When is suicide rational?

Ethics
21

Megan,

You wrote: “Although I was depressed and on the brink of suicide, the obvious potential of the rest of my life prevented me from taking my own life.”

Which merely means that you were not so depressed that you you couldn’t recognize that “obvious” potential. Seriously depressed people’s brains are so messed up that they can’t recognize potential when it is staring them in the face.

You wrote: " A situation that warrants suicide is a permanent one, it is one the denies value to you for the rest of your life…yes…like Socrates."

First off, Socrates was ORDERED to commit suicide; he didn’t pass that sentence on himself. His accusers merely used his own hands to administer capital punishment. He was a martyr for truth, not a suicide for truth.

Secondly, in order for one to determine if a situation is permanent, one would need to be omniscient. “Even the wise cannot see all ends”, to borrow a line…

You wrote: “For a person who DOES (when he is allowed to achieve value) value his life it is a very brave decision to make to take take ones own life, to affirm that only he has the power to control or to extinguish his being.”

In the real world, I don’t see that happening. I see people screwing up, then getting back on their feet. Those who commit suicide, more often than not, are people who are depressed and thus unable to think rationally.

You wrote: " To those who commit suicide due to a depression caused by bad philosophy, yes the death was unnecessary and no it was not cowardly. Rather, a very serious and difficult decision."

Yes, a very serious and difficult decision. In order to make serious and difficult decisions, it is necessary that one have full grasp of one’s rational faculties. By definition, a depressed person does not.

22

Sherlock,

We’re experiencing a disparity in terms. When you say depressed you mean clinically depressed. I do not mention depression, I mention a sadness produces as a reaction in a rational person.

Emotions in rational people arise from a correct system of value. Happiness or a happy life is at the top of this heirarchy. A person’s goal is to achieve and sustain this happiness, and in a situation where this is impossible, a person’s decision to take her life is rational. You are correct in asserting that we are not omniscient, we must, however, be capable of making causal, rational judgements. This is the sole judgement of the person in question. If his strive toward value has been made impossible he may take one of the following actions:

  1. a risk to restore his happiness, with little expectation of sucess, a kind of indirectly contrued suicide.

  2. suicide

In either case, only if his rational judgement sees that his hierarchy is out of reach are these actions rational. Its a fallacy to say that everyone who commits suicide has a mental disorder. Does every person that kills himself have mental problems, or does every person with mental problems kill himself? In other words, which causes which? I would admit that many suicide victims (are they really victims?) do commit such actions because of depression, but then if a medical condition (cancer) which makes the achievement of value impossible (physically) warrents euthenasia, then what about a mental condition which has the same (ultimate) effect.?

This aside, a rational decsion to end ones life is not a contradiction on terms. We see it in Atlas Shrugged for a reason. Life (or achieving value) is precious. I would not choose to live if value (the very purpose os ANY life, volitional consciouness aside). To live, just to survive would deprive me of any purpose. Yes, I would commit suicide.

By the way:

I dropped the point about Socrates because you obviously missed my point. If you can bring yourself to read some Plato, I suggest you read Crito. Maybe then you will understand what I meant.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

23

Megan,

You wrote: “When you say depressed you mean clinically depressed.”

That’s right. Most people who commit suicide are suffering from it.

You wrote: “I do not mention depression, I mention a sadness produces as a reaction in a rational person.”

This kind of sadness does not typically result in suicide. Which is a good thing, as individuals usually “get over” the kind of sadness you’re speaking of.

You wrote: “A person’s goal is to achieve and sustain this happiness, and in a situation where this is impossible, a person’s decision to take her life is rational. You are correct in asserting that we are not omniscient, we must, however, be capable of making causal, rational judgements.”

Yes, but the judgement “this situation renders it impossible for me to be happy, and it will never, ever change” requires omniscience. Failing that ability, it is not a rational assessment.

You wrote: “Its a fallacy to say that everyone who commits suicide has a mental disorder.”

I didn’t say that. Nor would I say it, as I don’t believe it. Hitler, for example, committed suicide, and the action was quite a rational one (there is no evidence that he was suffering from clinical depression; rather, it is more likely he wanted to avoid facing the consequences of his actions).

You wrote: “To live, just to survive would deprive me of any purpose. Yes, I would commit suicide.”

Easily said from the comfort of one’s home, sitting at a computer, in temperature-controlled, cushy surroundings. History shows us a different story: people in the Soviet gulags and Nazi concentration camps hung on. Obviously, some survived to be thankful that they had not taken your option.

24

Sherlock: You might want do draw a line for yourself between Philosophy and Psychology – then try and keep them separate in discussion. Also, please try using proper quotes - it will make your posts much easier to read.

25

You can’t always know that its going to work out; you can’t always know that it won’t. The issue here is rationality. It is rational for a person to make a judgement on the outcome of his life. If he, by his own judgement, cannot see that life will get better, that he will have value and its pursuit restored to him, then it is rational for him to take his life. This is my position and my only claim.

I would have long ago dropped this topic, as I can see that you refuse see the rationality in such an action, but it is the debater (be damned) instilled in me that draws me back to this blasted topic.

I think with a rational understanding of value you can see my point.

Its futile to argue this anymore, I’ve made any point that is significant to my argument already. If you cannot see the nature of value and its place in achieving life, I can not show you that the abscence of it warrents a rational abdication of that which cannot be. Everything has context, you think I’m talking about anguished teenagers here, no. Reread the thread and find the context of my argument.

You can cite examples of Jews who escaped Nazi Germany and how their lives got better. But what about the 6 million that died? I would have much rather taken my own life than have been torchured and murdered by some disguisting second-hander. Its a person’s discretion to decide if he has a chance of escaping or not. Some did, many didn’t.

Yes, its easy for me to say I’d take my own life in such a situation in my climate conditioned home (dorm room). It would be even easier to say so, however, in a concentration camp.

26

Secondly, in order for one to determine if a situation is permanent, one would need to be omniscient. “Even the wise cannot see all ends”, to borrow a line…

It is not necessary to be omniscient to be able to determine what one’s future will be… in some cases.

Atlas Shrugged is fiction. John Galt didn’t exist. I’m interested in real life situations, not fantasy: give me a comparable real-life situation in which suicide is life-affirming.

OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny.

I’m not ready to say that suicide is always unacceptable on principle, because it is my life, and it is not mere biological existence that defines life, but rather living, i.e. meaningful life, life with value to me.

I admit it’s difficult to think of a case where suicide would be the right thing to do. Because no matter how bad a situation is, there is nearly always a reason for sticking around. I would not want to go away merely because of a failure of imagination. Also, if depression is the cause, it is an illness, and can be cured.

What if we rule out the cases were mental illness/unhappiness is involved, and are left with the question: is there any circumstance in which a clear-headed, mentally healthy, rational individual would be right to commit suicide?

27

GoodOrigamiMan,

You wrote: “You might want do draw a line for yourself between Philosophy and Psychology – then try and keep them separate in discussion.”

Why? If a philosophy is to be more than mind games and hypotheticals, it must be lived. I see no reason to examine the topic of suicide on some purely hypothetical level with no bearing on the real world.

You wrote: “Also, please try using proper quotes - it will make your posts much easier to read.”

I’m something of a Luddite, I will freely admit. I haven’t bothered to find out how to snip quotes, and may not get around to it anytime soon, as I am usually in a hurry when I am posting here, snatching a little bit of time here and there. If I have a surplus of time, however, I promise you that I will at least read the instructions.

Gadfly,

You wrote: “It is not necessary to be omniscient to be able to determine what one’s future will be… in some cases.”

True enough: if I lost an eye, I can say with confidence that I won’t be seeing with two eyes in the future. I guess I had in mind “situations” wherein the permanence was not a matter of fact but of fallible human assessment (rather than “conditions” that are facts to be dealt with).

You wrote: “OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny.”

If I have to make them up in my mind, then they don’t exist. I was asking for real-life scenarios.

You asked, “What if we rule out the cases were mental illness/unhappiness is involved, and are left with the question: is there any circumstance in which a clear-headed, mentally healthy, rational individual would be right to commit suicide?”

Well, I mentioned Hitler in a previous post: obviously his happiness would have been seriously hampered by the Allies if he had been caught and made to face the consequences of his actions. So, if the purpose of suicide is to avoid unpleasant consequences of one’s actions, then it can achieve that end. Also, I’m sure there are cases where individuals have chosen to commit suicide rather than face the physical pain of torture: again, suicide achieves that end. But avoidance of consequences or avoidance of physical pain do not, in themselves, answer whether or not the action of suicide in these cases is “right”, they only provide the circumstances that we would find understandable. If, in either of these two circumstances, the individuals chose not to commit suicide, I would be hard pressed to say that they did the “wrong” thing (which would be the implication if suicide in those cases was “right”). In any case, to say that suicide is “life-affirming” is, as I said in an earlier post, very Orwellian. I suspect that people who say such things have little real experience with suicide, so that they are able to entertain lofty, high-minded fantasies about it. Since I have lost two brothers to suicide, I have no tendencies towards idle day-dreaming on this topic and little patience for those who do.

28

i have not been on the forum recently as I’ve been studying for finals.

Megan- was going to give a long reply to your posts but I think Sherlock has done a great job at doing that already. Regarding my signature, the reason I chose it is exactly because I believe life is the only moral choice. Being alive and living a true Life are not equal…as I have learned from Ayn Rand…but suicide prevents you from ever being able to achieve anything…true Life included. Sorry to hear about your depression. I too suffered from depression in my teens. However, my depression stemmed from traumatic events that occurred in my childhood and which I have been able to get past.

Sherlock-my younger brother (whom I am very close to) recently attempted to committ suicide. You have all my sympathy and I admire your strength, courage and love of life. I only hope to have as much when a family member passes away.

29

Atlas Shrugged is fiction. John Galt didn’t exist. I’m interested in real life situations, not fantasy:

That is an interesting, and revealing, comment. Do you consider Galt’s nature and character as unconnected to “real life?” Since Ayn Rand portrayed John Galt as man could and ought to be, do you then consider Objectivist principles, as embodied in the thoughts and actions of Miss Rand’s ideal hero, also to be a fantasy?

30

That is an interesting, and revealing, comment.  Do you consider Galt’s nature and character as unconnected to “real life?” Since Ayn Rand portrayed John Galt as man could and ought to be, do you then consider Objectivist principles, as embodied in the thoughts and actions of Miss Rand’s ideal hero, also to be a fantasy?

I dont think he meant in the way you are taking it. Galt and Dagny were living in a completely irrational society…as bad as our world is I doubt it would ever get to that stage. Dagny was the last value John Galt had. Also, you should remember that even though Ayn Rand’s own husband died …she lived on well after him and even talked about how if she believed in after-life she would committ suicide in an instant…but she didn’t believe in it…only believing in this life…and thus didn’t. That is what I try to remember most…when thinking of any loved-one’s death.

31

I dont think he meant in the way you are taking it. Galt and Dagny were living in a completely irrational society…as bad as our world is I doubt it would ever get to that stage. Dagny was the last value John Galt had. Also, you should remember that even though Ayn Rand’s own husband died …she lived on well after him and even talked about how if she believed in after-life she would committ suicide in an instant…but she didn’t believe in it…only believing in this life…and thus didn’t. That is what I try to remember most…when thinking of any loved-one’s death.

But we’re talking about hypothetical situations here. In such a state of irrationality as Galt and Dagny faced, suicide would definitely be an option.

As for Ayn Rand and her husband, Frank, this is a completely unrelated situation to the story in Atlas Shrugged. Galt was scared the looters would use his love for Dagny against him by torturing and threatning to kill her in order to force him to help them. That is why Galt said he would kill himself if they found out about their love. There were no looters knocking on Ayn Rand’s door when Frank O’Connor died threatning to kill him.

32

But we’re talking about hypothetical situations here.

The originator of this thread did not make any comments to say that this was suicide in the hypothetical sense at all. As far as I knew only realistic cases of Socrates and the Founding Fathers were talked about. If you are talking hypothetically then one could even argue for morality in killing (as was suggested in another thread…a life boat situation). But I certainly do not agree with considering suicide in real life and calling it life-affirming.

33

The originator of this thread did not make any comments to say that this was suicide in the hypothetical sense at all. If other people are talking about suicide in a hypothetical sense then I was not aware of it. As far as I knew only realistic cases of Socrates and the Founding Fathers were talked about. If you are talking hypothetically then one could even argue for morality in killing (as was suggested in another threat…a life boat situation). But I certainly do not agree with considering suicide in real life and calling it life-affirming.

As I said above and before, certainly most cases of suicide are not life affirming. It would only be in a very drastic situation that suicide could be considered rational.

However, anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness should realize that Ayn Rand and Objectivism promoted that, under extreme conditions, suicide could be rational. It is only rational, though, when two conditions are met:

  1. The person is completly rational and in complete control of their mind (i.e. mental patients need not apply).

  2. The pain of continuing to live negates a person’s love for their life.

The only practical example of this I can think of in this society are persons with terminal illness. If one of my friends or family were in the final stages of a terminal disease and wanted to end their own life, I would view that as their personal choice and a rational one at that, as I would hope they would view my decision if I chose to.

Note that this is completely and utterly voluntary. It is not saying anyone should kill themselves for any reason. It is simply saying the option is open and is not completely irrational.

P.S. Sherlock-you never answered my question. Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Do you understand the purpose of art in a man’s life.

34

redfarmer- stated that exact way…I agree with you completely. :slight_smile: As for Sherlock, I cannot answer for him but I think he just said that in response to those who always use the Galt example to support the thought that all suicide can be life-affirming. Many of us have been introduced to Ayn Rand through her fiction and see her characters as role models…myself included.

35

redfarmer- stated that exact way…I agree with you completely.  :slight_smile: As for Sherlock, I cannot answer for him but I think he just said that in response to those who always use the Galt example to support the thought that all suicide can be life-affirming. Many of us have been introduced to Ayn Rand through her fiction and see her characters as role models…myself included.

OK. I think part of the problem in this thread is that suicide is such a loaded word in our society that use of the word automatically conjours up images of mental illness. The original question, though, did use the qualifier “in some contexts.”

Glad we finally got that one cleared up, though. :slight_smile:

36

I dont think he meant in the way you are taking it.

I will grant that it is possible that he does not grasp the full meaning of his words, but, nevertheless, the ideas he presented have a quite clear meaning. Megan tried to explain (not in these exact words) that life as an unqualified absolute is not the value, but rather we value life as a man. There are conditions which make life worth living as man’s nature requires, and that fact implies that there are conditions where a rational man properly determines that his own life is no longer worth living. Sherlock trivializes these facts by focusing instead on those who choose suicide because “my girlfriend screws around.”

No one here has argued that all suicides are rational and morally justifiable – indeed, the majority of suicides are performed by mentally disturbed people – but rather that the right to live includes the right to commit suicide, and like all human actions we judge accordingly. It is obviously an extremely serious choice, but if circumstances are such that happiness is not possible, if the pain of living overwhelms the desire for life, than suicide can be both a rational and moral act. The obvious example of this extreme act is a person who is so physically ill with a terminal disease, so racked with excruciating pain and so debilitated that living is no longer a positive value. Sherlock chose to reject another justifiable example which he was given, one of Galt in Atlas Shrugged, and claimed that was just a “fantasy,” not “real life.” I submit that one value of good literature is that in can essentialize issues such that characters and events represent, in the sense of concretizing principles, something more real than “real life.”

I can understand why Sherlock, yourself, and any rational person would be horrified by the loss of life in a casual suicide, but that does not justify claiming that no suicide at all is justifiable.

37

Stephen,

You wrote: "That is an interesting, and revealing, comment. "

Oh please…you’re starting to sound like a character in some melodramatic

spy thriller: "Vat you say ees ver-r-y interesteeng..and ve have vays of

makeeng you speak."

The initial question was, if you recall, whether or not suicide could be

considered “life-affirming”. I contend that it is not “life-affirming”, at least not in

real life. I asked for real-life scenarios, and was given the example of Hank and Dagny. When I pointed out that this was not a real-life scenario, I was told “OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny.” This answer did not qualify as a real-life scenario, hence my response that you found so ver-r-y

interesteeng. Yes, I know the point that Ayn Rand was trying to make, and when

one writes a story to illustrate a concept, it is not uncommon to use

hyperbole and fantastical situations to drive the point home. It is a method quite commonly employed by authors. (A quote from some author is floating just out of memory’s grasp—something to the effect that a writer sometimes has to scream in order for the whisper of an idea to be heard.) That is just what I

think Rand was doing.

38

Stephen,

You wrote: "That is an interesting, and revealing, comment. "

Oh please…you’re starting to sound like a character in some melodramatic

spy thriller: "Vat you say ees ver-r-y interesteeng..and ve have vays of

makeeng you speak."

The initial question was, if you recall, whether or not suicide could be

considered “life-affirming”. I contend that it is not “life-affirming”, at least not in

real life. I asked for real-life scenarios, and was given the example of Hank and Dagny. When I pointed out that this was not a real-life scenario, I was told “OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny.” This answer did not qualify as a real-life scenario, hence my response that you found so ver-r-y

interesteeng. Yes, I know the point that Ayn Rand was trying to make, and when

one writes a story to illustrate a concept, it is not uncommon to use

hyperbole and fantastical situations to drive the point home. It is a method quite commonly employed by authors. (A quote from some author is floating just out of memory’s grasp—something to the effect that a writer sometimes has to scream in order for the whisper of an idea to be heard.) That is just what I

think Rand was doing.

The inital question actually was whether or not suicide could be considered “life-affirming” in some contexts. You have consistantly avoided the question of whether you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art. You consitantly avoid the fact that no one is saying that all suicides are life-affirming. When somoene questions your interpretations, you make fun of them and compare them to a “melodramatic” spy thriller.

Additonally, if you had read and understood Atlas Shurgged and The Virtue of Selfishness, there would be no question in your mind as to whether Rand supported suicide in some drastic situations.

39

Redfarmer,

You wrote: “You have consistantly avoided the question of whether you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art.”

No, you have jumped to conclusions. I don’t always get the time to answer every single question in every single post: as I mentioned earlier, I don’t have a lot of time and so am here at the forum in fits and starts. So, if you did ask me in some post, “Do you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art”, and I didn’t answer it, it was because I was busy answering another question. So, in answer to your question: yes.

You wrote: “You consitantly avoid the fact that no one is saying that all suicides are life-affirming”

And you consistently misspell “consistently”. But no, I am not “avoiding” that particular fact. I never claimed otherwise. It would be odd if I did, as I don’t think that anyone has said what you claim I am “avoiding”.

You wrote: “When somoene questions your interpretations, you make fun of them and compare them to a “melodramatic” spy thriller.”

Well, guilty as charged on that one. I am a mean piece of work, aren’t I?

You wrote: “Additonally, if you had read and understood Atlas Shurgged and The Virtue of Selfishness, there would be no question in your mind as to whether Rand supported suicide in some drastic situations.”

Yes, I have read “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Virtue of Selfishness” (And “OPAR”, and “The Fountainhead”, and “We The Living”, and “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” and “Anthem”, and…you get the picture). And I never claimed that Rand did not support suicide in some drastic situations: clearly she did. That doesn’t have anything to do with the question of suicide being, in some cases, “life-affirming”. It is my opinion that it is not. You can disagree with me, but don’t ascribe straw-men positions to me that you can then rail at.

40

This is the same problem I had in my initial argument–the definition of life. Is it biological only, or does it have a philosophical influence as well? I contend that human life is defined both biologically and philosophically, and the philosophical part is what gives meaning to life. “Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death” Thus, if the attainment of values is not possible, human life no longer has value. For a rational person to realize this, suicide would be an affirmation of ones own life because you would be affirming that the attainment of (proper) values is good, and the inability to attain values is bad.

Keep in mind that such an analysis may only be done by the possessor of the life in question, as only he has a right to take his own life.