnesses, a panel of doctors can determine when all options have been tried and none meet success. Of course it's imperfect (as is all life), but I think that is better than simply accepting suicide regardless of an attempt to cure the underlying problem. To me, that is like the parents that don't bother seeking medical attention for their child and only pray, and then the child dies. I simply see it as not the best choice. I think we were given the capacity to reason and heal for a purpose, and we should try our best to use these wisely before accepting defeat.

hope is so nebulous as to hardly say anything other than to indicate that a person that wanted to commit suicide could be held against their will indefinitely until the loved ones finally gave up hope.

I disagree. I think several medical opinions, after a time of trying to cure a person, can deliver some solid assessment on the likelihood of healing. This is not to say there aren't miracles, but like using life support, I'm not for indefinitely trying to force a being into living. I simply think that for all concerned, there should be a solid attempt at healing before accepting something as incurable.

it is difficult to imagine a view more at odds with what i consider to be human rights, ethics and morality.

So, in spite of suicide being generally caused by some sort of illness (and one that often warps reason and long-term thinking), there hould be no attempt by loved ones to heal the person? Or do you just feel that all attempts should stop at involuntary inpatient care? Is there any distinction between involuntary inpatient care for a person who is only suicidal vs. a person with other mental illnesses that makes it impossible for them to live a life without being in an institution? What about for patients that are not yet violent but have a mental illness that could result in violence?

I'm trying to understand your parameters for determining individual human rights vs. social continuity. It is a difficult question of what to do with individuals who are mentally ill or disabled and unable to survive on their own. At least with suicide, the underlying causes are often not permanent, so it would seem ethical to me to temporarily make this decision for them in order to alleviate the illness and return them to full decision-making power.

so it's unethical in most cases unless the society allows such actions. is it immoral in those cases or is that also a dictum of the society?

Hopefully my post explained this. I just don't usually think in terms of two categories. I see things in terms of a spectrum and what fits with my sense of a path of most harmony and beings learning to end suffering without ending life or numbing consciousness.

As an analytical relativist, I tend to see ethics as culturally-bound. In my own case, I feel that I am guided by God on a path of most harmony (which means best possible choices). In my dealings with others, rather than judging their actions in some absolute sense, I look at how their actions impact others (on a spectrum of help or harm) and life itself.

Hope that helps explain it. I realize in looking back over my posts that I am writing quite telegraphically at points and that my own point of view on ethical matters is probably a bit unusual. It's been interesting to grow into more conscious awareness of this through our conversation.

Peace,
Path/Kim

[Vajradhara]

Namaste osg,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Only Special To God

Is suicide morally or ethically wrong?

That is a very tough question, but I will give my thoughts on it. I agree with some of your points of view.

I think that it is both are not morally or ethically wrong.

thank you for expressing your view.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Q,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The failure is giving up on life, in a deliberate, self induced fashion. Taking control is being the leaning post for someone staggering, and indeed if need be, holding on to them, until they realize they are being held by someone who cares.

do i understand your point that you are advocating involuntary confinement for them until they realize that their involuntary confinement is being done because someone cares about them?

I think morally it is a mistake...one that can not be learned from, once commited.

which part, the involuntarily confining a being or suicide?

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

immune? no. Accountable? I think so.

Namaste Q,

your post makes the assertion that people that want to commit suicide do not have someone that they are accountable to, someone higher or, as you are a Christian, God.

however, none of that was stipulated in the OP nor in the post that you responded to.

you added the whole bit about nothing having God means that you can't find answers and all of that which implies that if one *does* have God then they would find answers and they wouldn't commit suicide. so i'm curious if it's is simply having a God belief that prevents one from the act or if there is something else going on?

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Francis,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Francis king

If you are a burden to others, state or society, family, friends, peers, etc, and there is no escape from this state, then killing yourself is a moral and ethical act...

I think of the elderly Innuits, who, I am told, in the olden days, often committed suicide in the harsh winter as a moral act- to enable others to eat the food they would have been given...

very interesting, i hadn't known that regarding the Innuit. indeed, self sacrifice for the benefit of the group would be a moral and ethical action as near as i can tell.

I think of old people who cling to life, their families pumping them full of drugs, their very expensive care versus their poor quality of life... much better it would be for them to accept death, and pop off...

probably but beings cling to life unlike anything else. would you consider, in your scenario, that such an action was moral or ethical or perhaps neither?

Death comes in the end anyway... you cannot fight it, yet our society strives to ward off death by any means possible... I think this is immoral, as it wastes resources, and I think it is unethical to cling to life when death is approaching...

interesting point of view. is it the expediture of resources which makes it immoral? iow, if my method of staving off death is exercise and a sensible diet would engaging in such methods for the purpose of extending my life be immoral?

metta,

~v