When is suicide rational?

Ethics
41

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.

If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values. Ayn Rand said that she portrayed John Galt as a man should be and ought to be. Yet you rail against the example of Galt and Dagny and say that it is not a “real life” situation. Do you also claim the rest of the book is invalidated because it is not a “real life” experience? If not, why? If you invalidate one scene, why not say the book is completely worthless.

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”.

Do you always make fun of people who disagree with you? Do you not realize that everytime you make fun of another person on here, whether it be myself or Stephen, it makes you look all the worse?

42

Stephen, …

Your bluster aside, you have failed to address what I asked. To remind, you claimed:

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

And I asked:

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?

You can continue to insult, mock, and talk around the questions, in which case I will not bother asking you questions anymore, or you can directly address the issue as stated above. The choice is yours.

43

Redfarmer,

Chill. Take a deep breath—there now, feel better?

You wrote: “If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values.”

A “proper” understanding? And who is to determine what a “proper” understanding is—you? Do your judgements carry infallibility? (By the way, it might interest you to know that I am an artist by profession: it’s how I make my living.)

You wrote: “Yet you rail against the example of Galt and Dagny and say that it is not a “real life” situation.”

“Rail”? Good grief, my only beef is that I was looking for a real-life, historical example and no one has given me that. If you think that characters in a book of fiction are real-life persons who lived and died at a certain point in real history, then, my friend, you have problems with discerning reality. I am not “railing” against ol’ Galt and Dag for the illustrative and literary purposes they serve: I am merely saying what ought not to get any sane person’s undies in a bunch, which is—hold on to your seat now—THEY WEREN’T REAL FLESH-AND-BLOOD PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVED. Mickey Mouse isn’t real either, just to give another example.

You asked: " Do you also claim the rest of the book is invalidated because it is not a “real life” experience? If not, why?"

What is being “validated” or “invalidated”? The book does not represent actual history—but that wasn’t Rand’s purpose. She wasn’t attempting to write the history of an actual event, she was using the device of fiction to illustrate ideas.

You wrote, “If you invalidate one scene, why not say the book is completely worthless.”

How did I “invalidate” one scene?

You asked, “Do you always make fun of people who disagree with you? Do you not realize that everytime you make fun of another person on here, whether it be myself or Stephen, it makes you look all the worse?”

In answer to your first question: no. In answer to your second question: yes, but I’m having too much damn fun.

44

Redfarmer,

Chill. Take a deep breath—there now, feel better?

You wrote: “If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values.”

A “proper” understanding? And who is to determine what a “proper” understanding is—you? Do your judgements carry infallibility? (By the way, it might interest you to know that I am an artist by profession: it’s how I make my living.)

The previous statement reaks of subjectivism.

You wrote: “Yet you rail against the example of Galt and Dagny and say that it is not a “real life” situation.”

“Rail”? Good grief, my only beef is that I was looking for a real-life, historical example and no one has given me that. If you think that characters in a book of fiction are real-life persons who lived and died at a certain point in real history, then, my friend, you have problems with discerning reality. I am not “railing” against ol’ Galt and Dag for the illustrative and literary purposes they serve: I am merely saying what ought not to get any sane person’s undies in a bunch, which is—hold on to your seat now—THEY WEREN’T REAL FLESH-AND-BLOOD PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVED. Mickey Mouse isn’t real either, just to give another example.

You asked: " Do you also claim the rest of the book is invalidated because it is not a “real life” experience? If not, why?"

What is being “validated” or “invalidated”? The book does not represent actual history—but that wasn’t Rand’s purpose. She wasn’t attempting to write the history of an actual event, she was using the device of fiction to illustrate ideas.

By your own admission, Ayn Rand’s novels illustrate ideas. So, why do you refuse to accept Rand’s illustration of Galt’s intention to kill himself if the looters discovered he and Dagny were in love? I assume you accept other ideas from the book if you are here.

You wrote, “If you invalidate one scene, why not say the book is completely worthless.”

How did I “invalidate” one scene?

You continually refuse to accept an example out of Atlas Shrugged which clearly demonstrates what I and several other people have been saying. Instead of trying to refute what we have said, you simply evade the fact we have provided an example and continually demand a “historical” example. Nuclear hollacaust has never occured but it doesn’t take an actual occuarance to know that it would be a bad thing if it happened.

You asked, “Do you always make fun of people who disagree with you? Do you not realize that everytime you make fun of another person on here, whether it be myself or Stephen, it makes you look all the worse?”

In answer to your first question: no. In answer to your second question: yes, but I’m having too much damn fun.

I have no further reason to respond to you then. As Stephen said, you seem to continually be avoiding the issues by making personal attacks. If you wish to debate the issues, I will respond. Otherwise, this will be my last post in response to you.

45

Redfarmer,

You wrote: "The previous statement reaks of subjectivism. "

That may well be—and it’s hardly surprising, since you have chosen to ask if I understand the “proper” understanding of art. I’ll ask again: who defines what is “proper”? (Oh, and it’s “reeks”, not “reaks”.)

You wrote: “So, why do you refuse to accept Rand’s illustration of Galt’s intention to kill himself if the looters discovered he and Dagny were in love?”

Earth to redfarmer: I haven’t “refused” Rand’s illustration of her ideas. I think that particular scene illustrates her ideas very well.

You wrote: “You continually refuse to accept an example out of Atlas Shrugged which clearly demonstrates what I and several other people have been saying.”

I refuse to accept your examples because they do not meet the requirement that I stated; namely, that I am looking for a real, flesh-and-blood example from history. If you cannot accept that there is a difference between fiction and non-fiction, then you are going to face serious difficulties in life. For starters, I should warn you that Santa Claus does NOT exist and is NOT going to come down your chimney in a few weeks, no matter how good you have been this past year.

You wrote: "Instead of trying to refute what we have said, you simply evade the fact we have provided an example and continually demand a “historical” example.

I’m the one who asked for a real-life, historic example. You can either meet that request, or continue to give me fictional examples. If you continue to provide the latter, then my rejection of them does not constitute evasion, but rather reflects my ability to perceive what you apparently cannot: namely, that fiction is not the same as non-fiction. They are different, trust me.

You wrote: “Nuclear hollacaust has never occured but it doesn’t take an actual occuarance to know that it would be a bad thing if it happened”

“Hollacaust”? “Occuarance”? Do me a favor, and use the spellcheck function. You would lend your statements more credibility if you demonstrated that you at least had a grasp of the English language. I understand the occasional typo, and am prone to them myself, but c’mon now…But anyway, I agree with your statement. I have now filed it in my “Profound and Deep Thoughts” file. What else should I do with it?

You wrote: "As Stephen said, you seem to continually be avoiding the issues by making personal attacks. "

I haven’t avoided a damn thing. You simply have not provided me with what I asked for, and you evade that truth by pouting. Be a man, redfarmer.

46

A “proper” understanding? And who is to determine what a “proper” understanding is—you? Do your judgements carry infallibility? (By the way, it might interest you to know that I am an artist by profession: it’s how I make my living.)

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, when Redfarmer referred to the “proper” understanding of the purpose of art, I believe he was referring to “proper” in the Objectivist context which should be readily apparent as you are on an Objectivist-oriented forum. If you disagree with that being the proper understanding of art, make your argument. Otherwise, accept it. Whether you make money or not from art does not establish your understanding of it’s purpose.

47

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, when Redfarmer referred to the “proper” understanding of the purpose of art, I believe he was referring to “proper” in the Objectivist context which should be readily apparent as you are on an Objectivist-oriented forum.  If you disagree with that being the proper understanding of art, make your argument.  Otherwise, accept it.  Whether you make money or not from art does not establish your understanding of it’s purpose.

Thank you. That is what I meant to say. I guess I may not have said it clearly enough.

48

Rationalcop,

You wrote: "At the risk of putting words in his mouth, when Redfarmer referred to the “proper” understanding of the purpose of art, I believe he was referring to “proper” in the Objectivist context which should be readily apparent as you are on an Objectivist-oriented forum. "

True, but Redfarmer has not explained HOW it is that I don’t have a “proper” understanding. I completely agree with him that art serves to “concretize” values. But somehow, that isn’t enough for him, and he continues with statements such as “If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values.” Hmmm…what am I missing? My conclusion, then, is that he has a different view of what “proper” is, though he can’t spell it out. And yes, that is subjective, but I don’t know what else explains the difficulty he is having. It is a way of evading the fact that he hasn’t provided what I asked: merely, a real-life, historical example of a “life-affirming” suicide. And I don’t like evasion.

You wrote: “If you disagree with that being the proper understanding of art, make your argument.”

But that’s the problem: I don’t disagree with his statement, “the purpose of art is to concretize values”. The subject here isn’t art at all, it’s whether or not suicide can be “life-affirming”. I am asking for an example that is from the real world, not the world of fiction.

You wrote: “Whether you make money or not from art does not establish your understanding of it’s purpose.”

I couldn’t agree more.

49

Rationalcop,

You wrote: "At the risk of putting words in his mouth, when Redfarmer referred to the “proper” understanding of the purpose of art, I believe he was referring to “proper” in the Objectivist context which should be readily apparent as you are on an Objectivist-oriented forum. "

True, but Redfarmer has not explained HOW it is that I don’t have a “proper” understanding. I completely agree with him that art serves to “concretize” values. But somehow, that isn’t enough for him, and he continues with statements such as “If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values.” Hmmm…what am I missing? My conclusion, then, is that he has a different view of what “proper” is, though he can’t spell it out. And yes, that is subjective, but I don’t know what else explains the difficulty he is having. It is a way of evading the fact that he hasn’t provided what I asked: merely, a real-life, historical example of a “life-affirming” suicide. And I don’t like evasion.

You wrote: “If you disagree with that being the proper understanding of art, make your argument.”

But that’s the problem: I don’t disagree with his statement, “the purpose of art is to concretize values”. The subject here isn’t art at all, it’s whether or not suicide can be “life-affirming”. I am asking for an example that is from the real world, not the world of fiction.

You wrote: “Whether you make money or not from art does not establish your understanding of it’s purpose.”

I couldn’t agree more.

If you wanted an explanation of what I meant, why didn’t you just ask for one instead of playing games?

What I have been trying to get at is that you seem to be implying that the example from Atlas Shrugged is not valid for determining whether suicide could be life-affirming or not. Your insistance for a “real life” example seems to imply as much and seems to be an indicator that you won’t accept suicde can be life-affirming unless it is a person who has actually committed suicde. You’re creating a false dichotomy between values in “real” life and values in a fictional story such as Atlas Shrugged.

The fact that none of us can immediately give you a name and case file does not indicate that suicide cannot be life-affirming. As the example from Atlas Shrugged shows, it certainly can be under extreme circumstances.

You claim I’m the one who has been evading you but yet you’re the one who’s been acting like a parrot, repeating the same things over and over without any clarity on how they bear on our questions. You have yet to answer Stephen’s question about what exactly you meant by the statement he questioned without making fun of him. You also have yet to explain why you think an example has to be from real life rather than a fictional story for it to be accepted (as you seem to be saying when you reject the example of Galt).

If any of my assumptions about you are false, please correct me. Otherwise, please stop playing games and expecting me to read your mind.

50

Redfarmer,

You wrote: “If you wanted an explanation of what I meant, why didn’t you just ask for one instead of playing games?”

But I did! That’s why I asked you who determines what a “proper” understanding is, as it was clear that merely agreeing with you that art “concretizes” values was apparently not enough.

You wrote: “What I have been trying to get at is that you seem to be implying that the example from Atlas Shrugged is not valid for determining whether suicide could be life-affirming or not.”

No, I am telling you (I don’t need to imply) that a fictional example does not provide what I asked for—an example from real life (reality). I asked for an example from real life—that was my request—and you insist on reading more into my inquiry than I intended.

You wrote: "Your insistance for a “real life” example seems to imply as much and seems to be an indicator that you won’t accept suicde can be life-affirming unless it is a person who has actually committed suicde. "

You’re right about that! I require some indication that a theory has some basis in fact. In this case, since suicides are unfortunately common, we can look at the reasons people commit suicide (which is not the case with the nuclear holocaust analogy that you attempted to make). I am merely asking for examples of “life-affirming” suicide.

You wrote: “You’re creating a false dichotomy between values in “real” life and values in a fictional story such as Atlas Shrugged.”

No, I’m asking that the values in a fictional story correspond to the values observable in reality, if I am to draw real-life conclusions and real-life lessons from the story. It has nothing to do with the characters, mind you: a space-alien story that reflects values that correspond to observable reality is perfectly fine. If the values in a fictional story are simply meant to entertain, or serve some other purpose, then I don’t ask or expect the values to correspond to observable reality.

You wrote: " You also have yet to explain why you think an example has to be from real life rather than a fictional story for it to be accepted (as you seem to be saying when you reject the example of Galt)."

Because I like reality.

51

Redfarmer,

You wrote: “If you wanted an explanation of what I meant, why didn’t you just ask for one instead of playing games?”

But I did! That’s why I asked you who determines what a “proper” understanding is, as it was clear that merely agreeing with you that art “concretizes” values was apparently not enough.

You wrote: “What I have been trying to get at is that you seem to be implying that the example from Atlas Shrugged is not valid for determining whether suicide could be life-affirming or not.”

No, I am telling you (I don’t need to imply) that a fictional example does not provide what I asked for—an example from real life (reality). I asked for an example from real life—that was my request—and you insist on reading more into my inquiry than I intended.

You wrote: "Your insistance for a “real life” example seems to imply as much and seems to be an indicator that you won’t accept suicde can be life-affirming unless it is a person who has actually committed suicde. "

You’re right about that! I require some indication that a theory has some basis in fact. In this case, since suicides are unfortunately common, we can look at the reasons people commit suicide (which is not the case with the nuclear holocaust analogy that you attempted to make). I am merely asking for examples of “life-affirming” suicide.

You wrote: “You’re creating a false dichotomy between values in “real” life and values in a fictional story such as Atlas Shrugged.”

No, I’m asking that the values in a fictional story correspond to the values observable in reality, if I am to draw real-life conclusions and real-life lessons from the story. It has nothing to do with the characters, mind you: a space-alien story that reflects values that correspond to observable reality is perfectly fine. If the values in a fictional story are simply meant to entertain, or serve some other purpose, then I don’t ask or expect the values to correspond to observable reality.

You wrote: " You also have yet to explain why you think an example has to be from real life rather than a fictional story for it to be accepted (as you seem to be saying when you reject the example of Galt)."

Because I like reality.

Dear Sherlock,

Scientists believe eventually the world will blow up and everything living on Earth will die as a result. Please demonstrate that this will be a bad thing using real life examples of planets blowing up.

By the way, I should have told you to assume that humans are still alive at whatever point this is.

52

Redfarmer,

You asked, “Please demonstrate that this will be a bad thing using real life examples of planets blowing up.”

In this case, it is easy to say that based on the values observable in reality (that is, those observable values held—rightly or wrongly— by real, live human beings) that the earth blowing up and all life being extinguished would be a bad thing because it can be shown that humans value life. And not only human life, but other forms as well: science studies all forms of life because life itself is valuable and, in studying life, we gain knowledge that further enhances life. If human beings did not value life, there would be no reason to say that the earth blowing up would be a bad thing. Neither would there be any use in studying anything, let alone the life and death of planets. But humans do value life—it is observable in reality—and so it is reasonable to say that the earth blowing up would be a bad thing.

53

Redfarmer,

You asked, “Please demonstrate that this will be a bad thing using real life examples of planets blowing up.”

In this case, it is easy to say that based on the values observable in reality (that is, those observable values held—rightly or wrongly— by real, live human beings) that the earth blowing up and all life being extinguished would be a bad thing because it can be shown that humans value life. And not only human life, but other forms as well: science studies all forms of life because life itself is valuable and, in studying life, we gain knowledge that further enhances life. If human beings did not value life, there would be no reason to say that the earth blowing up would be a bad thing. Neither would there be any use in studying anything, let alone the life and death of planets. But humans do value life—it is observable in reality—and so it is reasonable to say that the earth blowing up would be a bad thing.

Exactly! You used an abstraction to demonstrate that the Earth blowing up would be a bad thing. This is the same thing Ayn Rand did with the characters of Galt and Dagny. Based on the fact that a loved one is one of the most precious things on Earth to a person, most people would rather die than watch that person be tortured and/or killed in order to abstract information from them. A real life example is not necessary.

As I said to Dagny above, this would exclude people with mental illness and certainly could only be considered rational in extreme circumstances.

54

Redfarmer,

You wrote: “You used an abstraction to demonstrate that the Earth blowing up would be a bad thing.”

No, I did not. Using values that are observable in real life, I applied it to your hypothetical situation. The values I am referencing are not fictional, they are observable in reality. Your “value”, that suicide is “life-affirming”, is not based on any values that are observable in real life, but is based on fictional characters. You have given no examples of real-life “life-affirming” suicides.

You wrote: “Based on the fact that a loved one is one of the most precious things on Earth to a person, most people would rather die than watch that person be tortured and/or killed in order to abstract information from them.”

If that were true, then history would be replete with examples of such suicides, but you haven’t given any. I would argue that most people, in the situation you describe, would do whatever is necessary to rescue the beloved, even at the risk of their own lives, instead of stupidly killing themselves just when the beloved needs them the most.

55

The values I am referencing are not fictional, they are observable in reality. Your “value”, that suicide is “life-affirming”, is not based on any values that are observable in real life, but is based on fictional characters.

The values which Ayn Rand referred to were not fictional. Because Romeo and Juliet are fictional characters, does that imply that love is not ‘observable in real life’? The reason that people respond so strongly to such characters is because those values are so evident in real life. Likewise, the reason that people respond so strongly to Rand’s characters is because of those value’s existence ‘in reality’.

No one has ever committed suicide to protect ones they love? There have been countless stories from the battlefield in which one person will dive on a grenade to save his platoon. In fact, I can send you links to such reports if you would like. I fail to see the purpose of this ‘real life evidence,’ but perhaps you will choose a different (and more substantial) argument now that I’ve indulged you.

56

  I fail to see the purpose of this ‘real life evidence,’ but perhaps you will choose a different (and more substantial) argument now that I’ve indulged you.

Fortunately Sherlock has been banned.

Of course I’m sure there’s someone around here willing to step in and answer as she would have. :slight_smile:

I just wanted to let you know though since she won’t be able to answer herself.

57

A friend of mine who is an Objectivist told me that if American were socialized, she would kill herself.

Is this moral?

Her argument was thus: without liberty, no productivity is possible. Therefore the choice becomes: to die biologically (kill oneself) or to die spiritually (live in a slave society.) She said that she would always choose to die biologically. This doesn’t make sense to me. Spiritual life requires biological life. Why sacrifice ones biological life, if ones spiritual life is to go, too? This seems like extraneous death to me.

My argument was thus: without liberty, there are (practically) no values; without values, all choices are amoral. So, if no liberty exists, why even give a damn? It doens’t make any difference whatsoever whether or not you live. There are no values.

Yet, I don’t see how even a slave state can strip men of *all* values. After all, there are still interpersonal values such as love, admiration, etc. I can’t imagine a state with no values at all, and I don’t see it as being possible.

However, Megan (the friend) disagreed. She held that without rights, even such values as love and admiration are meaningless; they are secondary values, and without the primary values (achievement, production) they are rendered worthless.

Both of our arguments don’t seem right to me. The basic question I want to throw out is: is it *ever* necessary to destroy ones biological life? If so, when?

58

She is being a bit hyperbolic. Modern America isnt exactly a bastion of freedom, nor is it that far ahead of places like Britain, Austrialia or New Zealand. If America were to become ‘socialised’ (and I’m not really sure what that means here, since it is pretty socialised already), she could always just move to one of the above 3 countries, or several others. I doubt it would result in a radical decline in her freedom.

Either that or she could join some kind of underground resistance movement and plot the downfall of the Empire. That would be pretty cool.

59

How is America pretty Socialised already?

To answer your question ignok, i agree with you. One can never have a complete death of one’s spiritual values. Even if that did happen, that’s no reason to kill our biological life. At worst, i would try to fight against such a system and would feel better if i got killed in the process than to if i killed myself.

60

Both of our arguments don’t seem right to me. The basic question I want to throw out is: is it *ever* necessary to destroy ones biological life? If so, when?

Necessary? Philosophically speaking something is necessary only if it is not subject to determination by choice. Something can only be moral if it IS open to choice. So, the idea of “moral necessity” is a self-negating oxymoron.

No one can tell you what you should or shouldn’t have to bear. If you think you can go on hobbled and chained, that’s your decision. If someone else doesn’t, that’s their decision. You can’t ever say for certain one way or the other for someone else, because it really depends on your personal values, goals, and means of acheiving them.