When is suicide rational?

[DavidOdden]

Is it really a decision whether to exist or not exist? Wouldn't it be a decision to exist in a certain context, with certain conditions, such as happiness?

If you're going to decide to exist happily, then you're going to decide to exist. If you're going to decide to exist unhappily, you're going to decide to exist. In other words, first you have to decide whether to exist. More specifically, you have to first chose life, and then you need to seek a way to reach that goal. As Tara Smith put it, living is more than morgue-avoidance. In fact, living entails flourishing: being healthy, mentally and physically.

[Unconquered]

Aside from the issue of terminal illness (which we likely wouldn't be here if we disagreed about that), when does it become more rational, more true to one's self, and more moral to choose not to continue living?

This may sound trite given the source (a Dooby Brothers song), but it actually has philosophic significance: "You'll always have a chance to give up - so why do it now?"

Dying removes all options, including the ability to try again. Only life gives you that. The existential conditions of your life do not define your character. i.e. Ayn Rand being a waitress, which she was for awhile, certainly did not "degrade" her, and she certainly went on to bigger and better things.

If it's an issue of something such as depression, a feeling that you can never be happy because of some crushing feeling of hopelessness, then I suggest that the person see their doctor or a psychologist and try some of the anti-depressant medications, because such feelings can sometimes be due to brain chemical imbalances. (Contrary to various rationalists who think that every aspect of the body and even consciousness is a direct product of "Man's will" - which is a Nietzschean, not an Objectivist, view - you can have brain problems which lead to things such as depression, which are now fairly fixable.)

[JenniAnn]

How rational can a person be when they are think of ending their own life. They must be so filled with loss and hopelessness that they can't think clearly. When your that over come by emotion you can't see rational or logic. The famous author Lord Byron said, "Life is worth living as long as we're alive." There is always hope but when people think with their anger instead of their minds the Truth gets clouded. There is always Hope.

[punk]

First a couple points:

How we face death colors how we live. The person who has come to terms with death will live more fully than the person who hasn't.

Or as the ancients said: Death is the muse of philosophy.

That is philosophy is about life in as much as brings us to terms with our own mortality.

Once you've really come to terms with death, then you can do anything you want, because you are prepared to die at any moment. Otherwise you are just going to spend your entire life with your tail between you legs hiding from death, until it finally catches you. But then you'll never have really lived.

Back to the topic:

So once you've come to terms with death, you know what life means to you and what it is for that meaning to cease to be. That is you can decide rationally when it is time to call it a day. Suicide is then life affirming, it is saying "that was life", and "this isn't life anymore".

[BurgessLau]

How rational can a person be when they are think of ending their own life.

As rational as they choose to be. Besides, did you notice the contradiction in your question? If a person is thinking, then he is acting rationally.

They must be so filled with loss and hopelessness that they can't think clearly.

Why "must" they be? Or are you speaking for yourself? It is true that in certain moments of great emotion, a rational person would choose to postpone thinking until he was calmer. But not everyone has that luxury. Sometimes there will be no "later."

When your that over come by emotion you can't see rational or logic.

What do you mean by "see rational"?

The famous author Lord Byron said, "Life is worth living as long as we're alive." There is always hope but when people think with their anger instead of their minds the Truth gets clouded. There is always Hope.

If Byron really said that, he was wrong. Depending on the context, he is possibly equivocating on "life" -- from meaning merely physically alive (but possibly suffering enormous pain) to meaning being fully alive qua rational being, that is, freely pursing one's passionately chosen goals in a free society.

Hope is an emotion. Like all emotions, it should be based on an evaluation that is objective, that is, one that is logically based on the facts of reality. Sometimes for some individuals the facts are such that there is no objective basis for hope. To nevertheless persist in hope would be to engage in subjectivism, specifically in wishful thinking.

Philosophical optimisim -- the belief that no matter what the facts of the present situation are we should nevertheless have hope because God created this world and God is perfectly good -- is corrupt philosophy.

Common-sense optimism -- the belief that in most situations that most people encounter in their lives there are some grounds for hope, based on past experience -- is reasonable. But common-sense optimism is for the general situation, not for the horrible exceptional situations that do in fact happen to some individuals in some special circumstances: terminal illness and dying slowly at the hands of a sadistic murderer are two examples.

A better alternative to either philosophical optimism or common-sense optimism is to have hope when it is justified by the facts within the context of one's highest values. A rational person who has achieved his basic personal values, to some extent, can rationally abandon hope in certain situations, but still be left, not with despair, but with serenity -- precisely because he knows he lived and made his life what he wanted it to be, to the extent that was metaphysically possible to him.

Edited November 13, 2005 by BurgessLau

[hunterrose]

It's very [rare] that happiness on earth becomes impossible.

That sums up my feelings well.

When does it become more rational, more true to one's self, and more moral to choose not to continue living?

I don't think many have mentioned the idea that suicide is irrational so long as, in terms of continuing to live, happiness will outweigh the displeasures.

IMO it's highly irrational to commit suicide simply because one is unhappy now. If a persons believes the future pleasures will exceed the future pains if they can make it to the next, day, year, decade... then suicide is an irrational choice.

The italicized "more" is very good. I don't think "rational" can be applied to suicide so unquestionably, because suicide implies a person contextually believes further happiness is impossible. As such IMO when and under what conditions a person should commit suicide seems a subjective matter for an individual to decide.

If you're going to decide to exist unhappily, you're going to decide to exist.

But to go somewhat along with andrew's point, is it possible to choose/decide unhappiness? Surely reason has to be involved in deciding whether to exist or not?

Ayn Rand being a waitress

That image anytime won't be forgotten anytime soon. Now that's something I would've loved to see

[mwickens]

Due to recent events, I have taken an interest in this subject.

When is it rational for one to kill one's self?

If this question relates to a personal decision that you or someone you know is trying to make, the first order of business is to consult with a rational mental health professional. He or she can help you objectively evaluate the situation and put things in the proper perspective. Such a perspective is rarely operating when suicide is being considered.

I believe Dr. Hurd provides phone and/or email consultations. Another resource is The Academy of Cognitive Therapy.

At the very least, I would recommend speaking with any trusted friend or family member. Often, just discussing the issue makes it clear that some factors have been magnified beyond their proper level importance.

Once the person in question has an accurate, long-term picture, only then should the question you ask be considered.

All the best,

Mark

[JenniAnn]

I don't really understand BurgessLau's arguement. A person can think irrational thoughts (hence the term). No one can know what the person commiting suiced is thinking. Except, maybe someone who has tried to kill themselves. That's why I quoted Lord Byron. He tried to commit suiced as a young boy. If anyone would know about their emotions he would. Almost every suiced note I have seen talks about a felling of hopelessness. That's why Byron wrote about hope.

[FeatherFall]

I don't really understand BurgessLau's arguement. A person can think irrational thoughts (hence the term). No one can know what the person commiting suiced is thinking. Except, maybe someone who has tried to kill themselves. That's why I quoted Lord Byron. He tried to commit suiced as a young boy. If anyone would know about their emotions he would. Almost every suiced note I have seen talks about a felling of hopelessness. That's why Byron wrote about hope.

I do not know what sparked this thread, so I do not claim that the following comments pertain to any situation that anyone on this forum is going through.

While there is usually reason for hope, some situations are hopeless. It is important that people are able to identify the difference. There is no reason to pursue life if all expectation for value achievement is lost. There may be reason to end it if continued existence is an anti-value.

[RationalBiker]

A person can think irrational thoughts (hence the term). No one can know what the person commiting suiced is thinking.

The person who wishes to commit suicide can know his thoughts are rational, so that's someone who can know what he/she is thinking. A person has dominion over their own life, so they really have no obligation to justify to anyone else why they want to commit suicide.

I think it's important to consider that while you may be "overcome" by emotion, other people have taught themselves to recognize when their emotions are occuring, even very strong emotions, and that they still need to quell them and use reason to decide on and pursue a course of action. Strong emotions, even the most desperate emotions, do not necessarily extinguish the ability to think and act rationally.

You may also be confusing your values with the values of others. It is quite reasonable to recognize the some rational people reach a point in their life where the attainment of happiness by the pursuit of their values is no longer possible. When all that remains of life is misery and pain, death can a viable alternative. One cannot assume that everyone can just pull through and find some other replacement values.

[softwareNerd]

Cole, Since you haven't posted after starting the thread, I'm not sure if you're strill reading. I just want to add support for what "MWickens" said about " the first order of business". If this is not simply a hypothetical question, the person needs professional help.

[colehulse]

Cole, Since you haven't posted after starting the thread, I'm not sure if you're strill reading. I just want to add support for what "MWickens" said about " the first order of business". If this is not simply a hypothetical question, the person needs professional help

Oh I'm still reading. Very good so far.

As far as the "first order of business"; let us assume this person has taken all precautions against this being chemically induced or a knee jerk reaction to intense pain (emotional or physical), by taking such measures as counseling with proffesionals and loved ones. Also assume a fair amount of time, say a year, has been put into studying intensely all options.

So if existence is not your primary purpose and nonexistence is, it is rational to kill yourself.

A person who's purpose is non-existence has no capacity for rational thought, therefore they are neccessarily excluded from this dilema.

There is no difference. "Self-murder" is not an intrinsic evil, it is only evil within the context of a being whose purpose is to remain alive.

That is a VERY subjective form of thought. I did not use the term "Self-murder" so deliberately for no reason. To murder one's self means quite litteraly to destroy without purpose the life one has made. For some men have a Self, and some do not, namely those who's purpose is existence, and those who's purpose is non-existence, respectively.

What if the person knows full well that they are capable of great achievements, and that there exists hope in the sense of physical survival, even flourishment to some degree, but still the unhappiness will always taint all material and social success?

For this person to continue living, would it not be an atrocity against the Self? When Man's greatest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness, and that happiness is unachievable, does not one's moral purpose become impossible? If so, isn't living a life with no moral purpose the act of slow Self destruction on all but the physical level anyway?

Just some thoughts

Cole

Edited November 15, 2005 by colehulse

[softwareNerd]

What if the person knows full well that they are capable of great achievements, and that there exists hope in the sense of physical survival, even flourishment to some degree, but still the unhappiness will always taint all material and social success?

What do you mean by "great achievments" here? Also, when you say "taint" do you mean that the net result will be negative, or "taint" in the sense that the net result would not be as positive as it could have been?

[colehulse]

What do you mean by "great achievments" here? Also, when you say "taint" do you mean that the net result will be negative, or "taint" in the sense that the net result would not be as positive as it could have been?

I am referring to the idea that one's life can have meaning simply because they are succesfull.

What I mean is this: What if a person is successfull in the sense that they do in fact accomplish the goals they set for their self, yet there is something they have lost, say family or a loved one, that makes these accomplishments seem empty?

[dondigitalia]

I am referring to the idea that one's life can have meaning simply because they are succesfull.

What I mean is this: What if a person is successfull in the sense that they do in fact accomplish the goals they set for their self, yet there is something they have lost, say family or a loved one, that makes these accomplishments seem empty?

That depends on a lot of context, but yes, it is possible to love another person so much that all value would lose meaning without them. Even most of the time here, though, that meaning can be regained with some healing time. It is very, very rare, that the loss of a loved one will permanently prohibit all value-achievement. I'm skeptical as to whether there is any case where a person truly cannot recover from the loss, but I'll allow that it is at least possible.

I'll also say that in the case of any suicide, there is only one person who can truly know if it is moral--the person who kills himself. What anyone else has to say about such a judgment amounts to speculation, in some cases, a highly informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless.