Suicide and UPB

[labmath2]

Is it immoral under UPB to physically prevent someone from commiting suicide?

 

There are two ways i conceptualize this.

 

I take my preference and universalize it without contradiction and physical impossibility, then this does not necessarily violate UPB since i can say it is universally preferable to live.

 

However, if i use the NAP, it seems i only care about the preference of others, and not mine, so stopping the person from committing suicide will violate NAP.

[RyanT]

One question that jumped straight to my mind is, 

 

'If someone is really serious about ending their life (rather than doing it as a cry for help ect)

why would they put themselves in a position where someone might find them and intervene?'

[cobra2411]

That's an excellent question. 

 

I for one think suicide should be ok and it should even be ok to assist someone. Now I would hope that only people with terminal illness would choose such an option, but it is your body after all, so you should be able to do what you want with it. 

 

On the other side of the coin are things like the "safe" SSRI medication that's given that has the side effect of suicidal and homicidal thoughts. If someone is taking that and they are under an unknown influence, then can you save them from that?

 

I feel that self defense of another is valid and moral and consistent with UPB and NAP. In a case where someone is clearly being threatened and unable to defend themselves and I step in at that moment, I'm merely responding to the attacker's initiation of force. In that same vain, if a drug is given and the person reacts badly to that drug I feel that I can defend them from that drug. However, that assumes that I know their behavior before and can recognize that it's changed and identify that it's likely the drug. 

 

I think the first step would be to accept suicide as valid and a personal decision. Then people could openly talk about it and if they are acting without first being open about it then it could be assumed they are under some outside influence and there could be an intervention. If they actually are choosing to commit suicide then you could let them proceed. But since they have to hide that fact it's very difficult today. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You need more details. Preventing someone from committing suicide tells you very little. Is it a loved one? Have they made promises to you. Do you have a relationship with them? Have they put you in a bad position? Are they mentally well? Do they have children?  

[dsayers]

I think it depends entirely on where/how the suicide is to take place. I don't think it's controversial to point out that a person owns their life and can choose to end it if they so desire. HOWEVER, most ways of doing it would leave a mess, forcing a positive obligation onto others. Take jumping in front of a bus for example. You're going to damage the bus, leave something on the road for others to have to clean up, inflict trauma on the bus driver and any spectators, etc. Nobody morally has the right to do any of that.

 

I haven't been able to imagine a scenario where a suicide would NOT do something like this to another person. The closest I've come to is paying somebody to execute your estate once you're gone, then paying for a boat ride to the middle of nowhere and weighing yourself down in the water. Even then, you're subjecting the boat operator to trauma, so that doesn't address the issue.

 

I think that until somebody can come up with a way to do it that doesn't impose a positive obligation onto another without their consent, it would not be immoral to obstruct somebody's attempt. I sincerely apologize for how cold all of this might sound.

[cobra2411]

Dsayers, why couldn't someone go into the suicide business and offer a painless end with cleanup and disposal? Well, at least once the state is out of the way. 

 

Next question, should you stop a suicide because it is about to create a positive obligation on someone else? 

 

I think there are multiple issues at play here. If acceptable, services could be contracted. Anyone not contracting services would be committing theft. Is using force to prevent theft consistent with UPB? 

 

And lastly, is there any moral obligation to save someone from themselves? 

[cynicist]

Preventing someone from killing themselves clearly is not an act of aggression...I just want to point out here, in an effort to be more direct, that labmath has made as well as responded to several threads on UPB (some of which I have participated in) with very little apparent improvement in understanding, while at the same time criticizing what he perceives as flaws in UPB. He is also free to call into the show and ask for clarification from the writer himself but apparently has refrained from doing so.I for one am no longer going to respond to his posts, since it seems as if my responses have no effect anyway. I'm not saying anyone else should do the same, I'm just pointing this out in case someone thinks that they are helping him by responding. I have a feeling that he is more interested in finding problems with UPB than achieving any true comprehension of it. I could be mistaken, judge for yourselves...

 

 

Edit: Should have stopped here, this was my main point anyway.

[Jagsfan82]

I would parrot the main points already mentioned.1. Suicide always (ok not always...) leaves people negatively impacted by ending your life.  Any ways they could be positively impacted could also be achieved through other means than suicide.

2. I think stef kinda touched on this type of argument in the last call in show.  Preventing suicide although maybe in the truest sense of the term could be a violation of NAP, ultimately no sane person could say its really an act of aggression.  If someone else was performing the act of killing that person and you stopped it, you wouldn't say your act of aggression on the other person was greater than the act of aggression from the murderer.  Ultimately you are left with a net loss in aggression. What this means is no rational person is going to honestly fault you or complain that you prevented suicide of a person... in most cases. Surely if that person was in extended pain or had a terminal illness or what have you the line gets fuzzy, but I don't think your issue would be people justifying suicide in their death bed.  

3. Someone committing suicide often times is caused by them being mentally 'sick'. There is a little bit of common sense needed in that their temporary choice is probably one even themselves won't agree with at a later time.  It would probably be immoral to stop someone from suicide and then not make any effort to provide them help to get better mentally.   

[dsayers]

1. Suicide always (ok not always...) leaves people negatively impacted by ending your life.

 

This is a straw man. Morality and effect are not the same thing.

 

2. If someone else was performing the act of killing that person and you stopped it, you wouldn't say your act of aggression on the other person was greater than the act of aggression from the murderer.

 

Another straw man. By using the word murderer, you're begging the question. Also, aggression is the initiation of the use of force. Meaning that if the use of force has already been initiated, the use of force to arrest the aggression could not itself be described as aggression even if it is mechanically identical.

 

3. It would probably be immoral to stop someone from suicide and then not make any effort to provide them help to get better mentally.  

 

How did you arrive at this conclusion? "provide them help" is a positive obligation and therefore cannot be presumed without consent. You're essentially claiming that it would be immoral to not give consent. This is sort of the definition of coercion. The immorality would be in the person with this expectation, not whom the expectation is of.

[Daniel Unplugged]

I think it depends entirely on where/how the suicide is to take place. I don't think it's controversial to point out that a person owns their life and can choose to end it if they so desire. HOWEVER, most ways of doing it would leave a mess, forcing a positive obligation onto others. Take jumping in front of a bus for example. You're going to damage the bus, leave something on the road for others to have to clean up, inflict trauma on the bus driver and any spectators, etc. Nobody morally has the right to do any of that.

Great point. In this case the suicide is a violation on the NAP, therefore preventing it is permissible.

I haven't been able to imagine a scenario where a suicide would NOT do something like this to another person. The closest I've come to is paying somebody to execute your estate once you're gone, then paying for a boat ride to the middle of nowhere and weighing yourself down in the water. Even then, you're subjecting the boat operator to trauma, so that doesn't address the issue.I think that until somebody can come up with a way to do it that doesn't impose a positive obligation onto another without their consent.

Doesn't that contradict your previous statement since the boat owner consented. If he didn't consent, different of course.

Preventing someone from killing themselves clearly is not an act of aggression...

I entirely disagree. If a person owns themself, then they have the right to do with themself whatever they see fit. Someone else does not have the right to interfere, especially by initiating force. Say there is someone standing on a bridge ready to jump. I would not prevent them (forgetting about the forced obligation on the clean up crew for a minute). I would of course attempt to talk them down, but it is not my right to prevent them from taking their own life. While I would wish for others not to initiate force also, I would not support them being jailed for tackling the person to the ground (It is reasonable to assume, at least temporarily, that the person doesn't want to die all that badly, otherwise they would have jumped already, or have found a more foolproof method than standing on a bridge waiting for someone to tackle them). If however, they proceeded to take the suicidal person to a mental hospital to have them locked in a padded room, I would consider their actions criminal, and worthy of jail time.

[cynicist]

Edit: Preventing a suicide = Act of aggression, got it. 

[Daniel Unplugged]

If they are mentally unhealthy I'd say you were acting as a surrogate self-defense agent. You know they are mentally unhealthy if they are without extreme physical pain or nearing the end of their life (both rational reasons to desire physician-assisted suicide) because if killing yourself was a sane thing to do then none of us would exist.

Just because a person wants to die for reasons other than the abovementioned, does not mean that they are insane or mentally unhealthy. There are perfectly sane reasons why a person may wish to die, such as their life really sux or they wish to donate their organs while they are still young and healthy. Just because an action is sane for one person doesnt mean all sane people will do it (killing yourself is an action, the words sane or insane do not apply to it).You do not have a right to defend a person or a persons property against their explicit wishes. That is a violation of their property rights.

[cynicist]

Edit: Where I learn that having a really sucky life and wanting to donate organs are perfectly sensible reasons to kill yourself.  

[Jagsfan82]

This is a straw man. Morality and effect are not the same thing.Another straw man. By using the word murderer, you're begging the question. Also, aggression is the initiation of the use of force. Meaning that if the use of force has already been initiated, the use of force to arrest the aggression could not itself be described as aggression even if it is mechanically identical.How did you arrive at this conclusion? "provide them help" is a positive obligation and therefore cannot be presumed without consent. You're essentially claiming that it would be immoral to not give consent. This is sort of the definition of coercion. The immorality would be in the person with this expectation, not whom the expectation is of.

You don't seem to be holding yourself to the same standards you are holding me to. #1 was echoing your point. Forcing obligations onto others.#2 I quite literally meant a third party person who was trying to murder someone. I did not mean to ask a question about the ethics of that person. I certainly shouldn't have phrased the rest of the point as I did. I meant to imply as you said that we wouldn't consider that a violation of the NAP.#3 I say this because a person who is committing suicide feels some sort of mental or physical pain. If a person bleeding out in pain from wounds was going to kill themselves and someone prevented that act without helping the victim relieve his pain or certainty of death, would you consider that act moral? I would say by preventing the suicide you have placed the obligation on yourself.

[RyanT]

Spot on cynicist, I've suffered from those thoughts myself and like you say, 

you're not in a good place at the time. 

 

For me they seemed to come in waves lasting no longer than a few hours,

so had I acted, it could hardly be considered rational and sane.

 

Especially since they often came about from relatively trivial events, that could very easily be resolved, 

while conversely the slightest glimmer of hope, like someone showing me empathy and compassion,

could often have a massive positive effect on my mood.

[dsayers]

Doesn't that contradict your previous statement since the boat owner consented.

 

Great point. I missed that because as cobra pointed out, I was operating under the assumption of a State in place where the boat owner would be intensely questioned and likely brought up on charges despite no legitimate complainant.

 

I would agree that we have no way of knowing a person's sanity level based on the behavior of attempting suicide alone.

 

You don't seem to be holding yourself to the same standards you are holding me to. #1 was echoing your point. Forcing obligations onto others.

 

No, saying negatively impacted isn't not the same as saying forcing obligations, even if the latter could be considered a subset of the former. If you were trying to resonate what I said, this should be welcome feedback since the ability to actually explain such things (instead of vague language like negative impact) will help your ability to influence others. I speak from experience because I was actually in an argument with a friend recently because of this. He saw not helping somebody who fell and broke their leg as "immoral" because he hadn't taken the time to define moral and was just going by what felt right. When in fact there is no moral obligation to help, it's just something that most people would do despite not being obligated to.

 

If a person bleeding out in pain from wounds was going to kill themselves and someone prevented that act without helping the victim relieve his pain or certainty of death, would you consider that act moral?

 

Inaction is amoral unless you had previously voluntarily created a positive obligation of action under the circumstances being considered. It's like the broken leg thing I just mentioned. It's something most people would do, but there is no moral obligation, so inaction could not be described as immoral.

 

I hope you can see from this exchange the importance of precision when discussing morality. Please feel free to make any corrections or seek any clarifications. Morality is one of those things that if we get wrong, millions of people get killed, so I take it very seriously. 

[cynicist]

Edit: Is trying to end your life a sign of significant mental health problems? Apparently, no. 

[dsayers]

Can you give me an example of rational ingestion of caffeine? I'm not trying to liken the effects of suicide and caffeine consumption. My point is that if we own ourselves, then we own the ability to make bad decisions, for whatever reason. Also, why does the agony need to be unhealable?

 

At the risk of sounding biased, I offer the example of my grandfather, who killed himself. It was one year to the day of the death of his wife of 4+ decades. He disposed of his cat, set his affairs in order, said his goodbyes, left a note, then blew his brains out. He was not irrational or insane.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not for us to decide WHY somebody chooses to do something. Or would you argue that this is different because it goes against our basest motivator: self-preservation?

[cynicist]

Edit: Ingesting caffeine and killing yourself, same principle I suppose.

[dsayers]

What does alter his judgement mean? When I have a filling meal, it alters my judgement of what to eat. Does this mean I'm irrational or insane for eating more/less/specifically? I think it goes without saying that he was experiencing grief, but do you need to experience grief to understand that you cannot live without the person whose been your life for 2/3 of it? Does his grief mean his decision couldn't have been rational?

 

1 year to the day. He knew exactly what he was doing and why. And while it effected everybody that was in his life, of which there were many, it was for none of us to decide but him. Sucks to all hell, but it's consistent.

[cynicist]

Edit: Arguing about someone else's family? Probably not the best idea ever. 

[Aaron727]

Can you give me an example of rational suicide outside of people who are about to die or who are in unhealable agony? (the only two cases I can think of where life cannot possibly improve)

 

I cant resist the urge to nitpick. A mans wife and 2 children die in a car crash. I would try and talk the man out of it but I wouldn't physically stop him(assuming it wasn't a snap decision after he heard the news). People can get over intense lose so i'm not sure if it counts as "unhealable agony". Sometimes people want to quit. Is that really irrational? Maybe he doesn't want to deal with the pain and trauma. I wouldn't act in that way but it would be his choice and you cant keep someone under suicide watch forever. 

[logic32]

I would parrot the main points already mentioned.1. Suicide always (ok not always...) leaves people negatively impacted by ending your life.  Any ways they could be positively impacted could also be achieved through other means than suicide.

2. I think stef kinda touched on this type of argument in the last call in show.  Preventing suicide although maybe in the truest sense of the term could be a violation of NAP, ultimately no sane person could say its really an act of aggression.  If someone else was performing the act of killing that person and you stopped it, you wouldn't say your act of aggression on the other person was greater than the act of aggression from the murderer.  Ultimately you are left with a net loss in aggression. What this means is no rational person is going to honestly fault you or complain that you prevented suicide of a person... in most cases. Surely if that person was in extended pain or had a terminal illness or what have you the line gets fuzzy, but I don't think your issue would be people justifying suicide in their death bed.  

3. Someone committing suicide often times is caused by them being mentally 'sick'. There is a little bit of common sense needed in that their temporary choice is probably one even themselves won't agree with at a later time.  It would probably be immoral to stop someone from suicide and then not make any effort to provide them help to get better mentally.   

"Ultimately you are left with a net loss in aggression."That's advocating a consequentialism of non-aggression, which is anathema to Stefan's philosophy. It isn't about limiting acts of aggression overall, rather not commiting acts of aggression yourself. What you are suggesting is in fact an argument from effect, which Stefan would reject. The fact that it might have consequences you like doesn't mean that initiating force is morally permissible.

[cynicist]

Edit: Note to self, be pickier about what threads you participate in 

[dsayers]

That everyone who chooses to end their own life is making a perfectly rational decision and we should just get out of the way? 

 

I never said they're all rational. I said they're not all irrational. Specifically, that we cannot know their level of sanity based on one decision they've made. I also made the case that suicide is immoral as it inflicts unchosen positive obligations onto others, therefore arresting a suicide attempt is not immoral. I'm not sure how you could interpret either as the exact opposite. I apologize if I was in any way unclear.

 

On a side note, you don't have to avoid my grandfather's suicide. I was relatively young and the only part of it that really stuck with me for a bit was the way it effected my father as a result of seeing the aftermath first hand. I only brought it up because of all the suicides I've ever heard of, none have come close to having been as calculated.

[cynicist]

Edit: Redacted 

[Daniel Unplugged]

I never said they're all rational. I said they're not all irrational. Specifically, that we cannot know their level of sanity based on one decision they've made. I also made the case that suicide is immoral as it inflicts unchosen positive obligations onto others, therefore arresting a suicide attempt is not immoral.

In the bridge scenario, I accept that there is a forced positive obligation onto others, but I do not accept that there is in all cases. Using the example of your grandfather, do you think that he forced positive obligations onto others? I would argue that he did not. Yes, the family arranged a funeral, and may have paid for it, but i dont think that can be classified as forced of inflicted. They chose (as of course they would) to do so. The other forced obligation one may refer to is that his suicide will result in his loved ones grieving at his passing. I don't accept that either, since I do not accept that he was obliged to ensure that his family does not grieve for him.

I'm curious how you could determine the difference. What exactly makes one suicide more rational than another in your mind?

For all intents and purposes you can't, unless would you have prior information that they are ALWAYS irrational. An important part of freedom is the freedom to be irrational and to make mistakes. Denying someone that right is very anti-freedom. Would you deny a person the right to smoke, since it is 'irrational'? Do you believe that one person has the right, to decide for someone else, what is rational, and to force their decision on them?

[dsayers]

I'm curious how you could determine the difference. What exactly makes one suicide more rational than another in your mind?

 

I'm not sure why you continue to misrepresent my input. You made the claim that nobody that commits suicide is sane. I offset this by saying that we cannot tell a person's sanity level by their behavior of attempted suicide alone.

 

Using the example of your grandfather, do you think that he forced positive obligations onto others?

 

Yes. I don't know the details, but my understanding is that the aftermath was pretty gruesome. Somebody was forced to clean up the mess. The labor alone was an unchosen positive obligation, but the nature of the labor would be pretty horrifying even if you didn't know the person.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Sorry, I forgot which method he chose. If he chose to overdose on painkillers instead, and made a prior arrangement with an undertaker to remove his body, hence preventing the family from stumbling upon it, would that make a difference? I think that choosing the gun method was very inconsiderate, for lack of a better word, and not justified.

[cobra2411]

Firstly, I'm surprised that anyone here would cling to the notion that they have any right to interfere with someone else's life. I think tattoo's are irrational, particularly one's not easily hidden. Should I tackle people going into tattoo shops to save them from themselves? 

 

We can not ever know fully what's going on inside someone that is contemplating suicide. We need to acknowledge and accept that we have no right interfering with another person's life or their decisions - even if they decide to kill themselves. Given the freedom to discuss their decision without fear of being ushered into a padded cell I believe we will finally get a true insight into why people want to commit suicide. I would have to believe that most people who would go into such a business would not simply kill people on the spot. I have no problem with people wanting to end their lives, but I feel it would be important to talk out that decision with a counselor first. Rational or irrational, as long as they're not under external influence, if their decision is to end their life - who are we to stop them? In the case of external influence such as drugs with side effects, I, as a business owner would require they wean themselves off and if their decision remains the same I would then go through with the procedure. 

 

Dsayer's offered up the decision of his grandfather. One of my aunt's had cancer that metastasized to her bones. It was increasingly painful and the pain meds were growing ineffective. She was given a 6% chance of survival but everyone told her to fight anyway. So she went though chemo which only weakened her and caused her more pain. When she finally had an aneurysm, the doctors pressed her children to give the ok to save her. They were very torn and I was one of the few on the side of letting her go. Fortunately the time to act passed with indecision and my aunt passed a few hours later. 

 

There are many terminal illnesses that are ultimately debilitating and painful that there is a perfectly rational reason behind suicide. Old age is another one - I have a few older relatives in their mid 90's who are disappointed that they get up in the morning. They've seen their children grow up, their grandchildren grow up, their loved ones and close friend die... They feel they've done everything they've wanted to do and see no reason to remain. Then there are those who've been emotionally scarred and see no end to the misery. I'm least accepting of those, but in the end it's their decision. 

[powder]

Some interesting and challenging points here.  cynicist, I'm glad you decided to contribute to the discussion.

 

I have a couple of questions:

 

-why is not irrational to think that a cure or treatment could not be found for a chronic physical pain, just as it is irrational to think that things will not get better (emotionally)?

 

-considering the idea of drugs influencing someone's mental state and behavior, what about people who are suffering from an imbalance of chemicals in their system that promote irrational thoughts and behavior?  We treat people all the time for this stuff.  

 

-who gets to decide who is acting rational?  

[cobra2411]

Powder, I think your last point is the most powerful - who indeed gets to decide what is and what isn't rational. 

 

As far as chemical imbalance in the brain, last time I looked, they didn't even know what "normal" was. How can you say there's an imbalance without knowing what it's supposed to be in the first place? 

 

As far as the possibility that a cure could be found, it may not. I feel that if someone is in pain and there is nothing on the radar it would be irrational to think something would come along in a timely manner. 

[powder]

Powder, I think your last point is the most powerful - who indeed gets to decide what is and what isn't rational. 

 

As far as chemical imbalance in the brain, last time I looked, they didn't even know what "normal" was. How can you say there's an imbalance without knowing what it's supposed to be in the first place? 

 

As far as the possibility that a cure could be found, it may not. I feel that if someone is in pain and there is nothing on the radar it would be irrational to think something would come along in a timely manner. 

Right, good points cobra.  

 

what I can say about finding relief is that it is not always the case that treatments have not been created yet but perhaps the search has not exhausted all possible options.  Still, I understand that it is more about choosing to act freely with regards to your own life and body.  

[cobra2411]

Right, good points cobra.  

 

what I can say about finding relief is that it is not always the case that treatments have not been created yet but perhaps the search has not exhausted all possible options.  Still, I understand that it is more about choosing to act freely with regards to your own life and body.  

It's a personal call on how far to take the search for relief. The state and it's minions, aka the health care industry don't make it any easier. I believe there are quacks out there selling snake oil, but I also believe there are people with bona fide cures who are simply labeled quacks and who most people who still believe in the state wouldn't even consider. There's no money in a cure... Only prolonged treatment. 

[cynicist]

Edit: Changed my mind about participating here