Suicide moral or not?

[Barreldriver]

Greetings, as I have progressed in my philosophical studies the topic of suicide has been discussed but not in the detail that it ought to due to the controversy surrounding it and its potential to disrupt a lecture in the eyes of some professors.

I figured it worthwhile to engage in a logical discussion pertaining to suicide, an issue which has been relevant to my experiences and interests, in a place that is a bit more open to the discussion of controversial issues.

I must stress logical in this instance for in order to gain anything from this particular discussion one must take extra care to not commit fallacies of form or informal fallacies and stay on topic.

Before we go further in order to establish the tone of the discussion I will list the 15 valid categorical argumentation forms courtesy of Intro to Logic 14th Edition. I will refrain from providing the definitions in order to conserve time, if one does not know what the following forms mean use a search engine.

AAA-1 Barbara
EAE-1 Celarent
AII-1 Darii
EIO-1 Ferio
AEE-2 Camestres
EAE-2 Cesare
AOO-2 Baroko
EIO-2 Festino
AII-3 Datisi
IAI-3 Disamis
EIO-3 Ferison
OAO-3 Bokardo
AEE-4 Camenes
IAI-4 Dimaris
EIO-4 Fresison

My own two cents, if there is a blatant flaw in my logic please point it out, I am not infallible:

Baroco

All P are M
Some S are not M
Thus some S are not P



All free persons (P) are without debt (M). (PaM)
Some persons (S) are not without debt (M). (SoM)
∴ Some persons (S) are not free persons (P). (SoP)

All rightful suicides (P) are expressions of free persons (M)
Some persons (S) are not free persons (M)
∴ Some persons (S) are not able to commit rightful suicide (P).

*Within this context a rightful suicide would be a moral suicide vice versa.

- Seth Reeder

[The Journeyman]

Using search engine...

[Barreldriver]

Its only noble if it's for the good of others, or the greater good. Like martyrdom, for example. I think killing yourself because "life's too hard" is cowardly.

That is an interesting perspective but care to expand upon it by putting it into formula?

I'm being a stickler here when it comes to using the listed valid categorical formula as to maintain a quality of discussion and reduce the risk for OT.

[SilverKnight]

Like The Journeyman said, it all depends, some people do it to hurt others, some don't do it intentionally to hurt some do it because it's "their last card".

[arcticwolf]

It's more of a question is it wise or not. Why are we here? To evolve or too fulfill someone's plan? I'll go with to evolve, and if so ending it all solves nothing. It's a result of confusion about the purpose of existence. Evolution needs time, that includes the mind as much actually more so than the body. Ethical or not, it's not wise.

[Phil75231]

All P are M
Some S are not M
Thus some S are not P

All P are M (nothing logically wrong with this)
Some S are not M (implies that other S are indeed M.)
Thus some S are not P (again, "some" implies that other S are indeed P)

For this to be valid, you have to prove BOTH (a) and (b)
a) Some S are indeed M
AND
b)Some S are indeed P

Otherwise, it makes no sense to use "some" in the syllogism at all. If either (a) or (b) are not the case, it's practically assured your argument is wrong. That doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, but it DOES PROVE that your argument cannot prove your conclusion.

ADDED:


Its only noble if it's for the good of others, or the greater good. Like martyrdom, for example. I think killing yourself because "life's too hard" is cowardly.

That's certainly a popular notion, but it's actually an ad hominem - attacking the character of the person, rather than the strict logic of the argument. During WW1, solidiers were shot for "cowardice" on the basis of what would today be called PTSD. Hardly anyone would call PTSD "cowardice" today. The cowardice charge also assumes there's a logical reason to continue one's life AND that they have the strength to continue. It also assumes humans were made to live according to preexisting cultural rules, rather than as an individual with their own right to make a choice in this matter. I can think of at least two cases where this may not be true.

*Serious terminal illness. We've all heard of people committing suicide because they see no objective point in spending their last days "wasting away", so I won't add anything else on this point for now.

*If the stress and strife in their life are well beyond their control or handle.

If either one of these are the case, then it hardly necessarily cowardice to commit suicide - albeit a sad thing. Even if it is cowardice, how is cowardice any worse than willfully hurting someone, or stealing anything from someone? Granted, cowardice is not exactly an admirable trait, but is it really the "sin" practically everybody says it is? Personally, I'm not all that convinced.

[Sarmatian]

It's more of a question is it wise or not. Why are we here? To evolve or too fulfill someone's plan? I'll go with to evolve, and if so ending it all solves nothing. It's a result of confusion about the purpose of existence. Evolution needs time, that includes the mind as much actually more so than the body. Ethical or not, it's not wise.

How about if we are here to fulfill someone's plan through evolution? If we are part of a plan evolution of individual is not so important as evolution of a group. Thus individual may sacrifice himself for the better of others.

[Barreldriver]

All P are M (nothing logically wrong with this)
Some S are not M (implies that other S are indeed M.)
Thus some S are not P (again, "some" implies that other S are indeed P)

For this to be valid, you have to prove BOTH (a) and (b)
a) Some S are indeed M
AND
b)Some S are indeed P



My argument seems to be a logically valid syllogism per the demands in Intro to Logic Edition 14, it's called the Baroco mode. AOO-2/Universal Affirmative, Particular Negative, Particular Negative (All, Some, Some, my favorite formula of all for the obvious reasons. :D).


EDIT:

I state this at first glance early in the morning, will review again later in the day.

On the issues of proving the "somes" it is common knowledge that some peoples are not sovereign/free/self owning vice versa, ex. people who owe outstanding debt and their antonyms, common knowledge things do not have a burden of proof attached insofar as I know.

[Foxy]

Originally Posted by The Journeyman
Its only noble if it's for the good of others, or the greater good. Like martyrdom, for example. I think killing yourself because "life's too hard" is cowardly.

I think that this is not real suicide, but sacrifice and martyrdom, which are different. It's not a case that "martyrdom" and "sacrifice" in my language have a positive meaning, while suicide a negative one.

[arcticwolf]

How about if we are here to fulfill someone's plan through evolution? If we are part of a plan evolution of individual is not so important as evolution of a group. Thus individual may sacrifice himself for the better of others.

Well I considered that and even though possible as there are no limits to what's possible, it seems unlikely to me. The rough approximation of this cosmic dance would be self-resolving puzzle. To understand this we would have to grapple with the difference between duality and the absolute, and even more pertinent question of what illusion free perception is. That would put most to sleep real fast :D The doable but not easy task is to investigate how to perceive reality, so reception is distortion free, that seems to be the key to understanding reality.

[Phil75231]

My argument seems to be a logically valid syllogism per the demands in Intro to Logic Edition 14, it's called the Baroco mode. AOO-2/Universal Affirmative, Particular Negative, Particular Negative (All, Some, Some, my favorite formula of all for the obvious reasons. :D).


EDIT:

I state this at first glance early in the morning, will review again later in the day.

On the issues of proving the "somes" it is common knowledge that some peoples are not sovereign/free/self owning vice versa, ex. people who owe outstanding debt and their antonyms, common knowledge things do not have a burden of proof attached insofar as I know.

My purpose in bringing in criticisms is to plug up potential leaks in the argument. Not that I'm accusing you of this, but "some" is a favorite tactic of people making "weasel arguments" (i.e. using "some" or "most" as a shield against any legitimate objections to their argument).

I don't have any classroom education in logic or philosophy, though I do love reading about fallacies on various internet sites. Just think of this post as a kind of "heads up" to you.

[Kazimiera]

I think it would depend on the type of suicide. Not everyone commits suicide for the same reason.

You get the vengeful suicide. Girl breaks up with guy, so he commits suicide to make her feel bad. This guy is an asshole. Period.

Suicide as a result of mental illness. Sometimes people are not responsible for their own actions, especially if they are mentally ill at the time.

To escape emprisonment. Either the person who is innocent and cannot see himself paying for a crime he never committed. Or the guilty one who did the crime and cannot see himself being punished for it.

What about women who have been raped and get pregnant and see no other way out? Or the Muslim woman in Iran who gets raped. She has brought shame on her family and kills herself because she is 'soiled' and no man will marry her. Or she kills herself to escape a stoning.

And one also has to consider the altruistic suicide. My grandmother's grandmother did this. After the war during the great depression there was very little food and the children were starving. She could not bear to see good food being wasted on an old woman such as herself so she hung herself so that the children could eat. She did this from the goodness of her heart.

One also has to consider the kamikaze pilot. He is doing it for the glory of his nation. I would say the suicide bomber also falls into this category. Regardless of whether we might think he is wrong or right to him he is making the ultimate sacrifice for his nation/religion.

[Peter Nirsch]

It's moral if practised by inferior races.

[sydvice2]

clearly not moral

[Beethoven]

In few countrys in the world sucidide is legalized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia

I think sucide is good thing because if you some doesnt have eyes/legs/hands life is not fun for him.Life is fun only if u are rich or at least not poor and doesnt have problems with health.

Many great ppl killed their own selfes. Its easy to judge suiciders when u dont have problems with health and you have money/hands/legs/eyes.

But if some one will become are blind/deaf and cant walk he will change his mind.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramón_Sampedro

[Melina]

Suicide is not moral period..I hear people who leave suicide notes saying for example I killed myself because of so and so. They try to point fingers at someone else when it is clearly an illness the person considering suicide has.Most of the people that make suicide are manipulative and try to make others feel bad for the individuals illness.

I hear in the news everyday a person jumps in front of a car to get killed intentionally.The person who drove the car will probably feel bad for the rest of their lives because an idiot wanted to take his/her life.I have no remorse for cowards who want the easy way out and blame others.

[Pallantides]

I have been really down with depression, but not once have I contemplated suicide, whatever happen to me I will not kill myself unless I got an incurable disease that will make me suffer and I would die anyway.

[Svipdag]

Anyone who calls suicide "the coward's way out" has never attempted it. I am alive today because, at one point in my life, I did not have the courage to take my own life. The coward survives, plagued by self-contempt. It takes a courageous person to kill himself.


"Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once."

[Barreldriver]

To further explain my original post: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=790712&postcount=1

I am of a mind that individuals ought to only take their lives if there is no severe debt standing.

As for hurting loved ones via suicide, is it not selfish for another not the self to demand that another stay alive to make themselves feel better? If one truly "loved" another would they not want freedom for the person considering suicide? Pills and therapy only go so far at times and these can lead to perpetual debt (seen family members spend countless dollars on medications and therapies to treat depression and other psychological conditions).

[Barreldriver]

The coward survives, plagued by self-contempt.

This..... 'tis my new motto. :thumb001: Come up with it yerself or is there a quote to reference? I like how this is stated.

[Óttar]

I didn't respond to this thread earlier because I couldn't wrap my head around all that convoluted gobbledy-gook in the OP.

Schopenhauer wrote an essay "On Suicide" which said the idea that suicide is a sin originated as a way for the Church to claim a suicide's land and property.

He also said, 'it is an irony that the most comforting thought to someone in grief is the thought of suicide.' To this I always added the second most comforting thought is that hookers exist. :D

Whether suicide is permissible or not should come down to common sense. It should only be carried out after very careful consideration, because (ironically like hiring hookers) suicide is, in most cases, an impulsive act.

[Svipdag]

It's original. I wasn't trying to say anything memorable; 'twas just the voice
of experience speaking.


"Nec spe, nec metu" - Anon Y. Mous (16th century)

[Svipdag]

Ah, but what if the would-be suicide is contemplating it because of impotence ?


"The infirmities of age have a purpose: to resign us to the prospect of death."
Martin H. Francis

[SilverKnight]

Neutral, but with a pull on being immoral. In a personal level it might effect someone else, like friend, family, peer emotionally therefore it could be consider as immoral. But in society as a whole it isn't as it wouldn't affect others in a negative way. Hinduism and other eastern religions claim that suicide retrogrades the advancement of our souls, meaning it takes further back from reaching the ultimate divine goal. It's also said that ones soul will remain stuck between Earth and the spiritual realm for a long period of time, in agony trying to escape and be reborn once again.

[Óttar]

Neutral, but with a pull on being immoral. In a personal level it might effect someone else, like friend, family, peer emotionally therefore it could be consider as immoral. But in society as a whole it isn't as it wouldn't affect others in a negative way. Hinduism and other eastern religions claim that suicide retrogrades the advancement of our souls, meaning it takes further back from reaching the ultimate divine goal. It's also said that ones soul will remain stuck between Earth and the spiritual realm for a long period of time, in agony trying to escape and be reborn once again.
The Tibetan Buddhists hold that suicides incarnate as house-pets. I would not find this so disagreeable, but I intend to cast my lot as a still living human being for now. That I might crawl under the auspicious mantle of a woman's legs yet, remains to be seen. ;)

My seed may yet perpetuate itself, my intellectual seed might perpetuate itself yet still. Anyways, aham brahmani asmi caiva tat tvam asmi || :thumbs up