Is it moral to end one`s life to prevent certain suffering?

[StrictlyLogical]

OK, well nothing kills a good conversation like staying on topic...

 

There is a certain dark logic to Ligotti's view.  Supposing that awareness of mortality leads to suffering, and suicide is painless, then painful life is bad and painless death is good. Que theme song (Suicide is Painless, by Manic Street Preachers):

--

The game of life is hard to play

I'm gonna lose it anyway

The losing card of some delay

So this is all I have to say

 

That suicide is painless

It brings so many changes

And I can take or leave them if I please

--

A common sentiment expressed at the death of a loved one suffering from a terminal illness is, "it's good that he's no longer suffering."  But I think this is grasping at comfortable straws because if given the choice to continue living with a tolerable amount of pain, death wouldn't be more preferable life.  Certain, but tolerable, suffering is part of the experience of living a mortal life, and to paraphrase Reagan (about abortion), I've noticed that everyone who is for suicide is still here arguing."

 

In order to have moral weight, there must ba a good choice vs a bad choice.  No choice carries no moral weight, and death is an end to choice, so it follows that choosing death is choosing an amoral solution.  That is essentially what I was trying to express to StrictlyLogical when our conversation got derailed; that a moral choice that leads to an amoral consequence represents a contradiction of nature.  For morality to remain valid, there can't be logical loopholes to moral consequences.  In order to avoid the contradiction, one must conclude that suicide (as a choice) is in fact immoral, not amoral.  Even if one argues that a painful life is bad, there is no good feeling that results from choosing death, because a corpse isn't capable of enjoying anything.

 

Suicide isn't an escape from suffering, it's the destruction of hope and therefore immoral.

 

I kind of like the sentiment in this, but its foundation needs some more rigor.

 

It needs to be reframed "first person" AND using the proper standard because that is what morality is.

[softwareNerd]

A common sentiment expressed at the death of a loved one suffering from a terminal illness is, "it's good that he's no longer suffering."  But I think this is grasping at comfortable straws because if given the choice to continue living with a tolerable amount of pain, death wouldn't be more preferable life.

I'm glad you raised this because the OP talks about "suffering", but the dangerous assumption in his post is that he equates struggle with suffering: specifically, he speaks of the lives of "the great majority of people in third world countries" consisting of suffering!

Even when suffering is genuine -- more than just a struggle -- the other essential question is its permanence. If someone is suffering from a painful disease that he can get through and come out the other end to live a life without suffering, then the suffering would usually be worth enduring.

In addition, when people are depressed, they cannot visualize and "make real" the positive possibilities in the future. So, even an evaluation that one is suffering and that there is no reasonable light at the end of the tunnel can be wrong, under the influence of depression.

With all that said, in the typical case where people say they're glad a loved one died because he was suffering, I think they are not making excuses or rationalizing.