Philosophy Discussion Forums

Often, a reason for some suicidal individuals to consider living is how their death would affect their family, and many tend to impart that advice as well.

So does a suicidal person have a moral obligation to "better" or change whatever the cause is for their suicidal ideation? not only for their own well being, but for others that may be affected (Family, friends, soulmates etc)? Or should the choice for what they do with their life take precedence over all?

Well we are all individuals who exist in communities. So suicide (like everything else) has many sides. As whether it can be considered moral, it depends whether one puts a premium on autonomy or minimizing anguish.

NasloxiehRorsxez wrote: ↑May 5th, 2018, 1:36 am So does a suicidal person have a moral obligation to "better" or change whatever the cause is for their suicidal ideation? not only for their own well being, but for others that may be affected (Family, friends, soulmates etc)?

Yes, if they can.

Or should the choice for what they do with their life take precedence over all?

No.

When you ask whether some act is moral or immoral, you must have framed that concept in some social context; some notion of what constitutes a system of morality. According to what standard are you judging and asking others to judge? The reader may not share your social context.

NasloxiehRorsxez wrote: ↑May 5th, 2018, 1:36 am Often, a reason for some suicidal individuals to consider living is how their death would affect their family, and many tend to impart that advice as well.

You are assuming that most people have a sense of obligation to their family. Families vary; some don't deserve consideration.
This mean the standard would be different for people with families and people who without a kinship network. Fair enough.
So then, it's okay for people who are alone to exit the world at will. That's one situation in which suicide is not considered immoral.
Then, for people with families, we must consider also how their continued survival affect their family. Suppose they have a messy, work-intensive, heart-breaking, expensive illness, that takes all kinds of toll on a family, at the end of which they will certainly die. All that suffering and hardship could be alleviated by termination of the patient. In this instance, self-termination. You'd have to weigh which is more immoral.

So does a suicidal person have a moral obligation to "better" or change whatever the cause is for their suicidal ideation?

Why assume that they are able to do so? In most extreme cases, the suicide has little or no control of the circumstances he's hoping to escape.

Or should the choice for what they do with their life take precedence over all?

Or should the choice be arrived-at by considering all the particulars of each individual case?
As opposed to a general rule made by someone who has no clue to the suicide's quality of life or state of mind?

NasloxiehRorsxez wrote: ↑May 5th, 2018, 1:36 am Often, a reason for some suicidal individuals to consider living is how their death would affect their family, and many tend to impart that advice as well.

So does a suicidal person have a moral obligation to "better" or change whatever the cause is for their suicidal ideation? not only for their own well being, but for others that may be affected (Family, friends, soulmates etc)? Or should the choice for what they do with their life take precedence over all?

I do not see why we would put the interests of society/family ultimately above our own. Your last duty is to yourself.

If living your life is so wretched to by-pass the needs of your family, then surely the family would be wrong to insist that you prolong your suffering for their sake.

I would never want to impose my needs so thoroughly upon a suicidal family member to use moral force upon them to preserve their live when they would rather die.

I believe it would be immoral to impose further 'moral burden' on the suicider, if they have made up their mind to commit suicide, they would've already considered the consequences of their actions. It would be immoral to stop them from doing what they have concluded to do with their life.

Alias wrote: ↑May 8th, 2018, 12:02 am When you ask whether some act is moral or immoral, you must have framed that concept in some social context; some notion of what constitutes a system of morality. According to what standard are you judging and asking others to judge? The reader may not share your social context.


You are assuming that most people have a sense of obligation to their family. Families vary; some don't deserve consideration.
This mean the standard would be different for people with families and people who without a kinship network. Fair enough.
So then, it's okay for people who are alone to exit the world at will. That's one situation in which suicide is not considered immoral.
Then, for people with families, we must consider also how their continued survival affect their family. Suppose they have a messy, work-intensive, heart-breaking, expensive illness, that takes all kinds of toll on a family, at the end of which they will certainly die. All that suffering and hardship could be alleviated by termination of the patient. In this instance, self-termination. You'd have to weigh which is more immoral.

Why assume that they are able to do so? In most extreme cases, the suicide has little or no control of the circumstances he's hoping to escape.

Or should the choice for what they do with their life take precedence over all?

Or should the choice be arrived-at by considering all the particulars of each individual case?
As opposed to a general rule made by someone who has no clue to the suicide's quality of life or state of mind?

Well not just family. Friends and relationships as well.

You make a valid point regarding how the mental illness might affect the family. If the family is accepting of self termination, I can't think of how that would be immoral, perhaps if it's something that is clearly treatable? I'd love to hear someone else's perspective on that. But then how do we even measure likelihood of treatment or improvement in one's quality of life or state? I think there are some cases in which it would be apparent, but it seems like in most cases that would be impossible to measure. How long one has suffered? How many solutions that have been considered or applied? I don't know.

I do think the "general rule" applies in the case you present if the family disagrees with the option of self termination. As another user stated, premium on autonomy or minimization of suffering?

Also, what makes someone unworthy of consideration? Someone the suicide doesn't deem worthy of consideration? Assuming they've considered at all? Or a "bad" person? Who might very well still be affected by the suicide's death.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑May 8th, 2018, 5:32 am

NasloxiehRorsxez wrote: ↑May 5th, 2018, 1:36 am Often, a reason for some suicidal individuals to consider living is how their death would affect their family, and many tend to impart that advice as well.

So does a suicidal person have a moral obligation to "better" or change whatever the cause is for their suicidal ideation? not only for their own well being, but for others that may be affected (Family, friends, soulmates etc)? Or should the choice for what they do with their life take precedence over all?

I do not see why we would put the interests of society/family ultimately above our own. Your last duty is to yourself.

If living your life is so wretched to by-pass the needs of your family, then surely the family would be wrong to insist that you prolong your suffering for their sake.

I would never want to impose my needs so thoroughly upon a suicidal family member to use moral force upon them to preserve their live when they would rather die.

I do agree there's something morally questionable about family, friends, or other, insisting such. But then there's the chance that your suicide will greatly affect someone else. So how do you choose which suffering to prioritize?

I don't think people who insist a suicidal to live intend to use moral force. However, I feel that's inevitable in many cases.

NasloxiehRorsxez wrote: ↑May 8th, 2018, 2:59 pm Well not just family. Friends and relationships as well.

Any true friend has already raised all those issues, including treatment options and emotional support. They have a pretty good idea what you've tried and how it turned out.

You make a valid point regarding how the mental illness might affect the family.

Who said was mental illness? I'm betting the majority of cases have cancer, or MS or some other long-darwn-out terminal illness.
In Canada, we're allowed - finally!! - to seek assistance with such a suicide, but it's a long, hard wait and some stranger is still making the final decision, according to their legal criteria. And if you can't communicate, or you're under the age of consent, you're plum out of luck: parents or spouses can hang onto you as long as they want.
Those are the family members who don't deserve consideration - the ones who put their own desire above compassion.
Also, of course, those who have offered no support or help; those who oppose the patient's decision on religious grounds.
In fact, anyone who wants to curtail another person's autonomy.
I mean, whose life is it?

Really, you know, it's not a question of whether you live or die.
Everybody dies.
And, of course, every death affects the family and friends and community in which it happens.
The questions under consideration are: When? and How?
Why is a considered, deliberate, freely chosen death worse for the family than watching their loved one wasting away in a hospital?

NasloxiehRorsxez wrote: ↑May 8th, 2018, 3:08 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑May 8th, 2018, 5:32 am

I do not see why we would put the interests of society/family ultimately above our own. Your last duty is to yourself.

If living your life is so wretched to by-pass the needs of your family, then surely the family would be wrong to insist that you prolong your suffering for their sake.

I would never want to impose my needs so thoroughly upon a suicidal family member to use moral force upon them to preserve their live when they would rather die.

I do agree there's something morally questionable about family, friends, or other, insisting such. But then there's the chance that your suicide will greatly affect someone else. So how do you choose which suffering to prioritize?

I don't think people who insist a suicidal to live intend to use moral force. However, I feel that's inevitable in many cases.

People die all the time. Friends get sad, then they get over it.

If you don't commit suicide then you are going to die some other way. Your friends and family are going to suffer at some point so why should they not celebrate your choice? If they understood you as they should then they should respect that decision.
You can't stay alive forever and your response seems to ignore that basic truth.

When discussing suicide, people often assume that it's something done only in the throes of emotional upheaval or mental unbalance. And that's often true, especially of young people. In such cases, the suicidal person might very well think better of it, if they had time to recover their senses, got some perspective, or had help in solving the problem. But help is not always available or successful; not all emotional problems have a ready solution. Sometimes the only choice is between ending or prolonging a bad life.
With medicine as advanced as it is now, bad lives may be prolonged indefinitely. We would have become more able to deal with this subject by now, but for the long stranglehold of religious taboos on our cognitive processes.
In cases of progressive illness, degenerative brain disease or catastrophic injury, staying alive causes the family and friends a great deal more trouble, sorrow and material hardship than a merciful death. We know this regarding our beloved pets, but have an irrational inhibition regarding human life.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑May 9th, 2018, 6:25 pm

NasloxiehRorsxez wrote: ↑May 8th, 2018, 3:08 pm

I do agree there's something morally questionable about family, friends, or other, insisting such. But then there's the chance that your suicide will greatly affect someone else. So how do you choose which suffering to prioritize?

I don't think people who insist a suicidal to live intend to use moral force. However, I feel that's inevitable in many cases.

People die all the time. Friends get sad, then they get over it.

If you don't commit suicide then you are going to die some other way. Your friends and family are going to suffer at some point so why should they not celebrate your choice? If they understood you as they should then they should respect that decision.
You can't stay alive forever and your response seems to ignore that basic truth.

hm, well I think you could argue that in the case of suicide as opposed to other ways of dying. There's a sense of possibility that whatever mental issues or mindset of the suicidal individual could have changed, and was preventable.

I don't really think it's the same with terminal illness, accidents, murder, etc.

Alias wrote: ↑May 9th, 2018, 9:10 pm When discussing suicide, people often assume that it's something done only in the throes of emotional upheaval or mental unbalance. And that's often true, especially of young people. In such cases, the suicidal person might very well think better of it, if they had time to recover their senses, got some perspective, or had help in solving the problem. But help is not always available or successful; not all emotional problems have a ready solution. Sometimes the only choice is between ending or prolonging a bad life.
With medicine as advanced as it is now, bad lives may be prolonged indefinitely. We would have become more able to deal with this subject by now, but for the long stranglehold of religious taboos on our cognitive processes.
In cases of progressive illness, degenerative brain disease or catastrophic injury, staying alive causes the family and friends a great deal more trouble, sorrow and material hardship than a merciful death. We know this regarding our beloved pets, but have an irrational inhibition regarding human life.

I absolutely agree regarding terminal illness situations and long lasting diseases. Both have in common a low probability of survival and no cure.

But what about mental illness, mental issues, or something else entirely? While there are no cures for some of them, there are treatments that could make life worth living to the sufferer, maybe even a change in attitude or mindset. So in these scenario's, what makes suicide justified? Some combination of how long one has suffered and what they have done or tried to do to change their situation? That seems rather arbitrary to me. Does suicide even require justification for it to not be immoral?

NasloxiehRorsxez wrote: ↑May 5th, 2018, 1:36 am Often, a reason for some suicidal individuals to consider living is how their death would affect their family, and many tend to impart that advice as well.

So does a suicidal person have a moral obligation to "better" or change whatever the cause is for their suicidal ideation? not only for their own well being, but for others that may be affected (Family, friends, soulmates etc)? Or should the choice for what they do with their life take precedence over all?

We can kind of Golden Rule this and look at the family.
If someone I care about hates life and wants it to end, do I want them to go on suffering and living for my sake?

I think also the issue, for me, depends on the causes of the suffering. Our conscious minds can conclude idiotic things. I loved Jimmy, he is my soul mate, Jimmy doesn't want me anymore, I will never have love, I want to die, I kill myself. I don't think calling that selfish is meaningful. I think it can be idiotic. There are interpretations and rational labelings that are causing something unpleasant, terribly unpleasant, to MEAN certain things that are not the case. And when I call this idiotic, I don't mean the person is an idiot. Been there, suffered that idiocy myself, though never found suicide an appealing option.

But there are other people who find life a torment. It is not tied to single interpretations. Perhaps they could change, perhaps not. Perhaps they have a disease that makes them hate life. This has been ongoing and they want out. That does not seem like idiocy to me, nor selfish. Perhaps some of these people are wrong. They could have done some alternative treatment or therapy and found a way to live with less suffering. But I get that. We all do our best to find solutions. And we make educated guesses when we cannot find them. I can't categorically judge the choice because in some instances it was not the optimal one.

So I dislike the idea that suicide is selfish from 2 angles: 1) it would be selfish to expect someone to continue living for me if they hated life. 2) sometimes it ain't worth it.