Is suicide morally or ethically wrong?

[path_of_one]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste path,

thank you for the post.

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.

i was just using that as an example as i, personally, find the question i posed difficult to answer without some guidance. i could well have picked a time in the past when homo sapien-sapien wasn't the dominate hominid, so i was just providing a referent, as it were.

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.

i'm not too keen on particular incidents, per se, but lets discuss the Innuit situation in light of this paragraph. is there a social solution to living in the arctic and not having enough food? this is particular case it seems as if it is possible that suicide is actually the moral and ethical thing to do.

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 tried to anticipate this view, as it is one which i'm normally operative with as well, by suggesting that you could select "neither immoral or unethical" or "both immoral and unethical" i would tend to agree with your point, as i understand you to be making it, that suicide as a whole covers to broad a range of factors to impose a blanket moral/immoral view upon it, each situation must be examined individually.

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.

in your view does the good of the group outweigh the good of the individual?

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.

that gives more context to your views for me, thank you.

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.

how is the desire to avoid mental abuse not selfish in the manner which you've described?

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.

re-reading my OP shows that i didn't make this option clear enough, my apologies.

by "best" do you mean something akin to optimumally beneficial? that seems to shift the discussion to determining how best is ascertained and that, i suspect, is inextricably linked to our differing world views.

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 unintentional pain immoral or unethical? i.e. the sort of pain that is accidental, for instance, if inflicted by another being?

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.

so physical restraint is necessary if the environment is condusive to such?

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.

it would be difficult, i think, to know if the suicidal person is viewing their suicide as defeat of any sort let alone the sort of defeat that would cause a person to end their life.

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.

i gather from this paragraph that you would be comfortable with trying to force a being into living for a certain amount of time. doesn't the idea of trying to forcibly control another beings life and death strike you as immoral?

So, in spite of suicide being generally caused by some sort of illness (and one that often warps reason and long-term thinking), there should be no attempt by loved ones to heal the person? Or do you just feel that all attempts should stop at involuntary inpatient care?

yes, attempts at helping should stop when we are imposing our will upon another being to deprive them of their liberty.

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?

yes as we are only discussing beings that have suicidal ideation rather than beings that have psychological disorders. i would have to say that i don't support the notion that a being has a psychological disorder if they choose to terminate this arising, they may have but such ideas are hardly indicative of such. the idea that they are seem to be strongly rooted in your cultural paradigm whereas my view is rather different.

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.

i simply don't presume that a being that wants to commit suicide is mental ill. in terms of rights, as a general rule i am always going to put an individual before society or the group but that's a very different sort of discussion than we are having here.

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

indeed you are explaining your views quite well i am enjoying our conversation as well.

metta,

~v

 

[Quahom1]

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...

That leaves God completely out of the equation of our lives...unacceptable imo.

However, on your beginning points, I agree with you, but would not consider that suicide. Rather acts of sacrifice for those we love, not taking one's life for self interest...big difference.

Perhaps the definition of suicide must be established, since we all are talking about the same action, but under different reasons...

 

[Only Special To God]

Namaste osg,

thank you for the post.



[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/B]thank you for expressing your view.

metta,

~v

Namaste Vajradhara,

I am happy to have participated.....Thank you for the question.

Ian

 

[path_of_one]

Namaste path,

thank you for the post.

Hi, Vaj and namaste-

i'm not too keen on particular incidents, per se, but lets discuss the Innuit situation in light of this paragraph. is there a social solution to living in the arctic and not having enough food? this is particular case it seems as if it is possible that suicide is actually the moral and ethical thing to do.

Yes- there is a social solution- economic networks and specialization. The Innuit do not have this problem now. Of course, there is a tradeoff and perhaps the old ways were best. Some situations are more difficult to solve than others. But most of the time, it seems that people are happy when they find a solution where family and friends do not need to die sooner in order to assist the group.

i tried to anticipate this view, as it is one which i'm normally operative with as well, by suggesting that you could select "neither immoral or unethical" or "both immoral and unethical"

Oops. I think what tripped me up is that I was interpreting "neither" to mean that suicide is not problematic. From my perspective, suicide is not generally the best choice but is rather a result of a failure of social systems, so I'm for fixing the social systems to support prevention and treatment of the causes of suicide. I don't find suicide to be a neutral action (one that I am fine with) but I don't really see it as an ethical issue in the sense of absolute morals either. Of course, I don't see much as that kind of black/white issue.

i would tend to agree with your point, as i understand you to be making it, that suicide as a whole covers to broad a range of factors to impose a blanket moral/immoral view upon it, each situation must be examined individually.

Exactly.

in your view does the good of the group outweigh the good of the individual?

That would depend on the particular circumstance. I tend to weigh what is good for the whole more than what is good for an individual part, because in social animals the part depends on a functioning whole. This ideology also underlies my commitment to environmental sustainability. But there are instances where I think the opposite. I do not generalize too heavily in my own sense of ethics.

how is the desire to avoid mental abuse not selfish in the manner which you've described?

I think selfishness is self-centeredness without regard for others. A being wishing to avoid mental abuse is not selfish unless s/he has no regard for others' feelings as well. Often, one can have regard for another's feelings and still protect oneself from abuse. I don't think being unselfish means you have no sense of self-preservation and are a doormat.

re-reading my OP shows that i didn't make this option clear enough, my apologies.

I think I just misunderstood what the option meant.

by "best" do you mean something akin to optimumally beneficial? that seems to shift the discussion to determining how best is ascertained and that, i suspect, is inextricably linked to our differing world views.

Yes- optimally beneficial. And yes, I would expect that how this is ascertained would depend on the individual in question and their worldview.

is unintentional pain immoral or unethical? i.e. the sort of pain that is accidental, for instance, if inflicted by another being?

Sometimes. Sometimes what is accidental is only an accident because a being is not willing to look at the ramifications of his/her action and honor this. Most drunk drivers, for example, do not intend to kill someone when they get behind the wheel. It is an accident if they do, but it is an accident that is preventable, so I do find it unethical or not the best choice (as well as finding it selfish- that is, acting without regard for the well-being of others).

so physical restraint is necessary if the environment is condusive to such?

What I was saying is that physical restraint implies (to me) binding someone's body. If the broader environment (say, a home) has nothing that can be used to kill oneself, physically limiting their bodily movement is unnecessary.

We are all bound to certain environments, so it is a matter of degree what "restraint" is beyond restraining the actual body (limbs, etc.). I can't just enter another country, for example. None of us are truly free.

it would be difficult, i think, to know if the suicidal person is viewing their suicide as defeat of any sort let alone the sort of defeat that would cause a person to end their life.

Perhaps some do not. I have known quite a few suicidal people and all of them saw suicide as something to do because other attempts to receive help failed. This is perhaps most relevant to a modern first-world context in which suicide is a result of depression and other mental illness.

i gather from this paragraph that you would be comfortable with trying to force a being into living for a certain amount of time. doesn't the idea of trying to forcibly control another beings life and death strike you as immoral?

That depends. Controlling beings' lives and deaths is what society is all about. Social creatures depend on some amount of conformity to group standards and rules so that society functions. This is why there are norms, social sanctions, law, prisons, immigration rules, courts, and so forth. In theory I love freedom. In practice I know that social species must sacrifice some individuality for social continuity (and thus individual continuity, as social species are unable to survive as individuals without a social structure). I see the balance of control and freedom as necessary for any society to work. So, pragmatically, I find the issue of privileging individual liberty wholesale, without regard for the impact to the group, short-sighted. If individuals can't survive outside a group, then the group must be taken into account for the future of individuals anyway.

yes, attempts at helping should stop when we are imposing our will upon another being to deprive them of their liberty.

I guess this is a difference in individual viewpoint. I would sincerely hope that my loved ones would protect me from myself for enough time for some doctors to evaluate my prognosis, before leaving me to dispatch myself. The way I see it, it would be similar to how parents impose their will upon their children when the children are too young to fully comprehend the ramifications of their actions. If a being has a mental impairment, they should be similarly protected until it is clear that there is no cure.

The rules are different in other societies with other reasons for suicide, but then in those societies it is frequently not seen as unethical and so people do not attempt to restrain them anyway.

yes as we are only discussing beings that have suicidal ideation rather than beings that have psychological disorders. i would have to say that i don't support the notion that a being has a psychological disorder if they choose to terminate this arising, they may have but such ideas are hardly indicative of such. the idea that they are seem to be strongly rooted in your cultural paradigm whereas my view is rather different.

Depends on cultural context. Suicidal tendencies is generally attributed (in the Western first world) to depression, schizophrenia, and other mental disorders. I think that suicide due to profound psychological or physical pain is in one category, and other suicides are in another. I tend to think of suicide for cultural reasons (the Inuit, or Indian custom of women dying on their husband's funeral pyre) as a totally different animal. When the reasons for this are relieved, people stop doing it for the most part. That is, Inuit elders do not do this now that there is enough food to go 'round. After women began having more equal rights in India, the custom of widows sacrificing themselves began to wane. That is quite different from an individual who wishes to commit suicide due to personal pain of some sort.

in terms of rights, as a general rule i am always going to put an individual before society or the group but that's a very different sort of discussion than we are having here.

I think it is relevant to this discussion, as I think it is clear that from our differing views on this, we have different interpretations of appropriate ways to handle suicide. I tend to put group first, and you tend to put individual first. I think that's partially the crux of the matter, and is certainly making for interesting conversation!

Peace,
Kim

 

[path_of_one]

However, on your beginning points, I agree with you, but would not consider that suicide. Rather acts of sacrifice for those we love, not taking one's life for self interest...big difference.

Perhaps the definition of suicide must be established, since we all are talking about the same action, but under different reasons...

I think you've nailed it Q. I keep speaking about mental illness and selfishness because I don't view things like the Inuit example as suicide, but rather sacrifice.

 

[Only Special To God]

That leaves God completely out of the equation of our lives...unacceptable imo.

However, on your beginning points, I agree with you, but would not consider that suicide. Rather acts of sacrifice for those we love, not taking one's life for self interest...big difference.

Perhaps the definition of suicide must be established, since we all are talking about the same action, but under different reasons...

Q, I am trying to understand your point of view on this but since when is taking your own life considered a sacrafice? Imo suicide only benefit's the person who is committing the act. They are not thinking about anyone else or concerned about anyone else, except for themselves.

Imo sacrafice is something that is offered/preformed to benefit someone else other than yourself.

Ian

 

[path_of_one]

Imo sacrafice is something that is offered/preformed to benefit someone else other than yourself.

Ian

Q is referring to examples such as the custom among the Inuit for elders to commit suicide by exposure (by leaving the group and hiking off into the snow)- which ends their own lives early but which benefits the group by ensuring there is enough food for the young people left. Or, as another example, a custom in India in which a widow kills herself on her husband's funeral pyre, which relieves the family of the burden of passing limited resources to an elder.

These sorts of suicide happen for various reasons and are not uncommon cross-culturally, and I agree with Q that they are more appropriately deemed "sacrifice" rather than "suicide."

 

[Only Special To God]

Q is referring to examples such as the custom among the Inuit for elders to commit suicide by exposure (by leaving the group and hiking off into the snow)- which ends their own lives early but which benefits the group by ensuring there is enough food for the young people left. Or, as another example, a custom in India in which a widow kills herself on her husband's funeral pyre, which relieves the family of the burden of passing limited resources to an elder.

These sorts of suicide happen for various reasons and are not uncommon cross-culturally, and I agree with Q that they are more appropriately deemed "sacrifice" rather than "suicide."

Yes, I do understand what you and Q agree on, but I thought that we were talking about present time "2008". I am new here, so I have failed to think about ancient times.

Thank you Path for speaking on Q's behalf. Do you always answer a question that was directed to someone else? Isn't that rude? Oh, I know! You must know each other that well, that you can speak for each other!) You must be close friends then. Good for you.

I will have to remember to check on ancient history on a subject prior, to giving my opinion.

God bless
Ian

 

[path_of_one]

Yes, I do understand what you and Q agree on, but I thought that we were talking about present time "2008". I am new here, so I have failed to think about ancient times.

I made a similar assumption earlier in this thread, but then people brought up examples like the Inuit and Vaj made it clear that the scope of the thread covered all times/cultures/places. I'm not sure if you read the entire thread, but you can see I made the same mistake and that's why we're discussing the nuances here on the last page.

Thank you Path for speaking on Q's behalf. Do you always answer a question that was directed to someone else? Isn't that rude? Oh, I know! You must know each other that well, that you can speak for each other!) You must be close friends then. Good for you.

LOL, no problem. In this case, I figured I'd answer since it was the same mistake I'd made a few pages ago. I don't always answer questions directed to someone else, but sometimes I do if I'm in the mood. Maybe it is rude, but I'll leave it to Q to ask me to knock it off. To be honest, I don't spend a huge chunk of time pondering social etiquette on internet forums. I figure it's like a group conversation and people just chime in. Sorry if that is offensive to you. And Q and I do know each other pretty well, at least online. We've both been on this forum and talked for several years. We've answered stuff for each other before and we don't seem to find each other rude, but Q knows me well enough to know that if he found something rude, he could say so to me and I would simply apologize without offense. I guess I'm just not easily affronted.

As for being close friends, I suppose I would consider most people that have been here and discussed with me a long time a pretty close friend. After all, we discuss what I consider the Big Issues in life and forego all the small talk, so I feel like I get to know people well and I share a good chunk of myself with others... and I think that's friendship. I find that to be a lovely thing- to have these friends from all over the world.

I will have to remember to check on ancient history on a subject prior, to giving my opinion.

I figured you were just doing the same thing I had done- not realized that the thread incorporated more than modern first world society. Having made the same assumption and seen how the conversation had progressed, I was simply trying to let you know.

Peace,
Kim/Path

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

with regards to the idea of what suicide is i'd say that it seem to be rather self evident: killing oneself.

it seems to me that, by and large, the respondents agree that killing oneself, per se, is neither moral/ethical or immoral/unethical but rather it is the motivation that a being has for killing itself that makes the action moral/ethical or immoral/unethical.

i would agree as i've voiced that same view but what i am finding interesting is the widespread idea that beings that seek to kill themselves are mentally ill though we've noted cultural exceptions to this particular case. if that is so, i.e. that one could kill themselves without being mentally ill in the past then it stands that a being could do so in the present.

there is the idea that killing oneself is selfish and thus immoral/unethical yet nearly every action a human undertakes has a degree of selfishness involved but the vast majority are not considered immoral or unethical. for instance, when i go out to dinner and choose the food on the menu that will taste best for me, i am considering nobody other than myself in this case, yet we would hardly consider such an action to be immoral or unethical. in fact, if i were to say that i was picking food on the menu based on what other people wanted to eat (if there were guests with me at dinner) i'd imagine everyone at the table would tell me to order what i'd like and it would be perfectly acceptable, expected, that i would do so.

in any case, we'll keep the definition of suicide as it's plain meaning for the overall conversation as i think that would help avoiding tangential discussions on self sacrifice and euthanasia for instance.

metta,

~v

 

[Quahom1]

Yes, I do understand what you and Q agree on, but I thought that we were talking about present time "2008". I am new here, so I have failed to think about ancient times.

Thank you Path for speaking on Q's behalf. Do you always answer a question that was directed to someone else? Isn't that rude? Oh, I know! You must know each other that well, that you can speak for each other!) You must be close friends then. Good for you.

I will have to remember to check on ancient history on a subject prior, to giving my opinion.

God bless
Ian

What would you consider a soldier who throws himself on a live grenade, knowing it is going to kill him, but save his platoon? His actions (very modern day and prevelant), are self destructive, but his intention was not...

Or the mom or dad who jump in front of a car to push a child out of the way? Or perhaps the actions of Flight 92 passengers to deliberately put their plane into the ground, rather than let it hit Washington, DC?

The US Air Force WAC nurse who walks into the enemies' barracks in a Korean POW camp, with armed grenades in her shirt...

How about people who stayed with injured friends in the twin towers, even though they could have gotten out?

It isn't the action, but rather the intention behind the action that determines what is "suicide" and what is not.

 

[Only Special To God]

What would you consider a soldier who throws himself on a live grenade, knowing it is going to kill him, but save his platoon? His actions (very modern day and prevelant), are self destructive, but his intention was not...

Or the mom or dad who jump in front of a car to push a child out of the way? Or perhaps the actions of Flight 92 passengers to deliberately put their plane into the ground, rather than let it hit Washington, DC?

The US Air Force WAC nurse who walks into the enemies' barracks in a Korean POW camp, with armed grenades in her shirt...

How about people who stayed with injured friends in the twin towers, even though they could have gotten out?

It isn't the action, but rather the intention behind the action that determines what is "suicide" and what is not.

I personally consider those examples that you so nicely provided all "SACRAFICES", they did it so that someone else or more than one person could live and or survive after they were gone. An unselfish act.

I said that suicide only benefited one person and that was the person who was committing the act. A selfish act.

I do understand where you are coming from, but are you understanding what I am saying also?

God Bless

Ian

 

[Quahom1]

I personally consider those examples that you so nicely provided all "SACRAFICES", they did it so that someone else or more than one person could live and or survive after they were gone. An unselfish act.

I said that suicide only benefited one person and that was the person who was committing the act. A selfish act.

I do understand where you are coming from, but are you understanding what I am saying also?

God Bless

Ian

Yes, I do. We now have a base line established to work from...

But now comes the wrench in the gears:

What about the soldier who wants to die, and the grenade in front of him is his ticket out of here, but his squad is behind him and they will be taken out too (which is not what he wants), so he falls on the grenade. Is it suicide?

 

[Only Special To God]

Yes, I do. We now have a base line established to work from...

But now comes the wrench in the gears:

What about the soldier who wants to die, and the grenade in front of him is his ticket out of here, but his squad is behind him and they will be taken out too (which is not what he wants), so he falls on the grenade. Is it suicide?

Personally, I would say "Yes", as he is taking advantage of a situation to his benefit, but he is also using it as ploy to make himself look like a sacrafice, when in all reality it is what he wanted to do in the first place.

God Bless

Ian

 

[Quahom1]

Personally, I would say "Yes", as he is taking advantage of a situation to his benefit, but he is also using it as ploy to make himself look like a sacrafice, when in all reality it is what he wanted to do in the first place.

God Bless

Ian

Ah, perhaps...but not at the expense of others. My point is we don't know the heart of a man, but God does. Hence we can not be so quick to judge the why of things. Things are not always as they seem. imo

v/r

Q