A logical argument for suicide because I'm tired of being demonized

[acerace]

First off hi and thank you for reading my rant. Its been a while since I've been here because since my last failed attempt I wanted to try and get 'better' but that's only made my beliefs stronger and gave me a reminder why this forum exists. Having any type of discussion about suicide or even depression without being deemed as crazy(or being sent to the psych ward) is extremely difficult in the real world and has only frustrated me further. I'm tired of being dismissed as illogical because of the assumption that depression clouds my judgement.
I've been dealing with depression for over ten years and have thought about this topic endlessly. I've never been met with any logical counterarguments because the immediate reaction is panic and emotion. Obviously I also approach the topic with emotion, albeit a very different one, but still it does not dismiss the logic within my arguments.

The first and most digestible argument on this topic is simply the right to self determination. The premise of my argument is just to say that this needs be an open conversation just like other controversial topics we talk about in society. For example, abortion has been a widely discussed topic that uses the same logic in a different lens. The two sides describe the issues with considering suicide as a right with almost perfect accuracy. On one hand a person should be able to do what they want with their body, its theirs after all. As the mantra goes "my body my choice". Society seems have a silent agreement that this only applies as long as one isn't using their body to hurt others; for example defecating in the streets(best I could come up with). But abortion and suicide are a sensitive topic precisely because it is hard to draw the line between self-determination and protecting life. This is where suicide diverges from the argument because it is about one's own life rather than another's. Suicide is a decision that physically concerns no on else and does not cause physical hard to others. So the question is really when does the right to self determination end? As a collective we agree on basic human rights based on physical and psychological needs who is to say that that suicide is not a psychological necessity. If nothing else, consider the rights one has to their own body.

I do understand that suicide is more often than not an emotional decision and dismissal of the topic is also a protective mechanism but there are two major points I would like to discuss.

First the responsibility towards the person themself. It is often said that people who commit suicide or planning a suicide are in an emotional state and are making the decision due to clouded judgement. I think that the argument itself disregards the idea that suicide can be a logical decision much like making a career choice(I will get back to that on my third point) or philosophical position on life(I will also get back to that later). Suicide is so demonized that it dismisses the idea that it can be a logical choice based on facts. Much like one would weigh the pros and cons for any major decision. From my own experience and what I've seen on the forum, depression(or suicidal ideation(I'm trying to vary the wording but there is not much other ways to express the idea of suicide in a comprehensive way. )) is not necessarily a solution in the traditional sense. Society deems suicide as a desperate choice, as one that is done out of hopelessness, emotional distress, out of poor judgement but I beg to differ. When the decision is made not in an emotional state it can be a decision based on the facts of life. For some of us, it is not a last resort but a calculated step. Assuming that someone with mental illness cannot differentiate from momentary emotions and a permanent decision is to completely diminish their intelligence and sense of self. I detest this belief that mentally ill people are not capable of making sound decisions or understanding the gravity of this action. We know the consequences it brings but have chosen to this path anyway. Despite the negative consequences because we have determined that it is worth the sacrifice. Questioning the soundness of a this decision is questioning the very foundation of how humanity weighs the importance of one's belief versus their own belief. If this is not a decision one gets to make and if their reasons are not good enough no matter the circumstances then when does the logic outweigh emotion. For the sake of debate, if the finality of suicide was not considered and this was a decision of changing one's identity, disappearing from the world, would society question their decision like they do for suicide.

Second, there is the emotional damage that it imprints on those around us. This seems to be the most common point of contention and the counterpoint just as well defined, but I bring this up as I am sure if I do not this will be the overwhelming response. I am getting ahead of you so this argument cannot be used for ammunition as the sole denial of this conversation. We are emotional beings and it seems that suicide, brings up many unwanted emotions. Maybe it is the loss of a loved one or the confrontation of death that scares so many into panic and anger. Because suicide is a conscious decision, it is often equated with the deliberate ignorance of the emotional pain it may bring to others. Yet, for most, it is quite the opposite. Although it should be considered heavily, the responsibility of others emotions cannot rest solely on one person's shoulders. This leads to another foundational question, when does one's emotions outweigh the others? Until what point do we as humans, need to consider the greater good before ourselves? This is a greatly discussed point in philosophy and politics. So on a personal level, how do we determine when the emotional damage it may cause to our loved ones is more important that the lifelong burden we carry in exchange. Where does the line end? This argument is one of selfishness from both sides, neither side would choose to be in pain given the chance. With a topic so sensitive, it becomes a blame game instead of communication and understanding.

Now, back the the third point previously mentioned. I brought up the idea that suicide can be viewed as an ordinary life decision. Perhaps a major life decision, but not that different than that of moving to another country, or determining ones career. The similarity between them is simply the reasoning behind the decision. Generally, a big life decision is made with intention whether it is a choice of satisfaction, happiness, safety, or economical reasons. There is always a layer of emotional or physical needs being met behind the logistics of it all. Similarly, suicide is a decision made to satisfy one of those needs. Whether is satisfies society's measure of what is defined as a valid reason is the point of contention. With majority of modern society designating happiness as ultimate goal, the idea that another may not desire the same is incomprehensible. This is problematic because (a) it predetermines that suicide cannot provide the relief and happiness that one may seek with this action and (b) that happiness is the metric by which we differentiate right from wrong or good versus bad. Both of these statements highlights the flaws of the metrics on which society operates. Suppose we were to use a scale of sexual gratification to rate our life experiences instead of contentment, what would an ideal life look like? The point I am trying to get at is that while majority of society chases happiness others wish for peace, or perhaps to feel nothing at all. How can we use happiness as a measure of one's life quality if that was never their goal. A generalization like this cannot applied to a unique situation and a person with differing needs(than majority of society).

Finally, I would like to take a hit at my philosophy on life and how it all leads back to the same thing. You may have come across an idea called Nihilism, the general belief that there is no intrinsic purpose to life. Somewhere along those lines intertwines the idea that death is simply a cycle of life. It is not a tragedy and in the same manner birth is not a celebration, it is a continuation of evolution. Death is inevitable and choosing to die of unnatural causes is simply speeding up what's to come. A dead person does not know what they may have lost, a dead person is just that, dead. Let's zoom out for a minute a look at the universe from a bird's eye view. The universe has existed for millions of years before us and will continue to exist for millions of years after us. We are but a tiny speck in the existence of the universe. In this context, the future of hope that society references is insignificant. Forty fifty, sixty, and even a hundred years are just a moment passed by. The argument of one's future self is irrelevant in comparison to what has come before us and what comes after us.

And with this I bring my rant to a close. I have a lot more to say but I will not bore you to death. I applaud you if you have come this far Thank you for listening. I welcome any disagreements in fact I would be happy to discuss this topic Feel free to comment general feedback, agreement, or whatever.

p.s. I know I said any disagreements but as I mentioned in the title I only care for logical arguments. Arguments rooted in religion or emotion have no basis in my eyes and would never hold any weight in the court either.

 

[aufrechtm7]

Hello, and this is a great topic that everyone on here should be thinking about, I'll take a stab at this. I agree with the idea that people should be free to do what they want with their life so no need to steelman you there. I guess I should also include a disclaimer about being pro life, because I'm not pro life. Many in here can be emotional about that but the point of my reply is to properly play devils advocate.

Finally, I would like to take a hit at my philosophy on life and how it all leads back to the same thing.

I want to start with nihilism because it seems to be the base of your argument. There's other philosophical world views, but nihilism only claims that life is inherently meaningless. That would mean living and dying are equally meaningless, it doesn't act as a justification for suicide.

First the responsibility towards the person themself. It is often said that people who commit suicide or planning a suicide are in an emotional state and are making the decision due to clouded judgement.

The argument for this isn't that people can't rationalize it or that they can't form logical thought while suicidal. It's that the emotional distress that triggers it impairs our ability to adequately evaluate things, a good comparison would be with DUIs since they are closely related in how they impact our ability to reason. Your ability to evaluate risk and long term decisions is heavily impaired while under the influence, which causes you to ignore the fact that what you're doing is extremely dangerous and could kill someone. So you can still think and make decisions, but they can and often are flawed.

Second, there is the emotional damage that it imprints on those around us.

I mostly agree with you here but I don't want to focus too much on it for the sake of having a logical argument.

Now, back the the third point previously mentioned. I brought up the idea that suicide can be viewed as an ordinary life decision.

I don't think you could properly classify suicide as just an "ordinary" life decision or a major one in that sense since the comparisons aren't actually equivalent. Those are all reversible decisions, suicide is not. I may have misinterpreted this part, but happiness or relief can't be achieved through suicide. Once brain death occurs, we can't feel peace/relief/happiness. The only way to argue this is that suicide is a means to create a permanent absence of suffering.

There actually is a logical argument against suicide and I'm curious how you would go about tackling it. It's based off decision theory and goes as such: A rational decision is meant to improve one's future experience, but suicide is to bring an end to oneself, therefore one can't experience anything at all.

I like discussing this sort of thing because it helps me think about my own decision as well, but let me know your thoughts on what I've said.

 

[nersak]

The problem with suicide is that you will only hear about the thoughts of people that had failed attempts and then regretted them, which is just survivorship bias. People who are happy in life and never even considered the possiblity of them commiting suicide have no point in thinking that it's not intrinsically bad - they enjoy life so others can too, and it's only a worse moment in life for them, right?

I considered suicide ever since I was about 11 years old, and I don't think my thoughts were ever impaired by having a mental illness, but I do think that MANY people commit suicide or have attempts that are just impulsive and not really thought out. The problem with the idea of "normalizing" suicide and why I think it cannot be done, is that society has no point in that. There are people who are thankful that their attempts failed or people that had suicidal ideation and recovered, now enjoying life, so they think others can too.

Honestly, my opinion is that suicide can't be a bad thing for the person going through with it if afterlife doesn't exist - if you just don't exist then you don't care what you might have "lost". I like the idea of philosophical promortalism - life will have suffering no matter what, even if you "recover". If you stop existing, then sure, you won't be able to feel pleasure(you won't be deprived of it since you don't exist though), but also there will be no suffering, so it's either beneficial or neutral - i don't think it can be negative.

A rational decision is meant to improve one's future experience, but suicide is to bring an end to oneself, therefore one can't experience anything at all.

I'm not really familliar with decision theory, but I've read a bit after reading your post and I don't really see it applying for suicide - I would like you to explain how you see it. This statement assumes that "A rational decision is meant to improve one's future experience" which in my opinion isn't true - as that it's not in definition of rationality. A rational decision is picking the best option aligning with your goal. From what I said before, for someone the idea of ceasing to exist and not being able to continue feeling suffering may be the best option for them.

 

[aufrechtm7]

I'm not really familliar with decision theory, but I've read a bit after reading your post and I don't really see it applying for suicide - I would like you to explain how you see it. This statement assumes that "A rational decision is meant to improve one's future experience" which in my opinion isn't true - as that it's not in definition of rationality. A rational decision is picking the best option aligning with your goal. From what I said before, for someone the idea of ceasing to exist and not being able to continue feeling suffering may be the best option for them.

Under that model, it's saying suicide can't be rational if the person dies as they aren't able to experience the outcome.

You are speaking from the lens of instrumental rationality which is fine, but to avoid a secondary discussion over philosophical definitions I think a good distinction to make is that just because something can be rationalized doesn't mean it's actually justified.

A lot of people often rationalize things such as slavery, racism, abuse, and murder to this day. Just being able to create rationale for an action doesn't mean that action has been soundly reasoned for or justified though.

 

[marcelinevampqueen]

How can we use happiness as a measure of one's life quality if that was never their goal. A generalization like this cannot applied to a unique situation and a person with differing needs(than majority of society).

i don't think that generalization is even considerate of ppl who are significantly mentally ill

u can cope infinitely but maybe your brain is just permanently scrambled, and just thinking abt that is rly upsetting

"true happiness" is bullshit but it feels especially out of reach if you're chronically mentally ill.

 

[aufrechtm7]

i don't think that generalization is even considerate of ppl who are significantly mentally ill

u can cope infinitely but maybe your brain is just permanently scrambled, and just thinking abt that is rly upsetting

"true happiness" is bullshit but it feels especially out of reach if you're chronically mentally ill.

I don't think the generalization works regardless, it's kinda oversimplified. What do you consider true happiness or chronic mental illness?

 

[acerace]

Those are all reversible decisions, suicide is not. I may have misinterpreted this part, but happiness or relief can't be achieved through suicide. Once brain death occurs, we can't feel peace/relief/happiness. The only way to argue this is that suicide is a means to create a permanent absence of suffering.

There actually is a logical argument against suicide and I'm curious how you would go about tackling it. It's based off decision theory and goes as such: A rational decision is meant to improve one's future experience, but suicide is to bring an end to oneself, therefore one can't experience anything at all.

I like discussing this sort of thing because it helps me think about my own decision as well, but let me know your thoughts on what I've said.

You are right I tend to look at the world with a nihilist view, which completely shapes the way that I think about suicide. I do not mean to use it as a justification but rather an explanation that there is no way to attach meaning to life or death other than an emotional standpoint. DUI is a good example but it focuses heavily on the actions and the surrounding circumstances rather than the justification for ignoring the right to suicide. I understand your point that emotional distress can cause flawed thinking. It is partly my fault because I was operating under the assumption that one would understand I was talking about a those that have contemplated suicide seriously, not on impulse. Yes, emotional distress is still a factor, but the reason I brought up abortion is to point out that regardless of that shouldn't one have the right to make that decision for themselves if it causes no physical harm to others. How does society determine when one is lucid enough to make such decisions? There is another example I would like to compare it to; the voluntary euthanasia of hospice patients. They are given the choice because of the certainty of their death and proof of their pain. But why isn't emotional pain considered on a equal balance, is it because there is no proof or visibility of the suffering or just the conviction that emotional pain can be healed, that the possibilities of what the future holds is more important than the the person's reality.

"I may have misinterpreted this part, but happiness or relief can't be achieved through suicide. Once brain death occurs, we can't feel peace/relief/happiness. The only way to argue this is that suicide is a means to create a permanent absence of suffering." You phrased it perfectly I couldn't find the right words at the time that I was writing this. Death is finality but its is also inevitable. This in its own way offers support against the argument you quoted.

Don't get me wrong I do appreciate its value and I understand the point they are trying to make but it just brings me back once again to the question of what determines the importance of ones future over becoming unaware of what one could have been. I believe that oftentimes such arguments are made under the assumption that life holds any purpose at all. Do we have the obligation to improve our experience or is that just what was determined to be the rational choice? What if suicide was considered a rational choice because it removes suffering altogether? This sort of argument is really about what is considered rational and to some suicide is the rational choice because it renders us unconscious to the lived experience.

I considered suicide ever since I was about 11 years old, and I don't think my thoughts were ever impaired by having a mental illness, but I do think that MANY people commit suicide or have attempts that are just impulsive and not really thought out. The problem with the idea of "normalizing" suicide and why I think it cannot be done, is that society has no point in that. There are people who are thankful that their attempts failed or people that had suicidal ideation and recovered, now enjoying life, so they think others can too.

I often forget that normalizing suicide would also make it an easier option for those who commit suicide on impulse. Honestly I think that is the best argument I've heard against having conversations like this. I don't think suicide is bad in and of itself but introducing the thought of it to those who have never contemplated doing it may be cause more suffering than good. I'm conflicted about this myself because I would never wish those thoughts upon anyone but there must be a healthier way of talking about suicide instead of ignoring the issues behind it.

 

[_Gollum_]

Second, there is the emotional damage that it imprints on those around us. This seems to be the most common point of contention and the counterpoint just as well defined, but I bring this up as I am sure if I do not this will be the overwhelming response. I am getting ahead of you so this argument cannot be used for ammunition as the sole denial of this conversation. We are emotional beings and it seems that suicide, brings up many unwanted emotions. Maybe it is the loss of a loved one or the confrontation of death that scares so many into panic and anger. Because suicide is a conscious decision, it is often equated with the deliberate ignorance of the emotional pain it may bring to others. Yet, for most, it is quite the opposite. Although it should be considered heavily, the responsibility of others emotions cannot rest solely on one person's shoulders. This leads to another foundational question, when does one's emotions outweigh the others? Until what point do we as humans, need to consider the greater good before ourselves? This is a greatly discussed point in philosophy and politics. So on a personal level, how do we determine when the emotional damage it may cause to our loved ones is more important that the lifelong burden we carry in exchange. Where does the line end? This argument is one of selfishness from both sides, neither side would choose to be in pain given the chance. With a topic so sensitive, it becomes a blame game instead of communication and understanding.

An additional point against what I call the "altruistic argument" (ie. that we shouldn't kill ourselves for the sake of others) is, as you already mentioned, autonomy. A good analogy is divorce: it can--and often does--cause extreme emotional pain to other people (not just your partner, but your kids too); that pain, and its consequences, can last for years, decades, or even a lifetime. Yet, we don't outlaw divorce, because we recognize that no one should be trapped in an unfavourable situation that is causing them harm.

The right to have an exit ramp, even at the potential cost of others, is readily recognized in many other domains (at least in developed countries): you can get divorced, you can cut contact with a family member, you can quit your job, you can leave your country of birth, etc.

I'm just saying that this right should be extended to life itself: no one should be trapped here. We should all have the right to peacefully exit. And I think we have an even better case, because no one chose to be here. Without the ability to opt out, life amounts to a prison, and suicide preventionists to the gaolers.

 

[xXSufferingXx]

no offense, but i'm not reading all that.
a logical defense for suicide tho:
if you truly have tried everything, for FUCKING YEARS, and you have permanent problems which keeps you suffering...
then why not do it?
why do people put down suffering animals? we can't do the same for us selves?
"oh but that's different" -- no, not at all.
suffering sucks for both species.

if you enjoy pain, that's all on you.
i'm not a maschocist.

if they don't understand, they just haven't reached that level of suffering yet.
the exact same for myself in the past.

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

Some people commit suicide, so suicide is part of reality. Can reality be not logical?

Another point. My impression is that free will is an illusion. Not that it is my wish, but I can see no space for free will in physics. So our life is like a video and not like a video game. The end of this video is already defined (block universe). If you watch a movie were the protagonist is suicidal you expect that he kills himself at the end, this is the logical end.

 

[aufrechtm7]

Sorry I was eating yesterday when I saw this and didn't respond.

DUI is a good example but it focuses heavily on the actions and the surrounding circumstances rather than the justification for ignoring the right to suicide.

Well, as I said I'm not arguing about whether people should have the right to do it or not so I don't think this is a counterpoint. It's more about sound reasoning and justification as I mentioned earlier.

Yes, emotional distress is still a factor, but the reason I brought up abortion is to point out that regardless of that shouldn't one have the right to make that decision for themselves if it causes no physical harm to others.

Same as above.

There is another example I would like to compare it to; the voluntary euthanasia of hospice patients. They are given the choice because of the certainty of their death and proof of their pain. But why isn't emotional pain considered on a equal balance, is it because there is no proof or visibility of the suffering or just the conviction that emotional pain can be healed, that the possibilities of what the future holds is more important than the the person's reality.

They're not trying to say emotional pain isn't real by including mental suffering as criteria, having a terminal condition guarantees physical pain followed by death. Emotional pain is real, but it isn't as determined as say brain cancer and can be treated.

I believe that oftentimes such arguments are made under the assumption that life holds any purpose at all.

Nihilism also provides the assumption that life doesn't have meaning, there's no universally true philosophy. But let's operate within a nihilistic framework: if life doesn't have meaning, dying is as pointless as your suffering. If you lose the justification for committing suicide, then arguing for it purely with logic loses its ground.

I touched on the rest of the comment in my reply to Nersak, but my biggest question for you is at what point do emotional arguments matter? I believe there's a place for them but it has to be balanced accordingly.

no offense, but i'm not reading all that.
a logical defense for suicide tho:
if you truly have tried everything, for FUCKING YEARS, and you have permanent problems which keeps you suffering...
then why not do it?
why do people put down suffering animals? we can't do the same for us selves?
"oh but that's different" -- no, not at all.
suffering sucks for both species.

if you enjoy pain, that's all on you.
i'm not a maschocist.

if they don't understand, they just haven't reached that level of suffering yet.
the exact same for myself in the past.

It really is a nice read even if you think it's long, it only takes a few minutes.

The comparison to animals is different because it's done when their suffering can't be treated. But it's worse since we can't fully communicate with them like we can with humans, unrelated to suicide but it makes neutering/spaying seem grim when you think about it since they don't even have a say in the matter.

Some people commit suicide, so suicide is part of reality. Can reality be not logical?

Another point. My impression is that free will is an illusion. Not that it is my wish, but I can see no space for free will in physics. So our life is like a video and not like a video game. The end of this video is already defined (block universe). If you watch a movie were the protagonist is suicidal you expect that he kills himself at the end, this is the logical end.

Logic is about having sound reasoning, and reality is often illogical. People r*pe and murder which is apart of reality, I don't think you would consider that logical or justified.

This is deterministic, but even if you did somehow know future events it wouldn't act as rationalization or justification for future actions.
The movie could also have a plot twist where that character doesn't end up doing what we think he does and ends up following a different path.