WWW Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 This is a very controversial subject, so I will do my best to tread lightly. I'm going to answer this question as it pertains to UPB just for clarification. Generally, an individual that is beneficial to the overall prosperity or well-being of mankind does not have suicidal tendencies. Individuals that are not beneficial to mankind in some way or another (physical disabilities, mental disabilities, mental conditions, societal issues etc.) often are the ones with suicidal tendencies. Similar to what dsayers proposed, an individual that wishes to commit suicide has the right to do so regardless of their state of mind (rational or irrational), as long as there are no repercussions/ consequences/ trauma inflicted on the immediate family, friends, or those consciously connected on some level with that individual after the action has taken place (unless the burden they have on society outweighs the emotional pain inflicted on those involved, which as far as I know, there is no way to measure other than by the strong seemingly irrational emotions felt by the individual with suicidal tendencies). It would be in the best interest of those socially involved with this person to do what they can (adhering to the NAP) to convince them otherwise and get them mental help. Saving one or more lives as a result of the voluntary taking of your own life would also apply. On average, organ donors save around 7 lives, so an individual that empathized enough with humanity to give their own life for the sake of those around him/ her should also be an exception to the above rule. It should be emphasized that the above actions are voluntary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 You are clear to say that he was not irrational or insane, but not why his suicide was a rational decision. He had built a life with his wife. He was attached to his wife. His wife was gone. At his age, there was nothing to look forward to other than failing health and being perpetually, utterly miserable. I'm not as old as him but if something happened to me where I was suddenly without legs, I'd have a very difficult time adjusting. I say this, with legs, in full possession of my faculties. Would I be a coward for ending my life over something like losing my legs? Perhaps. This is different from insane or irrational. Also, I think you come across as obtuse when somebody mentions caffeine or tattoos to make the point that it's not up to us HOW a person makes decisions pertaining to their property. I even offered the disclaimer that I was not likening the two, to which you replied I most certainly was. At this point, I'm wondering if there's a reason why you need for suicide to be an irrational decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Edit: Should have realized that replying to posts after being accused of emotional bias is not a good idea, lesson learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Right since getting a tattoo and ending your life are pretty similar... The principle is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Edit: This is where I probably should have explained that 'likening' and 'comparing' mean the same thing, but I assumed people wouldn't think I meant that drinking caffeine and ending your life are identical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra2411 Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Not really. Getting a tattoo is not trying to destroy your capacity for choice, it doesn't indicate that you do not value life. It doesn't even hobble you in any way. They are both destructive to your body, but the degree is not even remotely similar. It would be like saying that the principle behind tapping someone on the shoulder and punching them in the face is the same since they both involve physical contact and get the attention of the other person. I mentioned tattoos because they're permanent and I can find no rational reason for getting them. We've established that suicide in and of itself isn't automatically irrational as there are rational and logical reasons for committing suicide. Is it moral to stop someone from making a rational decision simply because you find it repugnant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 You are comparing them in order to demonstrate how they are similar, right? Compared to what? Without context, I could make the comparison of suicide to not killing yourself. After all, both are on the same subject. Both are a decision. Both are engaged in by humans. Does this make suicide and not killing yourself IDENTICAL? Of course not. Just as comparing caffeine, tattoos, and suicide isn't saying they're identical. You find it useless because you're only thinking of it in terms of yield. Which is interesting because we've both made it clear that we're not talking about yield, we're talking about somebody making a decision regarding their property that others may not think is rational. Since we have been clear on this point, and you continue to speak as if you cannot see this, yes, I think there is an unidentified bias at play. Additionally, you keep asking for elaboration, but you're not providing any yourself. So could explain concisely your initial claim that somebody who commits suicide is not sane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Edit: Actually, forget it. When you feel uneasy about responding to a thread, it's generally your unconscious understanding things before you do, next time I'll be sure to listen sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts